Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 119 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 251NOMINAL INDEXSeema Jamwal vs. Union of India and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 119SHARJEEL IMAM v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matter 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 120Sandeep Gupta v. Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 121Sunil Kumar Singh v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 122LALIT SHARMA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS....
Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 119 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 251
NOMINAL INDEX
Seema Jamwal vs. Union of India and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 119
SHARJEEL IMAM v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matter 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 120
Sandeep Gupta v. Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 121
Sunil Kumar Singh v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 122
LALIT SHARMA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 123
NEERAJ SHARMA v. PIO MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS JKL DIV AYODHYA SECTION AND ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 124
Divyansh Bajpai vs. State (Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi) And Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 125
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -21 v. M/S.Remfry & Sagar 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 126
M/S Vishal Video And Appliances Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner Of Customs Acc(Import) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 127
DR. RAJEEV AGGARWAL v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 128
X v. STATE & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 129
Property Plus Realtors v. Union Of India & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 130
ISHAN TIWARI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 131
MARFING TAMANG @ MAAINA TAMANG v. STATE 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 132
Udaiveer & Ors. vs. Union Of India & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 133
Public Information Officer Office Of District vs. Harish Lamba 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 134
DEEPAK JAIN & ORS v. BASKETBALL FEDERATION OF INDIA & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 135
M/S SMEC India (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 136
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD versus VOESTALPINE SCHIENEN GMBH, AUSTRIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 137
Ajabs Academy Pvt Ltd vs. Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. (W.P.(C) 702/2025) & Connected Matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 138
The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 v. Adobe Systems Software Ireland Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 139
ISAR ENGINEERS PRIVATE LTD. versus NTPC-SAIL POWER COMPANY LTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 140
Kanwaljeet Kaur v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle (34) 1 Delhi & Ors. and batch 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 141
GOODAI GLOBAL INC v. SHAHNAWAZ SIDDIQU & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 142
PRAVENDRA PRATAP SINGH NATIONAL PRESIDENT (BAHUJAN MUKTI PARTY) v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 143
RAMESH KUMAR KHATRI v. DURGESH PATHAK and other connected matter 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 144
JOHNSON & JOHNSON PTE. LTD v. MR. ABBIREDDI SATISH KUMAR & ORS2025 LiveLaw (Del) 145
Bhushan Power & Steel Limited vs. Union Of India & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 146
Jagdish Chandra vs. State Trading Corporation Of India Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 147
Bhushan Power & Steel Limited vs. Union of India & Anr.m2025 LiveLaw (Del) 148
The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 v. Standard Chartered Grindlays Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 149
DELOITTE HASKINS & SELLS LLP v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 150
ADITYA BIRLA FASHION AND RETAIL LIMITED v. FRIENDS INC & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 151
Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer And Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 152
RENUKA KULKARNI & ORS v. STATE and other connected matter 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 153
SIR RATAN TATA TRUST & ANR v. DR. RAJAT SHRIVASTAVA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 154
Rocktek Infra Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Import) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 155
Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 156
Bharat Singh vs. Karan Singh & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 157
MOHD. RAFAYAT ALI v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 158
Sushil Aggarwal v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs and connected matter 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 159
M/S Addichem Speciallity LLP v. Special Commissioner I, Department Of Trade And Taxes And Anr and batch 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 160
ABHIJEET KUMAR v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 161
THILAKASRI KREPANAND & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 162
Jan Seva Welfare Society (Reg.) v. Union of India and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 163
AMAL SHARMA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 164
HARMEET SINGH v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 165
Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited vs. Sammaan Capital Limited & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 166
Star India Pvt. Ltd vs. IPTV Smarter Pro & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 167
ROJALINI PARIDA v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI THROUGH ITS VICE-CHANCELLOR & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 168
DR PRANNOY ROY & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 169
Anshul Gupta v. Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 170
KORE NIHAL PRAMOD v. UNION OF INDIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 171
JUSTICE (RETD.) S.N. DHINGRA, PRESIDENT, SAMAY YAAN (SASHAKT SAMAJ) v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 172
BHADRA INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD AND ORS. versus AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 173
Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Ashar Nisar & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 174
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. PRASHANT JAIN 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 175
Oracle America, Inc. vs. Mr. Sandeep Khandelwal And Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 176
Rajbir Singh vs. Commissioner Mcd And Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 177
SHOBHA VERMA AND ANR v. ASHOK KAPOOR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 178
Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corp. Ltd. (IRCTC) vs. M/s. Brandavan Food Products 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 179
Aon Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (Successor Entity Of Aon Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1 And Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 180
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1 v. M/S Chemester Food Industries Pvt. Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 181
STATE v. NILESH MISHRA and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 182
RAKESH KUMAR v. CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 183
AJAY v. STATE & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 184
VANEETA GUPTA & ANR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR2025 LiveLaw (Del) 185
Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner Of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 186
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Benetton India Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 187
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Benetton India Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 188
M/S Aims Retail Services Private Limited v. Union Of India & Ors. and batch 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 189
DR. B.K. TIWARI ADVISER (NUTRITION) verus UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 190
Gor Sharian v. The Commissioner Of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 191
Principal Commissioner, Central Tax Commissionerate, Gst Delhi West v. M/S Alkarma 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 192
JAN CHETNA JAGRITI AVOM SHAIKSHANIK VIKAS MANCH & ORS v. SH ANAND RAJ JHAWAR SOLE PROPRIETOR OF M/S RR AGROTECH 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 193
Dixon Technologies (India) Limited vs. M/s Jaiico & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 194
UNION OF INDIA & ORS versus CHAND SINGH 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 195
Commissioner Of Income Tax International Tax- 1 New Delhi v. M/S Expeditors International Of Washington Inc 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 196
STATE v. HITESH 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 197
SHOBHIN BALI v. REGISTRAR GENERAL DELHI HIGH COURT 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 198
Munish Kumar Gaur vs. Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 199
News Laundry Media Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Galaxy Zoom India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 200
SAMMAAN FINSERV LIMITED v. SVAMAAN FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 201
Union of India v. Reliance Industries Limited & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 202
ZAHOOR AHMAD PEER v. NIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 203
DELHI COMMISSION FOR WOMEN v. STATE OF NCT DELHI & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 204
TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LIMITED & ANR VS. WWW.TATAPOWERSOLARDEALERSHIP.CO.IN & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 205
HOUSE OF MASABA LIFESTYLE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. MASABACOUTUREOFFICIAL.CO & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 206
THOKCHOM SHYAMJAI SINGH & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH HOME SECRETARY & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 207
Sonu vs. CBI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 208
RELIANCE RETAIL LTD VS. YOUSTAFRANCHISE.NET & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 209
Pragati Construction Consultants v. Union of India and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 210
Vivo Mobile India Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 211
Renewflex Recycling vs. Facilitation Centre Rohini Courts & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 212
Tilak Raj Singh v. Union Of India And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 213
MOHD. DANISH v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 214
MR MIRZA AURANGZEB v. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 215
LALIT SHARMA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 216
SAVE INDIA FOUNDATION v. DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND WILDLIFE & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 217
CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT OF WEST BENGAL v. VAIBHAV BANGAR & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 218
Unison Hotels Pvt Ltd v. KNM Chemicals Pvt Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 219
Mohamed Shamiuddeen v. Commissioner Of Customs & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 220
Moonshine Technology Private Limited vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 221
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA VS. CONTROLLER OF PATENTS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 222
Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 223
ADDICTIVE LEARNING TECHNOLOGY LIMITED & ANR v. ADITYA GARG & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 224
SFDC Ireland Limited v. Commissioner Of Income Tax & Another 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 225
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) And Ors. vs. Sumit 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 226
SATINDER SINGH BHASIN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 227
Infiniti Retail Limited vs. M/S Croma Wholeseller & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 228
Randeep Singh Surjewala v. ECI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 229
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 230
Idemia Syscom India Private Limited v. M/s Conjoinix Total Solutions Private Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 231
Ateesh Agarwal v. Union Of India And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 232
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 233
Asha Ram Nehra v. Commissioner of Police and Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 234
The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -2 v. Nokia Network OY 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 235
Neelkanth Pharma Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 236
LIFESTYLE EQUITIES CV & ANR. vs. AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 237
Daljeet Singh Gill v. Union Of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 238
CASTROL LIMITED vs. KAPIL & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 239
MR Makhinder Chopra Commissioner Of Customs New Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 240
ESTATE OF MAHARAJA DR KARNI SINGHJI OF BIKANER THROUGH EXECUTRIX v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 241
BIHAR OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION v. PRESIDENT INDIAN OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 242
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THROUGH ITS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 243
Burger King Corporation vs. Swapnil Patil & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 244
M/S Legacy Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 245
Monish Gajapati Raju Pusapati v. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 246
COMMISSIONER DELHI POLICE vs. NHRC 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 247
UNION OF INDIA & ANR v. ALL INDIA POSTAL ACCOUNTS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 248
M/s Isc Projects Private Limited v. Steel Authority of India Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 249
ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LTD v. SAREGAMA INDIA LTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 250
SQN LDR PRABHAKAR BHATT vs. MAJ. ANNU LAMBA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 251
Case Name : Seema Jamwal vs. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 119
A division judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Navin Chawla & Justice Shalinder Kaur held that deceased employee entitled to extraordinary pension and ex-gratia compensation, if death was attributable to or aggravated by government service conditions, such as exposure to hostile work environments or extreme weather conditions.
Title: SHARJEEL IMAM v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 120
The Delhi High Court has said it is “premature” to examine the objections raised against “2020 Delhi” movie, which is based on 2020 North-East Delhi riots, noting that film's certification is pending consideration before the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
“Thus, at this stage, when the request for the requisite certification is still pending consideration by the CBFC, it is premature for this Court to examine the objections of the petitioners in respect of the Movie,” Justice Sachin Datta said.
Employer Cannot Indefinitely Withhold Voluntary Retirement Without Valid Grounds: Delhi HC
Title: Sandeep Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 121
A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur ruled that an employer cannot indefinitely withhold voluntary retirement under Rule 56(k) of the Fundamental Rules. The court held that pending vigilance clearance or mere potential inquiries are not valid grounds for withholding retirement. It further clarified that the employer must communicate any rejection before the notice period expires; else, it would amount to deemed acceptance.
Title: Sunil Kumar Singh v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 122
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur upheld the dismissal of a Pay Clerk (Central Reserve Police Force) who was charged with financial misconduct and forgery. The court found that tampering with government records and misappropriation of funds constituted grave offenses that warranted his dismissal from service. The court also rejected the plea for compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. It held that acts involving moral turpitude disqualified the employee from such benefits.
Delhi High Court Reschedules Date Of Elections To All Bar Associations To February 28
Title: LALIT SHARMA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 123
The Delhi High Court has rescheduled the date of elections to all Bar Associations in the national capital from February 07 to February 28, 2025.
A full bench comprising Justice Yashwant Varma, Justice Rekha Palli and Justice C Hari Shankar noted that in a resolution passed by the High Court's Security Committee last year, it was resolved that all the Election Commissioners, Returning Officers together with the Presidents or Secretaries of all the Bar Associations would make necessary arrangements for procurement of EVMs or Ballot Papers and will coordinate for setting up card reader machines and other equipments well in time.
Title: NEERAJ SHARMA v. PIO MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS JKL DIV AYODHYA SECTION AND ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 124
The Delhi High Court has directed the Central Information Commission (CIC) to decide whether “Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra” trust is a public authority under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Justice Sanjeev Narula directed the CIC to decide the question after affording opportunity of hearing to the RTI applicant Neeraj Sharma as well as the Public Information Officer (PIO) of Union Ministry of Home Affairs, as expeditiously as possible.
Case title: Divyansh Bajpai vs. State (Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi) And Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 125
While refusing to quash an FIR under Section 376 IPC for false promise of marriage, the Delhi High Court observed that the nature of the relationship between the parties is a crucial factor in determining whether there was any promise of marriage and whether the consent was vitiated by a misconception of fact.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was considering the petitioner's plea to quash FIR under Section 376 IPC lodged by his distant relative/prosecutrix.
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -21 v. M/S.Remfry & Sagar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 126
The Delhi High Court has held that the fees paid by IPR law firm Remfry & Sagar to acquire the goodwill vested in a company run by the family members of its deceased founder, is a business expense deductible under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja observed, “the primary, nay, sole purpose for incurring expenditure towards license fee was to use the words “Remfry & Sagar” and derive benefit of the goodwill attached to it. The appellant do not dispute that Dr. Sagar had validly acquired the goodwill and that the same constituted a valuable asset which was transferable.”
Case title: M/S Vishal Video And Appliances Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner Of Customs Acc(Import)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 127
The Delhi High Court has asked the Customs Department, the Central GST Department, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Directorate of General GST Intelligence (DGGI) to make sure that counsel representing them on advance service are instructed properly.
A bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma ordered the Commissioner of Customs to prepare an SOP as to the manner in which the Department shall ensure that instructions are given to the nominated Counsels in the matter when advance copies are served.
Title: DR. RAJEEV AGGARWAL v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 128
The Delhi High Court has directed that an inspection be conducted on “dummy schools” in the national capital which are providing the facility of allowing the students to take the examination without attending the classes.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela directed the Delhi Government and Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to conduct the survey or inspection and also to take permissible action on the issue.
Title: X v. STATE & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 129
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere threats by the accused without any intention to cause alarm to the complainant does not constitute the offence of criminal intimidation.
“A bare perusal of Section 506 of the IPC makes it clear that before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that an accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant. Mere threats given by the accused not with an intention to cause alarm to the complainant would not constitute an offence of criminal intimidation,” Justice Amit Mahajan said.
Case title: Property Plus Realtors v. Union Of India & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 130
The Delhi High Court has held that the date of the assessment order, wherein an Assessing Officer recommended separate penalty proceedings against the assessee under Section 271DA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for accepting more than ₹2 lakh in cash, is not relevant for determining the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c).
Title: ISHAN TIWARI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 131
The Delhi High Court's administrative side is set to consider framing appropriate rules or amending the existing rules to streamline the procedure to expedite proceedings before the Family Courts in the national capital.
The development ensued after a division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed an order while disposing of a PIL on the issue.
Title: MARFING TAMANG @ MAAINA TAMANG v. STATE
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 132
The Delhi High Court has observed that furnishing grounds of arrest in writing to an arrestee just about an hour before the remand hearing cannot be due or adequate compliance of the requirements of Section 50 of CrPC.
The provision mandates that grounds of arrest must be communicated to an arrestee “forthwith” upon the arrest of a person.
Case title: Udaiveer & Ors. vs. Union Of India & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 133
In a plea for a restrain on Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and other authorities from disturbing the possession of land located on the Yamuna river bank by certain farmers, the Delhi High Court said that it appeared that the petitioners had encroached upon the land which falls in the flood plain area.
The court further said that this had also delayed the implementation of public project–'Restoration and Rejuvenation of River Yamuna Project' causing huge nation costs and loss to revenue of the State. The court also said that the "mischief" by the petitioners was apparent as after the demolition for removal of unauthorized encroachment and construction, the petitioners had tried to reclaim the property by carrying on cultivation of vegetables.
Case title: Public Information Officer Office Of District vs. Harish Lamba
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 134
Setting aside CIC's order directing Patiala House Court PIO to furnish information on the number of cases in which a judge granted ex-parte injunction in relation to cases represented by a particular advocate and in suits filed by a particular company, the Delhi High Court observed such queries require an analysis of the relevant judicial proceedings.
It further said that such an analysis sought for in the present case, falls under the Delhi District Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2008, which exempts disclosure of information when such information does not exist or when it amounts to analyzing the information for the applicant which does not form part of any existing record.
Title: DEEPAK JAIN & ORS v. BASKETBALL FEDERATION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 135
he Delhi High Court has observed that not having a birth certificate evidencing age of an individual due to socio-economic backwardness is no ground to deny the opportunity to compete or participate in sport events.
“This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that on account of socio- economic backwardness, it may not have been feasible in some cases, to obtain the birth certificates/other documents evidencing the age of the person within certain years from the date of birth. However, merely for this reason such persons cannot be denied the opportunity of competing in sporting events,” Justice Sachin Datta said.
Case title: M/S SMEC India (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 136
The Delhi High Court has held that an application for revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be preferred by an assessee who makes suo motu disallowance in its Return of Income (RoI/ ITR), under a bonafide yet mistaken belief that the same was liable to be offered for taxation.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar added that the assessee cannot be denied relief merely on the ground that the application was moved without amending the RoI.
Case Title: 'DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD versus VOESTALPINE SCHIENEN GMBH, AUSTRIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 137
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that Construction of the terms of the contract is primarily for the arbitrator to decide, unless it is found that such a construction is not at all possible.
Case title: Ajabs Academy Pvt Ltd vs. Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. (W.P.(C) 702/2025) & Connected Matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 138
The Delhi High Court has disposed of petitions where various coaching institutes sought directions to the Delhi government to implement 'Jai Bhim Mukhyamantri Pratibha Vikas Yojna', after taking note of the steps being taken by the Special Secretary of the Department for the Welfare of SC/ST/OBC (DSCST) to resolve the issue concerning payment to coaching institutes under the said scheme.
The yojna/scheme was introduced to provide quality coaching in competitive examinations for selection in various government services for economically disadvantaged SC/ST/OBC/EWS candidates. The Delhi government's order dated 09 September 2019 fixed the duration of the coaching and a maximum ceiling of coaching fee to which the institution would be entitled per candidate.
Case title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 v. Adobe Systems Software Ireland Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 139
The Delhi High Court has upheld an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to the effect that Adobe Systems India Pvt. Ltd is not a dependent agent permanent establishment (DAPE) of Adobe Systems Software Ireland Ltd.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar affirmed that no further attribution of profit can be made as Adobe India was remunerated at arm's length.
Award Passed By Improperly Appointed Arbitrator Is Non-Est In Law And Invalid: Delhi High Court
Case Title: ISAR ENGINEERS PRIVATE LTD. versus NTPC-SAIL POWER COMPANY LTD
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 140
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that it is settled law that the Arbitrator is a creature of the contract and has to function within four corners of contract. If a particular mechanism is contemplated for his appointment, the same must be followed in its true letter, spirit and intent, failing which the Arbitrator is without jurisdiction and the appointment is non-est and invalid.
Case title: Kanwaljeet Kaur v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle (34) 1 Delhi & Ors. and batch
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 141
The Delhi High Court has interpreted the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal to elucidate the time period surviving under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for issuing reassessment notices.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar concluded that the period between 20 March 2020 to 30 June 2021 would be excluded from limitation, in view of Section 3(1) of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020.
Title: GOODAI GLOBAL INC v. SHAHNAWAZ SIDDIQU & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 142
The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of “Beauty of Joseon”, a Korean beauty brand, while ordering cancellation of an identical trademark registered in favour of a man on “proposed to be used basis.”
Justice Amit Bansal allowed the plea moved by Goodai Global Inc, the parent company which owns Beauty of Joseon brand.
Title: PRAVENDRA PRATAP SINGH NATIONAL PRESIDENT (BAHUJAN MUKTI PARTY) v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 143
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Election Commission of India (ECI) does not have supervisory jurisdiction regarding internal matters of elections of political parties under Section 29A of Representation of People Act, 1951.
Section 29A deals with registration of associations and bodies as political parties with ECI. The provision states that any association or body of individuals calling itself a political party shall make an application to the Commission for its registration as a political party.
Title: RAMESH KUMAR KHATRI v. DURGESH PATHAK and other connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 144
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a candidate not maintaining proper accounts of election expenditure or not accurately disclosing the expenditure undertaken by him does not constitute “corrupt practice” under Section 123 of Representation of People Act, 1951.
Title: JOHNSON & JOHNSON PTE. LTD v. MR. ABBIREDDI SATISH KUMAR & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 145
The Delhi High Court has observed in a case of trademark infringement, even if a party is not physically selling impugned goods in a specific territory, but is offering them for sale through a website accessible in that territory, the Court where the goods are sold online would have jurisdiction to try the matter.
Case title: Bhushan Power & Steel Limited vs. Union Of India & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 146
The Delhi High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against Bhushan Power & Steel Limited (BPSL) in relation to a complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) in view of Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
Case title: Jagdish Chandra vs. State Trading Corporation Of India Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 147
The Delhi High Court has directed the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd (STC) to reimburse medical expenses of Rs.23.79 lakh to one of its former employees, incurred by him due to the hospitalization of his wife.
Case Title: Bhushan Power & Steel Limited vs. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 148
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has held that in accordance with Section 32A(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), a Corporate Debtor that has successfully undergone a resolution process under Section 31 of the IBC shall not be prosecuted for offences committed prior to the commencement of the CIRP.
Case title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 v. Standard Chartered Grindlays Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 149
The Delhi High Court has held that the limit prescribed under Section 36(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act 1961, on deductions that an employer can seek for contributions made towards superannuation funds, applies only at the stage of setting up the fund or making ordinary annual payments.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said any contribution made additionally in discharge of an overarching obligation would not be rendered as a disallowable expense.
Title: DELOITTE HASKINS & SELLS LLP v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 150
The Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 132 of the Companies Act, 2013, and Rules 3, 8, 10 and 11 of the National Financial Reporting Authority Rules, 2018.
Section 132 of the Companies Act states: (1) The Central Government may, by notification, constitute a National Financial Reporting Authority to provide for matters relating to accounting and auditing standards under this Act.
Title: ADITYA BIRLA FASHION AND RETAIL LIMITED v. FRIENDS INC & ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 151
The Delhi High Court has declared “Peter England”, an international menswear brand, as a well-known trademark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The Court noted that the brand has spent huge amount on the endorsement of its products by various actors like Ayushman Khurrana as well as players of Chennai Super Kings Cricket Team.
Case title: Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer And Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 152
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, which prescribes a limitation period for initiating reassessment against an assessee, is not an enabling provision but rather a proscription on the Assessing Officer's powers.
Title: RENUKA KULKARNI & ORS v. STATE and other connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 153
The Delhi High Court has observed that transfer of investigation to another agency is only done in rare and exceptional cases where high officials of State authorities are involved.
“Accusations against an investigating officer alone is not sufficient to transfer investigation unless there is sufficient material to show that the investigating officer is mixed up with the accused. Bald allegations are not sufficient for transfer of investigation,” Justice Subramonium Prasad said.
Title: SIR RATAN TATA TRUST & ANR v. DR. RAJAT SHRIVASTAVA & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 154
The Delhi High Court has said that the name of industrialist Ratan Tata is a “well- known personal name or trademark” which needs to be protected from any unauthorised use by any third party.
Justice Mini Pushkarna ruled in favour of Ratan Tata Trust in a suit filed against a journalist- Dr. Rajat Srivastava, alleging that the latter was unauthorisedly using Ratan Tata's name to host an award ceremony.
Case title: Rocktek Infra Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Import)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 155
The Delhi High Court has held that the imposition and severity of conditions imposed by the Customs Department for permitting provisional release of seized goods is “discretionary” in nature.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma scaled down the alleged onerous condition imposed on an importer, for executing a Bank Guarantee of 130% of the deferential duty.
Title: Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 156
The Delhi High Court granted custody parole of two days to Jammu and Kashmir MP Rashid Engineer, who is detained in relation to a terror funding case registered under UAPA.
Rashid sought custody parole in order to attend the Parliamentary budget session. The Court has granted custody parole to Rashid for February 11 and 13.
Case title: Bharat Singh vs. Karan Singh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 157
The Delhi High Court has observed that the time spent during the mediation process can be excluded while calculating the limitation period for filing a written statement under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
Consensual Nature Of Relationship Irrelevant For Prosecution Under POCSO Act: Delhi High Court
Title: MOHD. RAFAYAT ALI v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 158
The Delhi High Court has observed that prima facie, the consensual nature of relationship between the accused and prosecutrix is irrelevant for prosecution under the POCSO Act.
Rejecting the accused's plea that the relationship between him and the prosecutrix was consensual in nature, Justice Sanjeev Narula said:
“This plea of consensual relationship is legally immaterial. Under the POCSO Act, the age of the victim is the decisive factor, and if the victim is below 18 years of age, the law presumes that she is incapable of giving valid consent. The alleged consensual nature of the relationship is, therefore, prima facie irrelevant for the purpose of prosecution under the POCSO Act.”
Case title: Sushil Aggarwal v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs and connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 159
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a person facing charges under the Customs Act, 1962 does not have an unfettered right under Section 138B, to cross-examine the informant or person making incriminatory statements.
Case title: M/S Addichem Speciallity LLP v. Special Commissioner I, Department Of Trade And Taxes And Anr and batch
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 160
The Delhi High Court has held that since Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prescribes an “independent regime” to determine the limitation period for filing statutory appeals, the provision for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands excluded.
Title: ABHIJEET KUMAR v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 161
The Delhi High Court has said that close proximity at the workplace, many times, results in consensual sexual relationships which later get reported as crimes such as rape after they turn sour.
“In the present times, many a times close proximity at workplace results in consensual relationships which on turning sour, get reported as crimes, making it pertinent to be conscious of the distinction between the offence of rape and consensual sex between two adults,” Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.
Delhi High Court Quashes LOC Against Two Individuals Issued Over 2021 Toolkit Case
Title: THILAKASRI KREPANAND & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 162
The Delhi High Court has quashed a look out circular issued against two individuals over the toolkit case registered by the Delhi Police in relation to the 2021 farmers' protest.
Justice Sanjeev Narula quashed the LOC against Thilakasri Krupanand and Shantunu Muluk, noting that the investigation has been ongoing for nearly four years and yet no chargesheet was filed against them.
Title: Jan Seva Welfare Society (Reg.) v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 163
The Delhi High Court has directed that a common application be developed to be used by Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) for attending to the grievances in relation to malfunctioning of public toilets in the national capital.
Title: AMAL SHARMA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 164
The Delhi High Court has said that the police authorities must extend their fullest cooperation to the municipal or local bodies for implementation of traffic management plans in the national capital.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was hearing a public interest litigation filed by one Amal Sharma highlighting the issue of haphazard parking in Delhi.
Title: HARMEET SINGH v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 165
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a magistrate has no power to direct a superior officer such as a DCP to register an FIR under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that as per the statutory mandate, the Magistrate is only empowered to direct the in-charge officer of the police station to conduct investigation and not any officer of a superior rank.
Case title: Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited vs. Sammaan Capital Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 166
The Delhi High Court has granted a temporary injunction in favour of Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited, a non-banking finance company (NBFC) providing microfinance loans, against trademark infringement by other businesses providing identical services using the 'SAMMAAN' formative name in their corporate logo.
Delhi High Court Directs Blocking Access Of IPTV Websites Infringing Star India's Content
Case title: Star India Pvt. Ltd vs. IPTV Smarter Pro & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 167
The Delhi High Court has issued a temporary injunction in favour of the entertainment and media company, Star India Pvt. Ltd, against infringement of its copyrights and broadcast reproduction rights by IPTV streaming applications.
Title: ROJALINI PARIDA v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI THROUGH ITS VICE-CHANCELLOR & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 168
The Delhi High Court has asked the Delhi University and the Bar Council of India to evolve mechanism to enable students to attend LLB classes online and for specific time-frame in which they may make representation regarding short attendance.
Delhi High Court Permits NDTV Founders Prannoy Roy, Radhika Roy To Travel Abroad
Title: DR PRANNOY ROY & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 169
The Delhi High Court permitted NDTV's former directors and promoters Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy to travel to Dubai in August.
Justice Sachin Datta noted that the duo has been permitted to travel abroad on various occasions and both of them have complied with the conditions imposed on them in judicial orders.
Title: Anshul Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 170
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a PIL for conducting the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET-UG) examination twice a year in multiple shifts on the lines the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) is held.
Title: KORE NIHAL PRAMOD v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 171
The Delhi High Court observed that it is the exclusive executive domain of the government to evolve a robust mechanism to ensure compliance of judicial orders.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela disposed of a plea highlighting the alleged “systemic inefficiencies and bureaucratic inertia” prevalent in government departments due to delayed implementation of judicial orders.
Title: JUSTICE (RETD.) S.N. DHINGRA, PRESIDENT, SAMAY YAAN (SASHAKT SAMAJ) v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 172
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a PIL filed by retired Justice SN Dhingra against the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and Indian National Congress (INC) over their political promises to distribute cash to the voters in polls.
Case Title: BHADRA INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD AND ORS. versus AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 173
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul held that the award cannot be set aside solely on the ground that the appointment of the Arbitrator was illegal in view of section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (Arbitration Act) when no such objections were raised before the Arbitrator or the court under section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Case title: Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Ashar Nisar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 174
The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of Star India Pvt. Ltd against copyright infringement of its content by rogue apps and websites such as Ninja TV, RTS TV, Kyte TV, Picaso TV, Stream India and Hotstar Mod App.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. PRASHANT JAIN
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 175
The Delhi High Court has discharged a lawyer in a criminal contempt case and asked him not to indulge in aggressive behaviour in the future.
A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Dharmesh Sharma took a compassionate view of the matter and accepted the apology of the lawyer.
Case title: Oracle America, Inc. vs. Mr. Sandeep Khandelwal And Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 176
The Delhi High Court ordered the cancellation of the trademark registration of 'javapoint' in a plea filed by the American software company, Oracle America Inc, which owns the rights over Java software.
Justice Amit Bansal in his order said, "As may be seen from the side-by-side comparison of the marks set out in the table above, the impugned mark subsumes the petitioner's mark JAVA in its entirely and is almost identical with its mark JAVASCRIPT. The minor difference/ addition in the impugned mark does not render it different from the petitioner's prior and reputed JAVA marks when considered in totality. It is therefore evident that the impugned mark is deceptively similar to the petitioner's JAVA marks. This Court further notes that the petitioner also provides series of JAVA training and certification courses around the world including online courses accessible by users in India. Therefore, the target consumers of the rival parties are identical and overlapping".
Case title: Rajbir Singh vs. Commissioner Mcd And Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 177
The Delhi High Court has directed the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to decide on the issue of uniformity in judicial orders passed by the Tribunal in respect of the rate of interest to be awarded on delayed payment of retiral benefits by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), by constituting an appropriate bench for the matter.
Title: SHOBHA VERMA AND ANR v. ASHOK KAPOOR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 178
Taking exception to a lawyer appearing through videoconferencing while standing in a park with a mobile phone in his hand, the Delhi High Court has called for sensitization of lawyers on maintaining decorum while appearing in hybrid courts.
Case Title: Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corp. Ltd. (IRCTC) vs. M/s. Brandavan Food Products
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 179
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur has reiterated the limited scope of interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“A&C Act”). The court upheld the arbitral award granted in favour of M/s Brandavan Food Products Ltd. (“Claimant”) in a dispute regarding the reimbursement of differential costs for meals and beverages supplied under a catering contract with the Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. (IRCTC) (“Respondent”). The court set aside the interest award as 'patently illegal' as interest could not be granted on amounts not due as of a particular date.
Case title: Aon Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (Successor Entity Of Aon Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1 And Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 180
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a dispute with respect to arm's length price in a transfer pricing can be resolved under Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) only by consent and negotiations between contracting parties.
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1 v. M/S Chemester Food Industries Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 181
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that only such High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer passing an impugned assessment order is situated would have the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Title: STATE v. NILESH MISHRA and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 182
The Delhi High Court has observed that the use of scathing and disparaging remarks which tend to lower the credibility of the investigating authority ought to be avoided by the courts.
Justice Amit Mahajan said that strong criticism and vituperative remarks, may have a devastating impact on the reputation and career of police officials which are not only unnecessary but also have serious consequences on the careers of public servants.
Passport, Personal ID Details Can't Be Disclosed To Third Party Under RTI Act: Delhi High Court
Title: RAKESH KUMAR v. CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 183
The Delhi High Court has ruled that details about passport and personal identification documents cannot be disclosed to a third party under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Justice Sachin Datta referred to various judgments on the issue and said: “…disclosures which may be sought by a third party under the provisions of RTI act pertaining to passport or any other personal identification document, squarely falls under the ambit of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.”
Misuse Of Section 498A IPC Doesn't Mean Genuine Cases Of Harassment Don't Exist: Delhi High Court
Title: AJAY v. STATE & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 184
The Delhi High Court has observed that the misuse of Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, does not mean that genuine cases of harassment do not exist.
Title: VANEETA GUPTA & ANR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 185
The Delhi High Court has said that mere demand for dowry is no offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and simpliciter allegation of intimidation does not constitute harassment.
Justice Amit Mahajan made the observation while quashing an FIR registered by a wife against the relatives of the husband. The case was registered against the husband, parents and the relatives in 2019.
Case title: Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner Of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 186
The Delhi High Court ordered the Customs authorities to release a traveller's gold worth over ₹14 lakh and other branded articles like iPhone, PlayStation, etc. over the authority's failure to issue him a show cause notice.
Case title: Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Benetton India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 187
The Delhi High Court has held that a Transfer Pricing Officer cannot compute the arm's length price of an assessee's international transactions as nil, merely because despite the services availed from such transactions, the assessee incurred a loss in business.
Case title: Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Benetton India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 188
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the role of a Transfer Pricing Officer is to conduct a transfer pricing analysis and determine the arm's length price of an assessee's international transaction and the TPO cannot act as an Assessing Officer to probe the legitimacy of such transactions.
Case title: M/S Aims Retail Services Private Limited v. Union Of India & Ors. and batch
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 189
The Delhi High Court has held that merely unlocking/ activating a new mobile phone by disabling the “regional lock” which is put by original equipment manufacturers to restrict usage to a specific geographical location, does not make the mobile phone a “used” good.
Case Title: DR. B.K. TIWARI ADVISER (NUTRITION) verus UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 190
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul held that the Petitioner who was an Advisor (Nutrition) could not be granted the same salary as that of the Advisor (Ayurveda) and Advisor (Homeopathy). The Bench held that since the posts were different, it could not be expected that the nature of duties performed by the employees could be the same and therefore, granting the petitioner the pay scale which was at par with the other posts would not be possible. The Bench further ruled that matters falling within the province of expert bodies like Pay Commission could not be interfered with by courts.
Case title: Gor Sharian v. The Commissioner Of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 191
The Delhi High Court has held that the Customs Department must ensure that the intimation of disposal of detained or confiscated property is given to the concerned party both via email as also the mobile number.
Case title: Principal Commissioner, Central Tax Commissionerate, Gst Delhi West v. M/S Alkarma
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 192
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that if a show cause notice is quashed by a higher authority on one issue, it doesn't mean that other issues raised in the SCN are not liable to be adjudicated.
The observation was made by the bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma in a case where the SCN was quashed by another division bench of the High Court so far as the issue relating to duty on free supply of materials was concerned. However, the CESTAT proceeded to discharge the entire SCN.
Title: JAN CHETNA JAGRITI AVOM SHAIKSHANIK VIKAS MANCH & ORS v. SH ANAND RAJ JHAWAR SOLE PROPRIETOR OF M/S RR AGROTECH
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 193
The Delhi High Court has said that an educated litigant must keep track of his litigation and that his duty does not end merely by signing the lawyer's fee cheque.
“An educated urban litigant cannot claim same protection of this rule as extended to an uneducated rustic litigant in the sense that where the latter completely banks upon his counsel and fails to keep a track of his litigation, it is understandable, but it is not understandable where the former does so.”
Case Title: Dixon Technologies (India) Limited vs. M/s Jaiico & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 194
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has reaffirmed that an Arbitral Tribunal has the authority to implead non-signatories to an arbitration, provided they are deemed 'necessary parties' to the proceedings.
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS versus CHAND SINGH
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 195
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul set aside the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal by which the order of cancellation of the Respondent was quashed. The Bench noted that the order of cancellation was set aside on the basis of the Respondent having disclosed the pendency of the criminal case against him while applying for appointment. However, the Tribunal had not examined whether it was an honourable acquittal which stood as the main issue before the Tribunal in determining if the cancellation of appointment was just and fair.
Case title: Commissioner Of Income Tax International Tax- 1 New Delhi v. M/S Expeditors International Of Washington Inc
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 196
The Delhi High Court has held that Fee for Technical Services (FTS) as contained under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is concerned with the transfer of 'distinctive', 'specialized' knowledge, skill, expertise and know-how by a service provider.
Title: STATE v. HITESH
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 197
While dealing with a POCSO case, the Delhi High has observed that adolescents should be allowed to engage in romantic and consensual relationships without the fear of criminalization.
DJS 2023: Delhi High Court Rejects Plea To Issue Fresh List For Viva Voce
Title: SHOBHIN BALI v. REGISTRAR GENERAL DELHI HIGH COURT
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 198
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking issuance of fresh or revised list of shortlisted candidates for viva voce for Delhi Judicial Service Examination, 2023.
A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur dismissed the plea filed by a candidate- Shobhin Bali, while refusing to interfere with the results declared for the Mains examination.
Case title: Munish Kumar Gaur vs. Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 199
The Delhi High Court has closed a PIL that sought a CBI investigation into alleged irregularities and fraud committed by the officers of Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board in connivance with political parties, where funds were allegedly siphoned off under the guise of providing allowance to construction workers.
Title: News Laundry Media Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Galaxy Zoom India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 200
The Delhi High Court has directed Karma News, a Kerala-based news channel, to take down an article on “Cutting South 2023” event accusing media outlet Newslaundry and other organizers of the programme of “corruption” and “distorting the map of India.”
Title: SAMMAAN FINSERV LIMITED v. SVAMAAN FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 201
The Delhi High Court has stayed the operation of a single bench's order that temporarily restrained Sammaan Capital Limited from using 'SAMMAAN' mark in a trademark infringement plea moved by Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited, a non-banking finance company (NBFC) providing microfinance loans.
Case Title: Union of India v. Reliance Industries Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 202
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee, while hearing an appeal under Section 37 of the A&C Act, set aside an arbitral award in favour of Reliance Industries Limited(RIL).
Title: ZAHOOR AHMAD PEER v. NIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 203
Underscoring that harbouring terrorists is a serious offence under UAPA, the Delhi High Court has said that such an act creates “safe havens” for terrorists and provides them a “veil of secrecy” which endangers the life and security of the citizens.
Title: DELHI COMMISSION FOR WOMEN v. STATE OF NCT DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 204
The Delhi High Court has refused to quash FIR registered in 2016 against Rajya Sabha MP and former Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) Chief for allegedly revealing the identity of a 14-year-old rape victim.
The minor girl had died in a hospital here after a neighbour allegedly raped her repeatedly in city's Burari area in 2016. As per the FIR, the minor was forced a corrosive substance down her throat which damaged her internal organs.
Case Title: TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LIMITED & ANR VS. WWW.TATAPOWERSOLARDEALERSHIP.CO.IN & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 205
The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favour of Tata Power Solar Systems Limited, restraining several registrants of domain names from using the domain names and email addresses infringing upon the trademark of the company.
Case Title: HOUSE OF MASABA LIFESTYLE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. MASABACOUTUREOFFICIAL.CO & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 206
The Delhi High Court has issued a temporary injunction in favour of fashion designer Masaba Gupta's brand House Of Masaba Lifestyle Private Limited, against trademark infringement of its 'Masaba' and 'House of Masaba' marks by certain Instagram pages/handles.
Title: THOKCHOM SHYAMJAI SINGH & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH HOME SECRETARY & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 207
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the mandate of serving grounds of arrest in writing to an arrestee under UAPA will apply to arrests from the date of pronouncement of Supreme Court ruling in Pankaj Bansal case delivered on October 03, 2023, and not from the date of pronouncement of subsequent decision in Prabir Purkayastha case.
Case title: Sonu vs. CBI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 208
While upholding the Trial Court's order allowing the prosecution to introduce an additional document, the Delhi High Court has observed that the introduction of the document, which was already a part of the record in an incomplete form and did not introduce any new facts or allegations, did not amount to placing 'fresh evidence'. The Court stated that introducing the additional document was a 'rectification' and thus compliance with Section 173(8) of the CrPC, requiring a supplementary chargesheet, was not necessary.
Case title: RELIANCE RETAIL LTD VS. YOUSTAFRANCHISE.NET & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 209
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Reliance Retail Ltd, restraining several rogue websites and social media accounts from infringing the trademark of its 'Yousta' fashion brand.
Case Title: Pragati Construction Consultants v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 210
A full bench of Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Rekha Palli, Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Saurabh Banerjee while hearing a reference made by a single judge bench in Pragati Construction Consultants v. Union of India [FAO(OS)(COMM) 70/2024] held that if the party challenging an award u/s 34 of the A&C Act does not attach the impugned arbitral award with the Section 34 application, the filing will be considered "non-est." The Court further held that the filing of the arbitral award along with the Section 34 application is an essential requirement.
Case title: Vivo Mobile India Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 211
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that after the closure of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer becomes 'functus officio' and to re-confer jurisdiction upon the AO to initiate re-assessment proceedings, relevant incriminating material ought to be put to the assessee.
Case title: Renewflex Recycling vs. Facilitation Centre Rohini Courts & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 212
The Delhi High Court has observed that sending a legal notice or mediation request to a party cannot be considered as a 'compliance' of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which mandates mediation before the institution of a commercial suit.
Case title: Tilak Raj Singh v. Union Of India And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 213
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that in terms of the Central Civil Services (Leave Travel Concession) Rules, 1988 an employee cannot change travel destination midway through the journey and if due to some unavoidable circumstance it has been changed, the same has to be a destination which is en route.
Speedy Trial Can't Be At Cost Of Fairness Of Trial: High Court In Delhi Riots Case
Title: MOHD. DANISH v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 214
While dealing with a case concerning the 2020 North-East Delhi riots, the Delhi High Court has observed that expedition in trial cannot be at the cost of fairness of trial, since that would be against all canons of justice.
Delhi High Court Junks PIL Against 'Illegal Constructions' At Ajmeri Gate, Imposes ₹10K Costs
Title: MR MIRZA AURANGZEB v. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 215
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking to demolish the alleged illegal and unauthorized constructions within the regulated area of city's Ajmeri Gate.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela imposed Rs. 10,000 costs on the petitioner- Mirza Aurangzeb to be deposited with Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund.
Delhi High Court Again Reschedules Date Of Elections To All Bar Associations To March 21
Title: LALIT SHARMA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 216
The Delhi High Court has rescheduled again the date of elections to all Bar Associations in the national capital from February 28 to March 21, 2025.
A full bench comprising Justice Yashwant Varma, Justice Rekha Palli and Justice C Hari Shankar took cognizance of the fact that the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) was yet to constitute its Election Commission.
High Court Orders Forest Department, Delhi Police To Evolve Mechanism For Rescuing Distressed Birds
Title: SAVE INDIA FOUNDATION v. DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND WILDLIFE & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 217
The Delhi High Court has asked the Delhi Government's forest department and Delhi Police to evolve a mechanism for rescuing the distressed birds in the national capital.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was dealing with a PIL filed by Save India Foundation seeking issuance of directions to the authorities to take immediate action for rescuing distressed birds.
Title: CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT OF WEST BENGAL v. VAIBHAV BANGAR & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 218
The Delhi High Court has rapped the action of West Bengal government for refusing, in multiple cases, the prayer for inter cadre transfers (ICTs) on the ground of shortage of officers.
Case Name: Unison Hotels Pvt Ltd v. KNM Chemicals Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 219
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has upheld an Arbitral award stating that objections regarding the quality of goods must be raised within a reasonable time as per section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The court concurred with the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal that since the Petitioner failed to dispute the quality of supplies within a reasonable time, its counterclaims were rightly dismissed.
Case title: Mohamed Shamiuddeen v. Commissioner Of Customs & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 220
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that authorities making a traveller waive show cause notice before confiscation of goods, etc. under Section 124 of the Customs Act 1962, on a mere proforma, is not lawful.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma thus granted relief to a permanent resident of Hong Kong, whose Rolex wristwatch valued at ₹30,29,400/- was confiscated by the Customs Department at the airport.
Case title: Moonshine Technology Private Limited vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 221
The Delhi High Court has issued a temporary injunction against 'rogue websites' from accessing and using the domain names infringing the trademark of Moonshine Technology Private Limited, the parent company of Baazi Group of Companies providing online gaming products and services.
Case Title: THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA VS. CONTROLLER OF PATENTS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 222
The Delhi High Court has upheld the refusal to grant a patent to the Regents of the University Of California relating to a recombinant Salmonella microorganism-based live vaccine for preventing enteric bacterial infection.
Delhi High Court Asks NIA Court To Expeditiously Decide MP Engineer Rashid's Bail Plea In UAPA Case
Title: Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 223
The Delhi High Court asked a National Investigation Agency (NIA) Court to decide expeditiously the bail plea filed by Jammu and Kashmir MP Rashid Engineer in a terror funding case registered under UAPA.
Title: ADDICTIVE LEARNING TECHNOLOGY LIMITED & ANR v. ADITYA GARG & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 224
The Delhi High Court has observed that the utterances in the nature of tweets in a conversational thread on X platform (formerly Twitter) are not to be assessed in isolation for determining the claim of defamation.
“The Court has to consider that nature of the medium (X) is casual and fast paced, conversational in character and an elaborate analysis of a 140-character tweet (or even more than that) may be disproportional,” Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said.
Case title: SFDC Ireland Limited v. Commissioner Of Income Tax & Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 225
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that before rejecting an assessee's application under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for nil TDS or deduction of tax at a lower rate, the assessing officer must form a prima facie opinion regarding the assessee's taxability in India.
Case title: Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) And Ors. vs. Sumit
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 226
While hearing a plea against a decision granting exemption to an orthopaedically disabled person from typewriting test after the results were declared, the Delhi High Court observed that the approach of a court while dealing with persons with disabilities must be "qualitatively different" from one adopted for able-bodied candidates.
Title: SATINDER SINGH BHASIN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 227
The Delhi High Court has sought response of the Commissioner of Police, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh as to whether any protocol has been agreed to with the Delhi Police in case of Inter-State arrests as per a 2019 decision of a division bench.
A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Dharmesh Sharma said that there is a need to ensure that the prescribed protocol for inter-state arrests is followed by the UP Police.
Case title: Infiniti Retail Limited vs. M/S Croma Wholeseller & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 228
The Delhi High Court issued a permanent injunction in favour of the Tata Group's subsidiary Infiniti Retail Limited, the owner of 'CROMA' trademark, against trademark infringement by domain names/websites using the said mark.
Title: Randeep Singh Surjewala v. ECI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 229
The Delhi High Court disposed of a plea filed by Congress MP Randeep Singh Surjewala seeking a direction on the Election Commission of India (ECI) to decide his representation seeking supply of the electoral rolls for the Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha polls conducted in the States of Maharashtra and Haryana from 2009 to 2024.
Case title: Maruti Suzuki India Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 230
The Delhi High Court has quashed the reassessment action initiated by the Income Tax Department against car manufacturer Maruti Suzuki India Ltd for alleged escapement of income in the Assessment Year 2009-10.
Case Title: Idemia Syscom India Private Limited v. M/s Conjoinix Total Solutions Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 231
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has reiterated that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a general law governing the field of arbitration whereas the MSMED Act, 2006 governing a very specific nature of disputes concerning MSMEs, is a specific law and being a specific law would prevail over Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case title: Ateesh Agarwal v. Union Of India And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 232
The Delhi High Court has rejected the writ petition filed by a man, seeking an inquiry into the finances of his wife and her family who claimed to have paid him ₹2 crores dowry, in addition to spending crores of rupees on their wedding.
CBDT Cannot Impose Limitations To Extinguish Rights Granted Under Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 233
Recently, the Delhi High Court held that Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) cannot impose limitations to extinguish rights granted under Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court held that the wide powers granted to the CBDT are not for extinguishing a right that is conferred by the Act. Accordingly, the Court Circular No. 07/2007 dated 23 October 2007 issued by the CBDT to the be ultra vires the Income Tax Act.
Case Name : Asha Ram Nehra v. Commissioner of Police and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 234
A division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Manoj Jain held that reducing employee's pay retrospectively without prior notice and recovering excess payments after the period of 19 years is not permissible.
Case title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -2 v. Nokia Network OY
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 235
The Delhi High Court has held that a subsidiary or an entity which is substantially controlled by another entity in a contracting State does not by itself become a Permanent Establishment (PE) of that other entity.
Case title: Neelkanth Pharma Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 236
The Delhi High Court has expressed concern with investigating agencies freezing the bank accounts of innocent traders while probing cyber crimes.
It observed, “In such types of cyber-crimes, if any fraudster cheats a complainant and with the help of cheated money, when such fraudster buys something using such money, the police, chasing such money-trail, directs freezing the bank accounts of all concerned and in the process, many innocent recipients have to bear the brunt, for no fault of theirs.”
Case title: LIFESTYLE EQUITIES CV & ANR. vs. AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 237
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has imposed hefty damages and costs totalling Rs. 339.25 crore on Amazon Technologies Inc for trademark infringement of the luxury lifestyle brand, Beverly Hills Polo Club.
Case title: Daljeet Singh Gill v. Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 238
The Delhi High Court granted relief to a trader whose application for availing the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 over service tax dues was declined by the GST Department “without providing any reason”.
Case title: CASTROL LIMITED vs. KAPIL & ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 239
The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction in favour of the automobile lubricants manufacturer Castrol Limited, against trademark and trade dress/package infringement by businesses manufacturing, selling and advertising engine oils and lubricants.
Case title: MR Makhinder Chopra Commissioner Of Customs New Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 240
The Delhi High Court has held that the Baggage Rules 2016 which are framed under the Customs Act 1962 to ensure that every passenger entering India passes through a Customs check has limited application on foreign tourists coming to India.
Title: ESTATE OF MAHARAJA DR KARNI SINGHJI OF BIKANER THROUGH EXECUTRIX v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 241
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by heir of Late Maharaja Dr. Karni Singh, the last one to hold the title of Maharaja of Bikaner, seeking arrears of rent from Central Government for the Bikaner House property in the national capital.
Title: BIHAR OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION v. PRESIDENT INDIAN OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION & ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 242
The Delhi High Court has quashed an order passed by the President of Indian Olympic Association (IOA) constituting a five member Ad-Hoc committee to look after the affairs of the Bihar Olympic Association.
Justice Sachin Datta said that the decision taken on January 01 did not satisfy the requirements of law and deserved to be set aside.
Title: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THROUGH ITS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 243
The Delhi High Court has ruled that production of Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) final report for the perusal of the special court cannot be denied at the stage of cognizance, if exceptional circumstances are made out.
Case title: Burger King Corporation vs. Swapnil Patil & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 244
The Delhi High Court has granted a temporary injunction in favour of the fast food chain, Burger King Corporation, and directed the suspension of domain names/websites infringing upon its 'BURGER KING' trademarks.
Burger King Corporation (plaintiff) sought an injunction against unknown defendants for running fake franchise/dealership websites using its trademarks. It is alleged that the operators of the domain names are collecting money from innocent and gullible consumers and customers.
Case title: M/S Legacy Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 245
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which contemplates tax incentives for enterprises operating in specific industries and locations in India, does not require such enterprises to enter into an agreement with the Government.
Case title: Monish Gajapati Raju Pusapati v. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 246
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be used to save an assessment order passed by overlooking errors apparent on face of the record.
Case title: COMMISSIONER DELHI POLICE vs. NHRC
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 247
The Delhi High Court has upheld an order passed by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), which directed the Delhi Police Commissioner to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000 to a senior doctor for non-registration of an FIR.
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA & ANR v. ALL INDIA POSTAL ACCOUNTS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 248
Two judges of the Delhi High Court recused from hearing a batch of petitions concerning grant of benefits as per the Pay Commission recommendations, after one of the lawyers claimed that the division bench was “choosing and picking” cases to be heard.
A division bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul called the situation “deeply disturbing” and said that the matters be listed before another Bench subject to orders of the Chief Justice.
Case Title: M/s Isc Projects Private Limited v. Steel Authority of India Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 249
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has observed that the signature of all members of the arbitral tribunal should be available on the award as the signing of an award is not a ministerial act but a substantive requirement. It was further observed that if the signature of any member of the tribunal is omitted, then the reasons should be stated as this requirement is referable to the need to ensure that all members of the tribunal have has an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process.
Title: ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LTD v. SAREGAMA INDIA LTD
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 250
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a plaintiff cannot be permitted to file documents as per its whims and fancies at any stage of a commercial suit.
“The whole purpose of expeditious disposal of commercial suits would be frustrated if the parties are permitted to file additional documents at any stage of the suit,” Justice Amit Bansal said.
Case title: SQN LDR PRABHAKAR BHATT vs. MAJ. ANNU LAMBA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 251
The Delhi High Court has observed that a woman's claim seeking right to shared household under Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 is valid even in the absence of domestic violence.