Delhi High Court Monthly Digest: November 2025 [Citations 1415 - 1628]

MISS KIARA RAWAT THROUGH MRS. LOVELY GUSAIN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1415

SURENDER KUMAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1416

Suresh Sankhla vs. Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1417

Neeraj Agarwal v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1418

TAPAS KUMAR MALLICK & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1419

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1420

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Himalyan Flora And Aromas Pvt Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1421

COOMI KAPOOR v. NETFLIX ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES INDIA LLP & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1422

RAJIV KHOSLA v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1423

DR REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1424

COURTS ON ITS OWN MOTION IN RE: SUICIDE COMMITTED BY SUSHANT ROHILLA, LAW STUDENT OF I.P. UNIVERSITY 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1425

SUMIT v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1426

X v. Y 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1427

Celina Jaitly v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1428

INFRASTRUCTURE WATCHDOG v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1429

Suparshva Swabs India v. AGN International & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1430

SATYA PRAKASH BAGLA v. STATE 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1431

ED v. M/S PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD & other connected matter 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1432

SHASHI ARORA & ANR v. STATE THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1433

OM SARAN GUPTA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1434

PUSHKAR RAJ & ANR v. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1435

Arnab Goswami v. State & Ors and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1436

MS KRRISH REALTECH PVT LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECERATARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE & ANR and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1437

SHRAVAN GUPTA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1438

Sabu Trade Private Limited v. Rajkumar Sabu & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1439

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA v. GEEP INDUSTRIES & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1440

Bima Sugam India Federation v. A Range Gowda & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1441

TV TODAY NETWORK LTD. & ORS v. RAMESH BIDHURI and other connected matter 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1442

Quantum Hi-Tech Merchandising Pvt. Ltd. v. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1443

Capital Foods Private Limited v. Damyaa (PJ) Foods Private Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1444

Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd and Anr. v. Saklin Alias Prince 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1445

X v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1446

RENEW WIND ENERGY (AP2) PVT. LTD v. SOLAR ENERGY CORPORATION OF INDIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1447

Spice Jet v Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1448

Ronak Khatri v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1449

Lotus Herbals Private Limited v. Lotus Beauty Salon Private Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1450

Mohammad Talha v. M/s Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1451

DR. ADITYA SEHRAWAT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1452

PARAG PRAKASH RUDRANGI v. STATE & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1453

RAJAT SHARMA & ANR v. TAMARA DOC & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1454

DEEPAK SRIVASTAV v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1455

Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1456

A Range Gowda v. Bima Sugam India Federation & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1457

PJ v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1458

LOKINDER SINGH PHOUGAT v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1459

NEHA MALAV v. DEAN (ADMISSIONS BRANCH), UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1460

ARKA BHATTACHARYA v. STATE 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1461

AANCHAL AND ANR v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1462

Jaya Bachchan v. Bollywood Bubble & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1463

Union of India & Anr. vs. Amit Kumar Yadav & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1464

DAZN Limited & Anr. v. 9GOALS.IO & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1465

Mankind Pharma Limited v. De Harbien Life Sciences Private Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1466

Capital Foods Private Limited v. KRS Multipro Private Limited & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1467

ITC Limited & Anr v. Bukhara Inn 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1468

Dabur India Limited v. Patanjali Ayurved Limited & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1469

Techsync v. The Superintendent of Customs SIIB ACC Imports and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1470

INSTITUTE OF HUMAN BEHAVIOUR AND ALLIED SCIENCES (IHBAS) versus MI2C SECURITIES AND FACILITIES PVT LTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1471

M/s Vedanta Ltd v. ACIT Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1472

MOHAMED ALI JINNAH v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1473

MEHMOOD PRACHA v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1474

Munna Lal Yadav v. Department Of Empowerment Of Persons With Disabilities & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1475

Ravi Mohan Studios Private Limited vs Indospirit Beverages Private Limited & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1476

Manmohan Gaind v. Negolice India Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1477

Upendra Nath Dalai v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1478

AMRIT KAUR v. ASI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1479

Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Railways vs. Sh. R.K. Mittal 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1480

Shujaat Ali v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1481

Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii / Avato Ward 105, Zone 4, Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1482

XY v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1483

KAILASH WATI v. STATE OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1484

Santosh Kumar Suri v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1485

PJ v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1486

Gameloft Software Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax, Range 152 & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1487

SMT. RAJESH RATHI v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1488

Abid v. State (and connected matters) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1489

Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd vs American Dream 11 Fantasy Sports Private Limited and Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1490

Renew Wind Energy (Ap2) Pvt Ltd v. SECI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1491

RAJIV SAREEN v. M/S DIVYANSHU ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1492

M/s Mathur Polymers v. Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1493

Changsha Sinocare Inc & Anr v. Mr. Rajesh Kumar & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1494

Sunil Kumar Gupta v. Commissioner Of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1495

Raj Kumar Gupta v. UoI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1496

Devender Singh v. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax, Delhi West 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1497

M/S Shiva Enterprises v. Principal Commissioner, Department Of Trade And Taxes, GNCTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1498

M/S Swarn Cosmetics (India) v. Union Of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1499

Castrol Limited & Ors v MR Ali Hussain Amir Ali Namdar & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1500

Toshniwal Electricals Pvt Ltd Through Its Director Mukund Maheshwari v. The Principal Commissioner Of Central Tax Delhi North & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1501

Jiostar India Private Limited v. Cricfy TV & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1502

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT THROUGH DEPUTY DIRECTOR v. POONAM MALIK & other connected matter 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1503

BSNL v. Commissioner Of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1504

DIDAR SINGH & ANR v. STATE (GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1505

C.H. Robinson Worldwide Freight India Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner, Cgst-Delhi-South & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1506

Mala Sahni Seth & Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1507

GMG Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. v. Directorate General Of GST Intelligence HQ & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1508

Puneet Batra vs. UOI & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1509

M/S IMS Mercantiles Ltd v. Union Of India & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1510

Sushil Sharma v. Commissioner Of Customs [Export] 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1511

Varian Medical Systems International India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1512

CHRISTIAN MICHEL JAMES V/s UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1513

MTNL v M/s Motorola Inc. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1514

Gautam Khaitan v Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1515

Manoj Kumar Nagar v. The Principal Commissioner Of Customs & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1516

Perpetual Vision LLP & Anr. v. Vaibhav S Pingal & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1517

FMC Corporation & Ors. v. Natco Pharma Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1518

Saregama India Limited v. En.ssyou.tube & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1519

Mohd Yahya & Ors v. Farat Ara & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1520

M/S Ec Constructions P Ltd v. Neeraj Zutshi And Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1521

X v. Y 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1522

ABP Pvt Ltd v. ITC Hotels Ltd & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1523

IREDA v Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1524

Fontaine Limited v. Berkeley Beauty Brands Private Limited & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1525

V. Prabha & Ors. v. State & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1526

Myratgeldi Mammedov v. Union Of India & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1527

NADEEM v. STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1528

Aqualite Industries Private Ltd v. Relaxo Footwears Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1529

Crest Digitel Private Limited v. DMRC & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1530

T.V. TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. GOOGLE LLC & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1531

ISHA FOUNDATION v. GOOGLE LLC & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1532

FARMAN v. THE STATE OF NCT DELHI & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1533

Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr v. Hari Shankar Bilwal 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1534

ABC v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1535

PAWAN MALIK v. UNION OF INDIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1536

Commissioner of Customs v. Ravi Dhanwariya 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1537

TAEKWONDO FEDERATION OF INDIA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1538

Sanyukt Ahir Regiment Morcha & Ors v. Union of India & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1539

SignatureGlobal (India) Limited v. Ashok Kumar & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1540

Aadhar India vs. The Additional Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1541

Manish Sharma v. Additional Commissioner Of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1542

H.G. International v. The Commissioner Of Trade And Taxes, Delhi (and batch) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1543

Mrs Pawanjot Kaur Sawhney v. Union Of India And Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1545

SanDisk LLC v. M/S. Welborn Industries Private Limited & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1546

Vijender Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1547

Om Prakash v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1548

BSES Yamuna Power Limited v. Bhagwanti & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1549

PRINCE KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1550

RAJ SHAMANI & ANR v. JOHN DOE/ ASHOK KUMAR & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1551

TCNS CLOTHING COMPANY LIMITED versus SUNIL KUMAR & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1552

Mohd Umar v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1553

APEKSHITA KALA & ANR v. DISTRICT MEDICAL BOARD & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1554

Anil Singh v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1555

Anoop Kumar Garg v. The Commissioner Of Customs (Imports) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1556

Nutrivative Foods Private Limited v. B.L. Agro Industries Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1557

Sakshi Goyal Proprietor of MIS Parshavnath Industries vs. Principal Commissioner CGST 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1558

X v. Y 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1559

State v. Bimla (and connected matter) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1560

Mujahat Ali Khan v. Lokpal of India Through Under Secretary 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1561

National Building Construction Corporation vs Sharma Enterprises 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1562

M/s RBC Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. UoI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1563

Gautam Gambhir Foundation & Ors v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1564

DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT v. AMLENDU PANDEY (D) THROUGH LR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1565

JASIR BILAL WANI @ DANISH v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1566

Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Service Tax DGST Delhi v. Global Opportunities Private Limited Through Its Authorized Representative 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1567

MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte Ltd & Ors. v. Club Anantara Suites and Retreat & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1568

Delhi Sales Corporation v. The Principal Commissioner Of Central Tax & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1569

AIIMS v. DR. SANJAY KUMAR YADAV & ORS & other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1570

Grid Solutions SAS v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1571

Ferrero Spa & Ors. v. Abhimanyu Prakash & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1572

PIARE KHAN v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1573

Inder Dev Gupta v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 2-Delhi (and batch) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1574

BWL Limited (formerly known as Bhilaw Wires Ltd.) v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1575

Tara Dutt v. State (and connected appeal) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1576

KA v. SA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1577

Living Media India Limited and Anr v. Amar Ujala Limited and Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1578

Visage Beauty and Healthcare Private Limited v. Freecia Professional India Private Limited & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1579

Rajesh Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1580

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Delhi v. KRBL Infrastructure Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1581

ITC Limited v. Pelican Tobacco Co Ltd & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1582

Tara Dutt v. State (and connected appeal) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1583

Haveli Restaurant and Resorts Limited v. Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1584

Hermes International & Anr. v. Macky Lifestyle Private Limited & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1585

M/S Arjun Engineering Co. v. Additional Commissioner Of Goods And Service Tax, North Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1586

Cheeli J Ratnam v. Union Of India & Ors. (and batch) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1587

M/S Ganga Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1588

Tarun Arora v. Commissioner Of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1589

Naresh Bansal & Ors. v. Adjudicating Authority And Anr (and batch) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1590

Rajani Products v. Madhukar Varandani, Proprietor Of M/S NaturalIndia Oils And Proteins & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1591

Ashim Kumar Ghosh v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1592

Mohammad Rashid v. The Commissioner Of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1593

JATINDER PAL SINGH v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1594

Gulfam v. Commissioner Of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1595

Shyamsundar Sharma v. ACIT/ Initiating Officer, Benami Prohibition Unit-2, Delhi & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1596

Pavneet Oberoi v. The Commissioner Of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1597

RAVINDER PAL SINGH CHAUHAN v. DELHI RACE CLUB (1940) LTD AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1598

Medilabo RFP Inc. v. The Controller Of Patents 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1599

Sunil Niranjan Shah v. Vijay Bahadur 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1600

M/S Om Fire Safety Company Pvt Ltd v. Umakant 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1601

Saurabh Gupta v. Sheopals Pvt Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1602

Techsync v. The Superintendent Of Customs Siib Acc Imports And Ors (and connected petition) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1603

Navin Road Lines Vs. Assistant Registrar Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1604

Imagine Marketing Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner Cgst Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1605

Sanjeev Krishan Sharma v. Punjab National Bank and Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1606

Tesla Inc. v. Tesla Power India Private Limited & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1607

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA versus CFM ASSET RECONSTRUCTION PVT LTD & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1608

Koninklijke Philips N.V. & Ors. v. Karma Mindtech & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1609

Yatin Miglani v. Commissioner Of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1610

IDP Education India Private Limited v. Government Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1611

AJAY ALIAS VISHAL VEERU DEVGAN v. THE ARTISTS PLANET & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1612

J M Jain Prop SH Jeetmal Choraria vs. UOI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1613

Fateh Education Consulting Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Wazirpur & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1614

Trident Limited v. Controller Of Patents 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1615

SARWAR RAZA v. OMBUDSMAN RBI & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1616

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Artura Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1617

Irish Distillers International Limited v. Stardford Spirits Pvt Ltd & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1618

ANU DUGGAL v. STATE & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1619

Ping Pong Global Limited Through Its Managing Director Siddhartha Jain v. Union Of India Through Joint Secretary & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1620

Sanjay Khurana v. Income Tax Department Ministry Of Finance 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1621

JAGDISH KAUR versus JASBIR SINGH SANDHU & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1622

Amir Chand Jagdish Kumar Exports Ltd. v. Knam Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1623

Yasin Malik v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1624

MS. NILANJANA BHOWMICK v. RAVI NAIR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1625

X v. Y 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1626

Sushma v. Rattan Deep & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1627

Sanjay Aggarwal v. Union Of India & Ors (and connected matters) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1628

Title: MISS KIARA RAWAT THROUGH MRS. LOVELY GUSAIN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1415

The Delhi High Court has constituted a Committee to supervise and oversee the operation of Union Government's crowd funding digital platform for treatment of people with rare diseases.

Title: SURENDER KUMAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1416

The Delhi High Court has directed the Director General (Prisons) to frame and notify a SOP on the access of mobile phones to open-prison inmates.

Superior Authority Not Bound To Record Or Communicate Detailed Reasons When Rejecting Representation Against Adverse Remarks: Delhi HC

Case Name : Suresh Sankhla vs. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1417

A Division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav held that a superior authority rejecting a representation against adverse remarks is not legally obligated to record or communicate detailed reasons for its decision.

Case title: Neeraj Agarwal v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1418

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a bail condition, precluding a doctor, allegedly involved in a medical offence, from running his own medical centre, does not violate such a doctor's right to livelihood under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Title: TAPAS KUMAR MALLICK & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1419

The Delhi High Court has permitted an intending couple to move ahead with surrogacy procedure, despite the husband being above the maximum age limit prescribed under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021.

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1420

The Delhi High Court has ruled that upon committal of a case, only the Court of Sessions can order further investigation and not an ilaqa magistrate.

Case Name: Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Himalyan Flora And Aromas Pvt Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1421

The Delhi High Court, while hearing an appeal u/s 37 of the A&C Act filed against the the Award dated 11.12.2024 (“Impugned Award”) passed by the Emergency Arbitrator under the Delhi International Arbitration Center (Arbitration Proceedings) Rules, 2023 (“Rules of 2023”) observed that the terms 'Emergency Arbitrator' and 'Arbitral Tribunal' are not interchangeable. Rule 14.11 of the Rules of 2023 bars the Emergency Arbitrator from being a part of the Arbitral Tribunal, except otherwise agreed by the parties.

Title: COOMI KAPOOR v. NETFLIX ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES INDIA LLP & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1422

The Delhi High Court has closed a suit filed by Coomi Kapoor- senior journalist and author of the book “The Emergency: A Personal History”, against Manikarnika Films and Netflix over alleged breach of contract and damaging her reputation.

Title: RAJIV KHOSLA v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1423

The Delhi High Court has asked Lieutenant Governor (LG) Vinai Kumar Saxena to consider approving the Rules on appointment of local commissioners and receivers in the district courts in the national capital.

Title: DR REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1424

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition against the decision of Foods Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) banning Oral Rehydration Salts (ORS) labelling on drink beverages.

Title: COURTS ON ITS OWN MOTION IN RE: SUICIDE COMMITTED BY SUSHANT ROHILLA, LAW STUDENT OF I.P. UNIVERSITY

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1425

The Delhi High Court ruled that no student enrolled in any recognized law college university or institution in India shall be detained from taking examination or be prevented from further academic pursuits of career progression on the ground of lack of minimum attendance.

Title: SUMIT v. STATE NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1426

While granting bail to a 20 year old in a rape case, the Delhi High Court has explained the difference between false promise to marry and breach of such a promise.

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1427

The Delhi High Court has observed that judicial estimation is must where there is no direct proof of income of the parties for the purpose of grant of maintenance in matrimonial cases.

Title: Celina Jaitly v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1428

The Delhi High Court disposed of a plea filed by actress Celina Jaitly seeking effective legal representation for her brother, a retired Indian Army officer, over his arrest and detention in the UAE.

The Court directed the authorities to take steps provide effective legal representation to the brother regarding his arrest and detention abroad.

Title: INFRASTRUCTURE WATCHDOG v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1429

The Delhi High Court ruled that banks acting in a "bona fide" manner, cannot be "made answerable to the judiciary" regarding the economic expediency of their decisions when no cogent material is shown.

Case Title: Suparshva Swabs India v. AGN International & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1430

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Suparshva Swabs India, the manufacturer of Tulips cotton buds and hygiene products, which sought to restrain a perfume company from using the mark “AGN TULIP.”

Title: SATYA PRAKASH BAGLA v. STATE

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1431

The Delhi High Court observed that the mere phrase “no coercive steps” does not imply stay or suspension of investigation against an individual.

Title: ED v. M/S PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD & other connected matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1432

The Delhi High Court ruled that the profits earned on bribe money after investment in share market amounts to proceeds of crime and is liable to be attached under the PMLA.

Title: SHASHI ARORA & ANR v. STATE THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1433

The Delhi High Court has observed that mere taunts, casual references and general family friction occurring in ordinary wear and tear of marital life is not sufficient to constitute the offence of cruelty.

Title: OM SARAN GUPTA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1434

The Delhi High Court ruled that Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, which criminalises cruelty by a husband or his relatives toward a married woman, will be applicable even if marriage between the parties is subsequently declared invalid.

Title: PUSHKAR RAJ & ANR v. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1435

The Delhi High Court has upheld Jawaharlal Nehru University's decision permitting students to vote across all constituencies- undergraduate, postgraduate and research scholar, in elections for student representatives to the Internal Committee (IC) dealing with sexual-harassment matters.

Title: Arnab Goswami v. State & Ors and other connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1436

The Delhi High Court quashed summons issued against journalist Arnab Goswami in a criminal defamation case filed against him.

Title: MS KRRISH REALTECH PVT LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECERATARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE & ANR and other connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1437

The Delhi High Court has observed that the provisional attachment order (PAO) cannot be challenged in the writ jurisdiction when an alternative remedy is available under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Title: SHRAVAN GUPTA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1438

The Delhi High Court flagged a “disturbing trend” of media reporting innocuous remarks made during the hearings “only to create sensation.”

Case Title: Sabu Trade Private Limited v. Rajkumar Sabu & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1439

The Delhi High Court upheld an interim order restraining Sabu Trade Pvt. Ltd. (STPL) and certain family members, who are also directors of the company, from using the “Sachamoti” mark, a well-known brand of sabudana (sago) products. e members of Sabu family affirming a March 2024 Single Judge order that prohibited them from using the brand and label.

Title: COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA v. GEEP INDUSTRIES & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1440

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) is not empowered to impose interest retrospectively or from a date preceding the valid service of a demand notice.\

Case Title: Bima Sugam India Federation v. A Range Gowda & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1441

The Delhi High Court in an interim order upheld its earlier direction restraining a insurance agent from using the mark “BIMA SUGAM”, a name associated with India's upcoming unified digital insurance marketplace, or any deceptively similar name, including related domain names.

Title: TV TODAY NETWORK LTD. & ORS v. RAMESH BIDHURI and other connected matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1442

The Delhi High Court refused to discharge TV Today Network Limited, which owns Aaj Tak and India Today group, in a criminal defamation case filed by BJP leader Ramesh Bidhuri in 2011.

Case Title: Quantum Hi-Tech Merchandising Pvt. Ltd. v. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1443

The Delhi High Court has refused to grant interim relief to Quantum Hi-Tech Merchandising Pvt. Ltd. in its trademark dispute with LG Electronics India, ruling that the company's attempt to restrain LG's use of the “Quantum” mark was undermined by its failure to disclose material information

Case Title: Capital Foods Private Limited v. Damyaa (PJ) Foods Private Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1444

In a relief for popular Desi Chinese brand Ching's Secret, the Delhi High Court restrained a UP-based food manufacturing company from using the name 'Schezwan Tufani Chutney' or any expression deceptively similar to 'Schezwan Chutney', a registered trademark of Capital Foods Pvt. Ltd.

Case Title: Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd and Anr. v. Saklin Alias Prince

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1445

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Hero Investcorp Pvt. Ltd., restraining a Delhi-based trader from manufacturing and selling counterfeit 'Hero Genuine Oil' bottles that infringed the company's registered trademarks and bottle designs.

Title: X v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1446

The Delhi High Court has ordered that if any case is wrongly marked to a Court lacking jurisdiction before the trial courts, the file must be returned to the concerned Principal District & Sessions Judge for its fresh allocation.

Title: RENEW WIND ENERGY (AP2) PVT. LTD v. SOLAR ENERGY CORPORATION OF INDIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1447

The Delhi High Court has observed that the briefing lawyers and law firms must verify the case laws before citing them, highlighting that relying on decisions which are under review may mislead adjudicatory process.

Case Title: Spice Jet v Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1448

The Delhi High Court ruled that international workers employed in Indian companies, who are not covered by a social security scheme in their home country, must enroll in and contribute to the Employees' Provident Fund. The court rejected claims that this requirement was discriminatory or unconstitutional.

Title: Ronak Khatri v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1449

The Delhi High Court directed the Delhi Police to expedite the request made by Ronak Khatri, former President of Delhi University Students' Union (DUSU), for police protection over allegations of extortion threat by Rohit Godara gang.

Case Title: Lotus Herbals Private Limited v. Lotus Beauty Salon Private Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1450

The Delhi High Court has restrained a beauty salon from using the name “Lotus Salon” or any mark deceptively similar to Lotus, a popular personal care and cosmetics brand, observing that there was prima facie evidence of trademark infringement and passing off.

Case Title: Mohammad Talha v. M/s Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1451

The Delhi High Court ruled that while the marks “Karim's” and “Gulshan-e-Karim” are similar, a complete ban on the latter's use would be excessive. The Court has allowed a Moradabad-based restaurant to continue using its name, provided it clearly states that it has no connection with the iconic Karim's chain in Delhi.

Title: DR. ADITYA SEHRAWAT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1452

The Delhi High Court has said that it is “inundated with petitions” on a daily basis filed by personnel in paramilitary forces challenging their transfers.

Title: PARAG PRAKASH RUDRANGI v. STATE & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1453

The Delhi High Court has observed that the character of a victim, "no matter how blemished, cannot be weaponised against her to imply consent" in rape cases.

Title: RAJAT SHARMA & ANR v. TAMARA DOC & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1454

The Delhi High Court ordered takedown of two YouTube channels hosting and circulating deepfake and fabricated videos using personality rights of senior journalist Rajat Sharma.

Title: DEEPAK SRIVASTAV v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1455

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of a standing order issued by the Director General (Prisons) mandating one-year “watch period” before being eligible to be released on furlough on their return to jail after dismissal of their conviction appeals.

Title: Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1456

The Delhi High Court delivered split verdict in the plea moved by jailed Jammu and Kashmir MP Engineer Rashid challenging costs imposed on him by a trial court while granting him custody parole to attend the Parliament.

Case Title: A Range Gowda v. Bima Sugam India Federation & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1457

The Delhi High Court has stayed a Single Judge's order that had directed the transfer of the domain names www.bimasugam.com and www.bimasugam.in to the Bima Sugam India Federation, pending the outcome of a trademark dispute with A. Range Gowda, a private individual and insurance agent.

Title: PJ v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1458

The Delhi High Court has ordered administrative inquiry action against two judicial officers of the national capital for their alleged role in influencing a young lawyer for influencing and coercing her to retract her allegations in a rape case filed against a lawyer.

Title: LOKINDER SINGH PHOUGAT v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1459

The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea filed by a lawyer seeking to contest elections of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana.

Title: NEHA MALAV v. DEAN (ADMISSIONS BRANCH), UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1460

The Delhi High Court has observed that it cannot pass a mandamus compelling a University to conduct a fresh round of counselling in its admission process.

Title: ARKA BHATTACHARYA v. STATE

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1461

The Delhi High Court has observed that the grant of transit bail is a short lived safeguard whose effect ceases when the jurisdiction of the competent court is invoked.

Title: AANCHAL AND ANR v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1462

The Delhi High Court has observed that inter caste unions are in the national interest and must be protected from familial or communal interference.

Title: Jaya Bachchan v. Bollywood Bubble & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1463

The Delhi High Court passed an interim order protecting the personality rights of actor and Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) Jaya Bachchan

Case Name : Union of India & Anr. vs. Amit Kumar Yadav & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1464

A Division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain held that administrative delay in the employees' joining created a shortfall in their qualifying service for promotion. Hence the employees were eligible for promotion as the delay was attributable to the administrative process of UOI and not to any fault of the officers themselves.

Case Title: DAZN Limited & Anr. v. 9GOALS.IO & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1465

The Delhi High Court has restrained 26 websites from illegally streaming live matches of the ongoing 'Serie A Championship', after finding that they were broadcasting the content without authorization from DAZN Limited which is the exclusive rights holder of the sporting event.

Case Title : Mankind Pharma Limited v. De Harbien Life Sciences Private Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1466

The Delhi High Court has restrained De Harbien Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., a pharmaceutical company, from using the marks “NEFROKIND” and “SILOKIND.” The Court found these marks deceptively similar to Mankind Pharma Limited's well-known trademarks “MANKIND,” “KIND,” and other “KIND” formative marks.

Case Title: Capital Foods Private Limited v. KRS Multipro Private Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1467

In yet another order granting relief to Ching's Secret sauces maker Capital Foods Pvt. Ltd., the Delhi High Court has once again stepped in to protect the company's trademark “Schezwan Chutney.”

Case Title: ITC Limited & Anr v. Bukhara Inn

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1468

The Delhi High Court has restrained a city based hotel, Bukhara Inn, from using the name “Bukhara,” ruling that it infringed ITC Limited's well-known trademark associated with its iconic restaurant, Bukhara, at ITC Maurya, New Delhi.

Case Title: Dabur India Limited v. Patanjali Ayurved Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1469

The Delhi High Court has barred Patanjali Ayurved from airing an advertisement that labeled all other Chyawanprash products as “dhoka” (deception), ruling that it constitutes commercial disparagement. The restriction will remain in place until the next hearing on February 26, 2026.

Case Title: Techsync v. The Superintendent of Customs SIIB ACC Imports and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1470

The Delhi High Court has directed the CBIC (Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs) to conduct inter-ministerial consultation in respect of coming up with a uniform policy permitting or prohibiting the import of products declared as 'body massagers' or sex toys.

Case Title: INSTITUTE OF HUMAN BEHAVIOUR AND ALLIED SCIENCES (IHBAS) versus MI2C SECURITIES AND FACILITIES PVT LTD

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1471

The Delhi High Court held that a clerical or typographical error in the title of an arbitral award can be corrected even after 30 day limitation period provided under section 33 of the Arbitration Act if the mistake originated from the tribunal itself and not from the parties.

Case title: M/s Vedanta Ltd v. ACIT Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1472

In granting relief to Vedanta Limited, the Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the the Income Tax Department for initiation of reassessment action against the Copper manufacturer, over alleged fraudulent availment of Input tax credit worth over ₹424 Crore.

Title: MOHAMED ALI JINNAH v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1473

The Delhi High Court has observed that an undertrial's desire to console ailing parents, is not, by itself, a ground for emergent parole under the Delhi Prison Rules.

Title: MEHMOOD PRACHA v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1474

The Election Commission of India (ECI) informed the Delhi High Court that the CCTV footage of Lok Sabha Elections 2024 is not longer in the custody of the seven District Election Officers (DEOs) in the national capital as the same stands destroyed.

Justice Mini Pushkarna took the statement on record and disposed of an application filed by Advocate Mehmood Pracha last year, seeking preservation of the video footage.

Case title: Munna Lal Yadav v. Department Of Empowerment Of Persons With Disabilities & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1475

The Delhi High Court has held that recommendations of the Chief Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities (CCPwD) have to be generally followed by the government authorities.

Case Title: Ravi Mohan Studios Private Limited vs Indospirit Beverages Private Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1476

The Delhi High Court refused to stay the operation of a single-judge order that had restrained actor Ravi Mohan's production house from using the title 'BRO CODE' for its upcoming Tamil film, following a trademark dispute with Indospirit Beverages Private Limited, the maker of the alcoholic beverage 'BROCODE'.

Case title: Manmohan Gaind v. Negolice India Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1477

The Delhi High Court has held that Post-Dated Cheques (PDCs), issued as security for financial liability, can mature into an actual outstanding liability, thus attracting provisions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, if dishonoured.

Title: Upendra Nath Dalai v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1478

The Delhi High Court rapped a litigant for repeatedly filing petitions challenging certain provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, despite dismissal of his earlier pleas seeking similar reliefs.

Case: AMRIT KAUR v. ASI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1479

The Delhi High Court has directed the authorities to consider a complaint alleging illegal encroachment near the Qutub Minar complex in Delhi's Mehrauli area.

Case Name : Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Railways vs. Sh. R.K. Mittal

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1480

A Division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav held that non-supply of the inquiry officer's report to the delinquent employee before imposition of penalty vitiates the disciplinary proceedings unless the employer provides valid justification for such omission.

Title: Shujaat Ali v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1481

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking a free and fair probe into three FIRs registered overI love Muhammad” posters displayed by individuals in Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh on the occasion of Milad-un-Nabi, commemorating the birth and passing of the Prophet.

Case title: Kemexel Ecommerce Pvt. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii / Avato Ward 105, Zone 4, Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1482

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Section 61(2) of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 bars further action against an assessee, including any demand under Section 73.

Case title: XY v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1483

The Delhi High Court has prima facie observed that an informer, who apprises the Department about evasion of goods and services tax by an entity, cannot seek reward for sharing such information as a matter of right.

Title: KAILASH WATI v. STATE OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1484

The Delhi High Court has directed the State Authorities to frame rules to cater to situations where convicts are unable to surrender even after lapse of the period of release on parole or furlough, due to being incapacitated by virtue of their health or age.

Delhi High Court Raps Income Tax Dept For Over Two-Year Delay In Implementing ITAT Order; Directs Refund With Interest Within One Month

Case title: Santosh Kumar Suri v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1485

The Delhi High Court criticized the Income Tax Department for an over 2-year delay in implementing an ITAT order, directing it to reconsider the demand raised against an assessee.

Title: PJ v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1486

The Delhi High Court granted extension of time to surrender to a lawyer whose anticipatory bail was cancelled over allegations of raping a young woman advocate.

Case title: Gameloft Software Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax, Range 152 & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1487

The Delhi High Court has called upon the Goods and Services Tax Department to expeditiously process the refund applications filed by registered persons/ entities.

Title: SMT. RAJESH RATHI v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1488

The Delhi High Court has observed that while child care leave (CCL) granted to women government employees is not an entitlement but the same cannot be denied arbitrarily or mechanically.

Case title: Abid v. State (and connected matters)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1489

The Delhi High Court has held that ocular evidence, duly corroborated by medical evidence, is sufficient for a murder conviction, even if the motive of the crime is not fully established.

Case Title: Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd vs American Dream 11 Fantasy Sports Private Limited and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1490

The Delhi High Court has directed American Dream 11, a US-based fantasy gaming company, to take down or block all its social media pages and profiles that allegedly infringe the trademark Dream11 on platforms such as Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), LinkedIn, and Instagram.

Case Title – Renew Wind Energy (Ap2) Pvt Ltd v. SECI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1491

In a noteworthy judgment for the renewable energy sector, the Delhi High Court has observed that the power of Central Electricity Commission (“CERC”) under Section 79(1)(f), Electricity Act to refer parties to arbitration is wider than its power to adjudicate.

Title: RAJIV SAREEN v. M/S DIVYANSHU ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1492

The High Court of Delhi, while clarifying the limits of the jurisdictional bar under section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, has held that a civil suit seeking cancellation of a registered Sale Deed is maintainable before a civil court, even where the property is simultaneously subject to proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The ruling reinforces that DRTs cannot adjudicate disputes concerning the validity or cancellation of registered conveyances, which continue to lie exclusively within the domain of civil courts.

Case title: M/s Mathur Polymers v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1493

The Delhi High Court has held that under Section 169(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, a communication sent to an email address provided at the time of GST registration is adequate service of a decision, order, summons or notice or any other communication.

Delhi High Court Restrains Manufacture, Sale of Glucose Test Strips Copying Chinese Company Sinocare

Case Title: Changsha Sinocare Inc & Anr v. Mr. Rajesh Kumar & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1494

The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained several Indian firms from manufacturing, marketing, or selling blood glucose test strips or any other medical devices under the brand names “Safe AQ” and “Safe Accu”, after Chinese medical device maker Changsha Sinocare Inc. raised objection.

Case title: Sunil Kumar Gupta v. Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1495

The Delhi High Court has clarified that a traveller, whose goods are seized by the Customs, is not liable to pay a redemption fine or penalty for the release of goods if the Department failed to issue a show cause notice within the statutory timeframe.

Case title: Raj Kumar Gupta v. UoI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1496

The Delhi High Court slammed a trader, allegedly involved in clandestine manufacture of pan masala to evade tax and recovery of ₹70 lakh from his premises, for his failure to cooperate in the probe.

Case title: Devender Singh v. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax, Delhi West

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1497

The Delhi High Court has held that where fraudulent availment of tax by a fake firm comes to light, penalties can be imposed on the person behind the bogus operations.

Case title: M/S Shiva Enterprises v. Principal Commissioner, Department Of Trade And Taxes, GNCTD

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1498

In an unusual turn of events at the Delhi High Court, an “innocuous” petition filed by a trader seeking cancellation of its GST registration unravelled fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit worth lakhs.

Case title: M/S Swarn Cosmetics (India) v. Union Of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1499

The Central Goods and Services Tax Department recently explained to the Delhi High Court the process its officers follow when uploading any show cause notice or order on the GST portal. The explanation was tendered in response to a plea filed before the Court, challenging the legality of a demand order on the ground that the impugned SCN and the impugned order were not duly signed either physically or digitally.

Delhi High Court Permanently Bars Lubricant Maker From Using Castrol-Like Trademarks And Packaging

Case Title: Castrol Limited & Ors v MR Ali Hussain Amir Ali Namdar & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1500

The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained ZRH Lubes, an automative lubricant maker from using marks such as CREMESTROL, ACTION, MADMAXX ACTION logo, and packaging, after finding them deceptively similar to Castrol Limited's registered trademarks and trade dress.

Case title: Toshniwal Electricals Pvt Ltd Through Its Director Mukund Maheshwari v. The Principal Commissioner Of Central Tax Delhi North & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1501

The Delhi High Court has held that the Courts must, while dealing with cases involving fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit, balance the interest of trader with that of burden on State exchequer due to tax evasion.

Case Title: Jiostar India Private Limited v. Cricfy TV & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1502

The Delhi High Court has ordered several rogue mobile apps and websites to stop illegally streaming the upcoming South Africa and New Zealand cricket tours of India, protecting Jiostar India's exclusive broadcast rights. The injunction will remain in force until March 3, 2026.

Title: DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT THROUGH DEPUTY DIRECTOR v. POONAM MALIK & other connected matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1503

The Delhi High Court slammed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for freezing bank accounts of a woman on mere suspicion, while setting aside the agency's orders calling them “cryptic” in nature.

The Delhi High Court has allowed BSNL (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited) to belatedly challenge the Rs. 12,63,01,812/- imposed upon it by the Customs Department for misdeclaration of imported goods.

Title: DIDAR SINGH & ANR v. STATE (GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1505

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of a husband and a son for murdering a woman by setting her on fire, holding that her dying declarations were consistent, voluntary and free from suspicion.

Case title: C.H. Robinson Worldwide Freight India Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner, Cgst-Delhi-South & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1506

The Delhi High Court has held that the time limit set out under 73(2) of the Goods and Services Tax Act for issuance of show cause notice in relation to alleged short payment of tax, etc. is mandatory in nature, and cannot be excused on account of technical glitches on GST portal.

Case title: Mala Sahni Seth & Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1507

The Delhi High Court has prima facie observed that the Delhi Development Authority cannot levy GST on conversion of property from leasehold to freehold.

Case title: GMG Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. v. Directorate General Of GST Intelligence HQ & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1508

The Delhi High Court refused to interfere with an order passed by the Principal Additional Director General, Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) provisionally attaching the bank accounts of a trader.

Case Name: Puneet Batra vs. UOI & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1509

The Delhi High Court has issued notice in the application by the GST Department seeking the handing over of the parsed hard drives of the seized Central Processing Unit (CPU) of an advocate, which is in possession of the IT Officers of the Court, for further examination.

In doing so, the Court has instructed the presence of representatives from both sides, including a Court officer, and directed the submission of parsed data and hard drives to the Court.

Case title: M/S IMS Mercantiles Ltd v. Union Of India & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1510

The Delhi High Court criticised the GST Department for demanding tax on the total turnover of a company, despite figures of the actual sales being available with it.

Case title: Sushil Sharma v. Commissioner Of Customs [Export]

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1511

The Delhi High Court refused to show any leniency to two employees of a Customs House Clearing Agent (CHA), found involved in smuggling of cigarettes worth Rs.3,40,74,000/-.

Case title: Varian Medical Systems International India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1512

The Delhi High Court has quashed the Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued to a company before conducting audit, holding that the authorities violated principles of natural justice by issuing the SCN before expiry of time granted to respond to the pre-SCN.

Case: CHRISTIAN MICHEL JAMES V/s UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1513

The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a petition filed by AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scam accused Christian Michel, challenging Article 17 of the India-UAE extradition treaty, executed back in the year 1999.

Case Title – MTNL v M/s Motorola Inc.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1514

The Delhi High Court allowing a Section 37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) appeal filed by MTNL against an arbitral award passed in favour of Motorola amounting to ~USD 8,768,505 has revived a 17-year-old between the parties.

Case Title: Gautam Khaitan v Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1515

The Delhi High Court has upheld the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) provisional attachment of properties belonging to lawyer Gautam Khaitan, rejecting his challenge to the action in the AgustaWestland VVIP helicopter deal.

Case title: Manoj Kumar Nagar v. The Principal Commissioner Of Customs & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1516

Stating that Customs Brokers have a significant responsibility under the Customs Act, the Delhi High Court refused to waive the pre-deposit for appeal by certain Customs Housing Agents against ₹30 crore penalty imposed upon them over import fraud.

Order Merely Issuing Notice on Interim Injunction Not Appealable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Perpetual Vision LLP & Anr. v. Vaibhav S Pingal & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1517

The Delhi High Court reaffirmed that an order merely issuing notice on an application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) does not constitute an appealable order under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Case Title: FMC Corporation & Ors. v. Natco Pharma Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1518

The Delhi High Court dismissed an application by FMC Corporation seeking to restrain Natco Pharma Limited from manufacturing and selling its insecticidal product “Cyantraniliprole 10.26% OD.”

Case Title: Saregama India Limited v. En.ssyou.tube & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1519

The Delhi High Court has restrained several online sites that facilitate “stream-ripping” (illegal downloading) of music, barring them from downloading, reproducing, or distributing copyrighted songs and recordings owned by Saregama India Limited. The injunction will remain in effect until February 27, 2026.

Case title: Mohd Yahya & Ors v. Farat Ara & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1520

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the rights conferred upon a landlord under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 cannot be waived off by entering into a private contract/ agreement with the tenant.

Case title: M/S Ec Constructions P Ltd v. Neeraj Zutshi And Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1521

The Delhi High Court has cautioned the lawyers that the “courtesy” of passover or adjournment granted to them during proceedings should not be construed as a “right”.

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1522

The Delhi High Court observed that adjudication in child custody matters cannot turn on “unproven imputations of moral conduct” by one parent on another.

Case title: ABP Pvt Ltd v. ITC Hotels Ltd & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1523

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeals preferred by ABP Pvt Ltd, publisher of The Telegraph, in a defamation case filed by ITC Hotels back in 2004.

Tariff During Registration Was To Remain Fixed For 25 Years; CSPDCL Waived Its Rights: Delhi High Court Allows IREDA's Appeal Over GBI Scheme

Case Title – IREDA v Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1524

The Delhi High Court Bench of Chief Justice and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela has observed that under the Generation Based Incentive Scheme (GBI) Scheme, 2010 by Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, the tariff at the time of registration of project would remain constant for a period of 25 years and any upward revision of tariff by State Electricity Regulatory Commissions (“SERC”) from back date shall not be counted. The Court denied relief to Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co Ltd. in its dispute with IREDA in relation to the GBI Scheme.

Delhi High Court Bars Former Distributor from Selling CREED Perfume, Awards Rs 37.42 Lakh in Damages

Case Title: Fontaine Limited v. Berkeley Beauty Brands Private Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1525

The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favor of Fontaine Limited, owner of the luxury perfume brand CREED, restraining a former distributor from selling CREED products or using the CREED trademark after the expiry of their distribution agreement.

'Friction In Wheels Of Justice': Delhi High Court Frowns Upon 38-Year Delay In Will Case, Grants Letters Of Administratio

Case title: V. Prabha & Ors. v. State & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1526

The Delhi High Court disposed of a 38-year-old Will dispute, remarking that the case exemplifies the “friction” in the wheels of justice, against which the Supreme Court had cautioned in Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi and Others (2023).

Case title: Myratgeldi Mammedov v. Union Of India & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1527

The Delhi High Court refused to entertain the writ petition moved by a Turkmenistan national, alleging that the Indian Customs Department had illegally arrested him in connection with alleged gold smuggling back in 2018.

Title: NADEEM v. STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1528

The Delhi High Court has observed that the minimum one year imprisonment criteria for being eligible for parole under the Delhi Prison Rules is not absolute and can be relaxed in special circumstances like filing SLP against conviction before the Apex Court.

Case Title: Aqualite Industries Private Ltd v. Relaxo Footwears Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1529

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Aqualite Industries Pvt. Ltd. and upheld the interim injunction granted by a Single Judge restraining Aqualite from manufacturing and selling slippers alleged to infringe Relaxo Footwears Ltd.'s registered designs.

Case title: Crest Digitel Private Limited v. DMRC & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1530

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal preferred by a company, initially entrusted to provide mobile and network connectivity for Delhi Airport Metro Express Line, against its replacement by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation.

Title: T.V. TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. GOOGLE LLC & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1531

The Delhi High Court has granted permanent injunction in favour of Anjana Om Kashyap, anchor and Senior Managing Editor of Aaj Tak news channel, in her suit against a “fake” YouTube channel using her news clipping, videos and deepfake impersonations.

Title: ISHA FOUNDATION v. GOOGLE LLC & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1532

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by YouTuber Shyam Meera Singh to file documents regarding alleged victims of rape and their families to support his defence in the defamation suit filed by Isha Foundation, founded by spiritual leader Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev.

Title: FARMAN v. THE STATE OF NCT DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1533

The Delhi High Court has flagged “serious concerns” over allegations of custodial assault and extortion inside city's Mandoli jail, made by an undertrial prisoner.

Case Title: Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr v. Hari Shankar Bilwal

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1534

The Delhi High Court has restrained a Jaipur hotel from using marks featuring a polo player device that were found to be deceptively similar to the well-known Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) logo. The ex-parte ad-interim injunction will remain in force until February 02, 2026.

Title: ABC v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1535

The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a lawyer for standing outside his residence without a mask during the COVID-19 lockdown in April 2020.

Title: PAWAN MALIK v. UNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1536

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by an Indian national challenging the Union government's decision to initiate a magisterial inquiry into Canada Government's request seeking his extradition for an alleged hit-and-run case that caused a pedestrian's death.

Case title: Commissioner of Customs v. Ravi Dhanwariya

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1537

The Delhi High Court has ordered forfeiture of ₹2,00,000/- out of the ₹5 lakh security deposit made by a Customs Broker at the time of obtaining license, citing allegations of duty drawback fraud against it.

Title: TAEKWONDO FEDERATION OF INDIA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1538

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Union Sports Ministry cannot act as a mere “rubber stamp” to grant recognition of National Sports Federation (NSF) to any entity or body “handpicked” by an International Federation.

Title: Sanyukt Ahir Regiment Morcha & Ors v. Union of India & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1539

The Delhi High Court allowed the pan India theatrical release of Farhan Akhtar starrer movie “120 Bahadur” based on the Battle of Rezang La in 1962.

Case Title: SignatureGlobal (India) Limited v. Ashok Kumar & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1540

The Delhi High Court has granted ad-interim relief to real estate developer SignatureGlobal (India) Limited, restraining the operator of 'signatureglobal.com' from using the impugned domain or any online platform that impersonates the company.

Case Name: Aadhar India vs. The Additional Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1541

The Delhi High Court, while examining whether pre-consultation prior to a GST Show Cause Notice was mandatory or discretionary, granted interim relief to Aadhar India by permitting the proceedings arising from the Show Cause Notice dated 29 November 2024 to continue, but directing that any final order passed pursuant thereto should not be given effect without further orders of the Court.

Case title: Manish Sharma v. Additional Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1542

The Delhi High Court imposed exemplary costs of ₹5 lakh on the power of attorney holder of a company, purportedly involved in smuggling of prohibited items like poppy seeds.

Case title: H.G. International v. The Commissioner Of Trade And Taxes, Delhi (and batch)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1543

The Delhi High Court has quashed a batch of VAT assessment orders issued by VAT Audit Officer, stating that the authority did not have necessary delegation to carry out assessments.

Case title: Mrs Pawanjot Kaur Sawhney v. Union Of India And Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1545

The Delhi High Court has held that an economic offender's plea to travel abroad citing medical grounds is not tenable when appropriate treatment is readily available in India.

Case Title: SanDisk LLC v. M/S. Welborn Industries Private Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1546

The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of SanDisk LLC, the global flash-storage manufacturer, after Welborn Industries Pvt. Ltd., an Indian electronics company that sells memory-storage products, agreed to permanently discontinue packaging that SanDisk said copied the distinctive red-and-black trade dress of its USB drives and SD cards.

Case title: Vijender Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1547

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that there can be no discrimination between persons with locomotor disability and those with hearing impairment.

Case title: Om Prakash v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1548

The Delhi High Court has held that mere lack of care is not sufficient to attract the offence of causing death by negligence under Section 304A of IPC and mens rea is an important element to invite culpability.

Case title: BSES Yamuna Power Limited v. Bhagwanti & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1549

The Delhi High Court has directed BSES Yamuna Power Limited, responsible for power distribution in the national capital, to supply electricity to properties booked for unauthorised construction, until MCD takes actual action against such properties.

Title: PRINCE KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1550

The Delhi High Court has observed that Courts cannot create exceptions for “near majority consensual relationships” when consent of a person below the age of 18 years is irrelevant for the purpose of POCSO Act.

Title: RAJ SHAMANI & ANR v. JOHN DOE/ ASHOK KUMAR & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1551

The Delhi High Court has passed a john doe order protecting the personality rights of podcaster Raj Shamani, observing that he is a known face in India, especially in the field of content creation.

Case Title: TCNS CLOTHING COMPANY LIMITED versus SUNIL KUMAR & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1552

The Delhi High Court held that a dispute arising from a lease agreement under which premises were used actually used for running a retail showroom qualifies as a commercial dispute under section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 even if the property is situated in a residential zone under the Municipal Law.

Case title: Mohd Umar v. State (NCT of Delhi)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1553

The Delhi High Court allowed the plea of a man, convicted for cheque dishonour, to set off the amount recovered from him in a civil suit relating to the same cheques, against the compensation to be paid in the criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881.

Title: APEKSHITA KALA & ANR v. DISTRICT MEDICAL BOARD & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1554

The Delhi High Court has observed that the district medical boards under the Surrogacy Regulations, 2023, need not insist on physical presence of the intending couple.

Case title: Anil Singh v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1555

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that once cognizance of an offence has been taken and the accused placed in Column No.12 (suspect) of the chargesheet is not summoned, he cannot be summoned subsequently without there being any additional evidence on record.

Case title: Anoop Kumar Garg v. The Commissioner Of Customs (Imports)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1556

The Delhi High Court has held that an amount deposited with the Customs under protest, during investigation by the Department, can be adjusted towards pre-deposit to be made when filing appeal against its order.

Delhi High Court Allows 'Nourish You' To Use Its Registered Name, Sets Aside Injunction

Case Title: Nutrivative Foods Private Limited v. B.L. Agro Industries Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1557

The Delhi High Court has overturned a Commercial Court order that had temporarily barred superfoods maker Nutrivative Foods Pvt. Ltd. from using its “Nourish You” mark, holding that the injunction violated the statutory protections granted to a registered trademark owner under the Trade Marks Act.

Case Name: Sakshi Goyal Proprietor of MIS Parshavnath Industries vs. Principal Commissioner CGST

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1558

The Delhi High Court, in a matter concerning retrospective cancellation of registration despite having amended place of business, directed “The GST Department may re-inspect the new premises of the Petitioner and obtain a physical inspection report.”

Wife's Belated Criminal Allegations Can't Outweigh Husband's Consistent Evidence Of Cruelty: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1559

The Delhi High Court has observed that a wife's belated criminal allegations cannot detract from or outweigh the husband's consistent evidence of sustained cruelty meted out to him.

Case title: State v. Bimla (and connected matter)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1560

The Delhi High Court has cancelled the bail granted to two women allegedly involved in large-scale inter-state child trafficking racket, facilitating sale and purchase of new-born infants for monetary gain.

Case title: Mujahat Ali Khan v. Lokpal of India Through Under Secretary

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1561

The Delhi High Court has held that Lokpal of India, pursuant to its powers under Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013, cannot order an investigation against a public servant without affording him an opportunity of hearing.

Case Title: National Building Construction Corporation vs Sharma Enterprises

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1562

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that an arbitrator is the master of both the quantity and quality of evidence, and therefore the court, while exercising appeal or supervisory jurisdiction, cannot reappreciate factual findings recorded in an arbitral award.

Case title: M/s RBC Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. UoI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1563

The Delhi High Court has set aside the demand raised against a stock broker, noting that both the show cause notice as well as the final order were bereft of any reasons, disabling the broker to make effective representation.

Title: Gautam Gambhir Foundation & Ors v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1564

The Delhi High Court allowed a plea filed by Indian cricket team head coach Gautam Gambhir, his foundation and its members seeking quashing of a case involving allegations of hoarding and unlicensed distribution of drugs during the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic.

Title: DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT v. AMLENDU PANDEY (D) THROUGH LR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1565

The Delhi High Court clarified that Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) does not restrict the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to conduct searches only at the premises of persons who have been named in the prosecution complaint.

Title: JASIR BILAL WANI @ DANISH v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1566

The Delhi High Court refused to pass urgent order permitting Jasir Bilal Wali, co-accused in the case concerning the recent Red Fort blast, to meet with his lawyer in the NIA headquarters.

Case title: Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Service Tax DGST Delhi v. Global Opportunities Private Limited Through Its Authorized Representative

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1567

The Delhi High Court has held that foreign education consultancy services to students in exchange for admission based commission from foreign universities qualify as 'export of services'.

Delhi High Court Grants Relief to Anantara Hotel Chain, Bars 'Club Anantara' From Using Its Mark

Case Title: MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte Ltd & Ors. v. Club Anantara Suites and Retreat & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1568

The Delhi High Court has restrained Club Anantara Suites and Retreat from using the marks “Anantara”, “Club Anantara” and related domain names after finding them deceptively similar to the trademarks of the luxury ANANTARA hotel chain.

Case title: Delhi Sales Corporation v. The Principal Commissioner Of Central Tax & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1569

The Delhi High Court allowed Delhi Sales Corporation to deposit pre-SCN penalty contemplated under Section 74(5) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, despite issuance of show cause notice under Section 74(8).

Title: AIIMS v. DR. SANJAY KUMAR YADAV & ORS & other connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1570

The Delhi High Court has held that the All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) is obligated to pay stipend payments to Indian Junior Residents and not the foreign-national postgraduate medical trainees.

Case title: Grid Solutions SAS v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1571

The Delhi High Court found time-barred, an income tax reassessment notice generated by the Department on the last day of the limitation window but, issued to the assessee only a day after.

Case Title: Ferrero Spa & Ors. v. Abhimanyu Prakash & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1572

The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained Firozabad-based glass manufacturers from making and selling empty glass jars found to be deceptively similar to the registered Nutella jar shape used by Ferrero Spa, the maker of Nutella spreads.

Title: PIARE KHAN v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1573

The Delhi High Court has held that delay in filing complaint is no ground to deny relief to the senior citizens under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

Case title: Inder Dev Gupta v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 2-Delhi (and batch)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1574

The Delhi High Court has held that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) have jurisdiction to issue reassessment notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

'Sum' U/S 31(7)(b) A&C Act Excludes Pendente Lite Interest Unless Expressly Included: Delhi High Court In Award Execution Plea Against BSNL

Case Title – BWL Limited (formerly known as Bhilaw Wires Ltd.) v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1575

The Delhi High Court held that if pre-award or pendente lite interest is not added to the principal amount in an arbitral award or on appeal, then post-award interest under Section 31(7)(b) cannot be charged on it.

The Delhi High Court upheld the 2021 conviction of former Delhi Police ASI Tara Dutt for offering ₹50,000 bribe to a judge of the Tis Hazari Courts,­ so as to secure a job (peon at Delhi district courts) for one of the co-accused, Mukul Kumar.

Delhi High Court Upholds Divorce, Says Wife's Claim Of 'Not Recalling' Overnight Stays With Another Man Invites Judicial Suspicion

Case title: KA v. SA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1577

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal preferred by a wife, challenging the divorce decree passed over her alleged extra marital relationship with two men.

Delhi High Court Protects 'Aaj Tak' Mark, Restrains News Agencies From Using It In Source Code And Meta Tags

Case Title: Living Media India Limited and Anr v. Amar Ujala Limited and Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1578

The Delhi High Court restrained Amar Ujala and News18 from using the trademark 'Aaj Tak' in their website source code or as meta tags, after both companies informed the Court that they had already removed the infringing links and did not wish to contest the trademark suit filed by Living Media India Ltd, owner of the Aaj Tak news brand.

Delhi High Court Restrains Cosmetic Company From Copying Visage Beauty's O3+ Facial Kits Packaging And Mark

Case Title: Visage Beauty and Healthcare Private Limited v. Freecia Professional India Private Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1579

In a clash over look-alike facial kits, the Delhi High Court has granted Visage Beauty an interim injunction restraining Freecia Professional India from copying its packaging layout, usage instructions, ingredients text and from using the trademark 'DERMOMELAN'.

Voluntary Retirement Deemed Accepted If Not Rejected Within Stipulated Period; Subsequent Demand For Technical Resignation Invalid: Delhi HC

Case Name : Rajesh Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1580

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that voluntary retirement is deemed automatically accepted if not expressly rejected within the stipulated period, and any subsequent demand for technical resignation cannot override a retirement that has already taken effect.

Assessee Not Required To Prove “Source Of Source” Of Funds Credited Prior To Finance Act 2022: Delhi High Court

Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Delhi v. KRBL Infrastructure Ltd

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1581

The Delhi High Court has held that once the initial onus cast upon an assessee to show the genuineness of its creditors is duly discharged, the question as to whether the funds of the creditor were obtained through genuine purchases or not cannot be gone into by the Revenue.

Delhi High Court Protects 'Gold Flake' Mark Against Lookalike 'Gold Flame' and 'Gold Fighter' Cigarettes

Case Title: ITC Limited v. Pelican Tobacco Co Ltd & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1582

The Delhi High Court confirmed a temperory injunction restraining Pelican Tobacco Co. Ltd. from manufacturing or selling its “Gold Flame” and “Gold Fighter” cigarettes, holding that their packaging and marks were deceptively similar to ITC Limited's well-known “Gold Flake” brand.

Prevention Of Corruption Act | Unsolicited Offer Of Bribe Which Is Refused By Public Servant Constitutes Abetment: Delhi High Court

Case title: Tara Dutt v. State (and connected appeal)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1583

The Delhi High Court has held that an unsolicited offer of a bribe to a public servant constitutes the offence of abetment, punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, irrespective of whether there was a prior demand or subsequent acceptance.

Delhi High Court Upholds Registration Of 'Amritsar Haveli' Marks; Rejects Challenge By Haveli Restaurant

Case Title: Haveli Restaurant and Resorts Limited v. Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1584

The Delhi High Court has ruled that no restaurant can claim exclusive rights over the commonly used word “Haveli,” dismissing appeals by Haveli Restaurant and Resorts Ltd. and upholding the registration of the marks “Amritsar Haveli” and “The Amritsar Haveli” for food and restaurant services.

Delhi High Court Declares 'Hermès' And Its 'Birkin' Bag's 3-D Shape As Well-Known Trademarks In India

Case Title: Hermes International & Anr. v. Macky Lifestyle Private Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1585

The Delhi High Court recognised the three-dimensional shape of Hermès' iconic Birkin bag, along with the “Hermès” name and its stylised logos, as well-known trademarks in India.

'Infraction Of Natural Justice': Delhi High Court On One-Day Notice Given For Personal Hearing Against GST Demand

Case title: M/S Arjun Engineering Co. v. Additional Commissioner Of Goods And Service Tax, North Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1586

The Delhi High Court has said that granting mere one-day notice to an assessee for attending personal hearing with respect to proposed GST demands amounts of 'infraction' of natural justice.

Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rules Prescribing Different Retirement Ages For Officers Of Coast Guard Based On Rank

Case title: Cheeli J Ratnam v. Union Of India & Ors. (and batch)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1587

The Delhi High Court declared as unconstitutional Rule 20(1) and 20(2)1 of the Coast Guard (General) Rules, 1986 which prescribe rank-based superannuation age.

Delhi High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost On Senior Citizen Who Failed To Attend Personal Hearing Over ₹1.95 Crore GST Demand

Case title: M/S Ganga Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1588

The Delhi High Court has directed the Customs Department to grant one more opportunity to a septuagenarian woman, who failed to appear for personal hearing in connection with ₹1,95,11,160 demand raised against her firm.

Delhi HC Allows Time-Barred Appeal Against Customs' Confiscation Of Gold, Says Traveller Cannot Be Left Remediless Due To Wrong Legal Advice

Case title: Tarun Arora v. Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1589

The Delhi High Court allowed an air traveller to prefer a time-barred appeal against confiscation of gold by the Customs Department, upon his arrival from Thailand.

Property From Illegal Cricket Betting Activities Constitutes 'Proceeds Of Crime', Can Be Attached By ED: Delhi High Court

Case title: Naresh Bansal & Ors. v. Adjudicating Authority And Anr (and batch)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1590

The Delhi High Court has held that though cricket betting is not a separate predicate offence under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the property generated from such illegal activities can be attached by the Enforcement Directorate.

Delhi High Court Cancels Copyright For Edible Oil Label Bearing 'Swastik', Says It Copies Rajani Products' Artwork

Case Title: Rajani Products v. Madhukar Varandani, Proprietor Of M/S NaturalIndia Oils And Proteins & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1591

The Delhi High Court has cancelled a copyright registration granted for an edible oil label featuring a 'Swastik' device, holding that the artwork was a substantial reproduction of a label long used by Rajani Products, a manufacturer and seller of edible oils. Finding that the rival work lacked originality, the Court directed that the entry be expunged from the Register of Copyright.

Delhi High Court Clears 'SoEasy' Trademark For Hindi Learning Platform, Calls It Suggestive and Distinctive

Case Title: Ashim Kumar Ghosh v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1592

The Delhi High Court has overturned the Trade Marks Registrar's refusal to register the mark “SoEasy” for a Hindi learning and testing platform, holding that the phrase is suggestive rather than descriptive and is therefore capable of trademark protection. The Court directed the Registrar to process the application for registration.

S.110 Customs Act | Extension To Issue SCN Must Be Granted Before Expiry Of Initial Six-Month Period: Delhi High Court

Case title: Mohammad Rashid v. The Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1593

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the six-month extension contemplated under Section 110 of the Customs Act 1962 for issuance of a show cause notice after detention of goods by the Customs must be issued before expiry of the initial six-month window.

Delhi High Court Quashes Criminal Intimidation FIR After Settlement, Asks Accused To Pay ₹25K For Benefit Of Destitute Girls

Title: JATINDER PAL SINGH v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1594

The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR over allegations of hurt and criminal intimidation after the victim as well as the accused entered into a settlement agreement.

Statement Made Before Customs Officer U/S 108 Customs Act Over Goods Seizure Not Admissible In Evidence: Delhi High Court

Case title: Gulfam v. Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1595

The Delhi High Court has held that statements made by an assessee to the Customs Department under Section 108 of the Customs Act 1962, upon seizure of its goods, is not admissible as evidence in court of law.

Standard Of 'Reason To Believe' In Benami Act Is Stricter Than 'Reasonable Suspicion' Under BNSS: Delhi High Court

Case title: Shyamsundar Sharma v. ACIT/ Initiating Officer, Benami Prohibition Unit-2, Delhi & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1596

The Delhi High Court has held that the standard of 'reason to believe' prescribed under Section 24 of the Benami Act is higher than 'reasonable suspicion' under Section 35 of BNSS which empowers a police officer to arrest a person for alleged involvement in a cognizable offence.

Customs | Oral Waiver Of SCN Untenable In Law, Continued Detention Of Goods Illegal: Delhi High Court

Case title: Pavneet Oberoi v. The Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1597

The Delhi High Court has held that continued detention or seizure of goods by the Customs Department would be untenable in law, where the Show Cause Notice or the personal hearing have been waived via an oral waiver.

High Court Refuses To Restrain Delhi Race Club From Enforcing 'Family Unit' Cap In Horse Races

Title: RAVINDER PAL SINGH CHAUHAN v. DELHI RACE CLUB (1940) LTD AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1598

The Delhi High Court refused to pass an interim order restraining the Delhi Race Club from enforcing 'family unit' cap qua the number of horses for races for Delhi Meeting 2025-2026.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Rejection Of Medilabo's Patent For Neurodegenerative-Disease Drug

Case Title: Medilabo RFP Inc. v. The Controller Of Patents

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1599

The Delhi High Court has set aside a Patent Office order refusing Medilabo RFP's patent application for a pharmaceutical composition used in treating neurodegenerative diseases, holding that the authority rejected the application without examining the amended claims and without explaining how the invention fell within the bar on “methods of treatment” under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970.

Delhi High Court Protects Gaay Chhap Detergent, Restrains Use Of 'Gopal Gai Chhap' and 'Cow Brand' Marks

Case Title: Sunil Niranjan Shah v. Vijay Bahadur

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1600

The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction in favour of Gaay Chhap, a Kanpur-based detergent brand, restraining a Uttar Pradesh trader from using the marks “Gopal Gai Chhap” , “Cow Brand,” and similar labels for detergent soaps, cakes, and washing powders.

Any Interpretation Diluting Commercial Courts Act Defeats Its Purpose; No Leniency For Litigants Who Protract Proceedings: Delhi High Court

Case title: M/S Om Fire Safety Company Pvt Ltd v. Umakant

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1601

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Commercial Courts Act was enacted with a specific aim of expediting commercial disputes and the processes adopted by them can't be in such a casual manner, so as to convert them into general civil suit.

Delhi High Court Finds No Similarity Between 'OPAL' and 'SHEOPAL'S' Mark, Denies Injunction to OPAL Cosmetics

Case Title: Saurabh Gupta v. Sheopals Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1602

The Delhi High Court has upheld a Commercial Court order refusing interim injunction to cosmetics brand OPAL, holding that its mark is not deceptively similar to “SHEOPAL'S,” a mark used by Sheopals Pvt. Ltd. (SPL), which also manufactures beauty and wellness products.

Delhi High Court Imposes ₹50K Costs On Customs For “Harassing” Companies Importing Body Massagers

Case title: Techsync v. The Superintendent Of Customs Siib Acc Imports And Ors (and connected petition)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1603

The Delhi High Court has slammed the Customs Department for “unnecessarily harassing” two entities involved in import of body massagers.

GST Migration Not Taxpayer's Burden: Delhi HC Directs CESTAT To Hear Appeal After Pre-Deposit Was Made Under Excise Head Due To Portal Failure

Case Title: Navin Road Lines Vs. Assistant Registrar Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1604

The Delhi High Court has held that where the Service Tax portal had become non-functional after the migration to the GST regime, the taxpayer cannot be compelled to make the mandatory pre-deposit strictly under the Service Tax ledger for maintainability of an appeal. The Court observed that once the deposit has already gone to the Government exchequer under the Excise Head.

Delhi High Court Slams GST Authorities For 'Mechanically' Cancelling Registration Of BoAt's Parent Company

Case title: Imagine Marketing Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner Cgst Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1605

The Delhi High Court has slammed the GST authorities for cancelling the registration of Imagine Marketing Ltd., the parent company of smart wearables brand boAt, without considering the company's replies.

Delhi High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Litigant For Misusing Writ Jurisdiction To Stall DRT, NCLT Proceedings

Cause Title: Sanjeev Krishan Sharma v. Punjab National Bank and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1606

The Delhi High Court imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh on a litigant while dismissing his writ petition that sought to halt proceedings pending before two Debts Recovery Tribunals and the National Company Law Tribunal.

Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Tesla Inc, Extends Bar on Indian Company's Use of 'Tesla' Marks In EV Market

Case Title: Tesla Inc. v. Tesla Power India Private Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1607

The Delhi High Court on Monday granted relief to the U.S.-based electric vehicle company Tesla Inc. by directing that the undertaking earlier given by the India-based Tesla Power India Pvt. Ltd., stating that it will not manufacture or market electric vehicles or use any mark deceptively similar to 'Tesla' for EVs, shall continue until the trademark infringement suit is finally decided.

Settlement With Concessionaire Doesn't Erase NHAI's Role In Dispute: Delhi High Court Dismisses Substitution Petition

Case Title: NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA versus CFM ASSET RECONSTRUCTION PVT LTD & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1608

The Delhi High Court refused to interfere with an arbitral tribunal's order rejecting the plea of National Highways Authority of India's (NHAI) to substitute itself with a special purpose vehicle (SPV) in an ongoing arbitration initiated by CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. (CFM ARC).

Delhi High Court Rejects Philips' Plea For Perjury Action Against Ex-Employee In Software Piracy Case

Case Title: Koninklijke Philips N.V. & Ors. v. Karma Mindtech & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1609

The Delhi High Court has refused to initiate perjury proceedings against a former Philips employee, holding that Philips had not produced the kind of clear and unquestionable evidence required for criminal action. The ruling came in a copyright and trade secret dispute involving Philips' medical imaging software “IntelliSpace Portal” (ISP).

S.128A Customs Act | Six-Month Timeline To Decide Appeals Not Mandatory, But Must Apply Where Possible: Delhi High Court

Case title: Yatin Miglani v. Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1610

The Delhi High Court has held that though Section 128A(4A) of the Customs Act, 1962 prescribes that appeals “shall” be decided within six months, the timeline is applicable only where it is possible to do so.

Long-Pending GST Refund Appeals Hurt Businesses: Delhi High Court To Appellate Body

Case title: IDP Education India Private Limited v. Government Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1611

The Delhi High Court has observed that long pendency of GST appeals seeking tax refund can hurt financial front of businesses.

Delhi High Court Protects Personality Rights Of Actor Ajay Devgn, Orders Take Down Of Obscene Content

Title: AJAY ALIAS VISHAL VEERU DEVGAN v. THE ARTISTS PLANET & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1612

The Delhi High Court passed an interim order protecting the personality rights of bollywood actor Ajay Devgn.

Delhi High Court Upholds GST Notice Based On Income Tax Intelligence; Cautions Dept Against AI-Generated Fake Citations In SCN

Case Name: J M Jain Prop SH Jeetmal Choraria vs. UOI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1613

The Delhi High Court in a writ petition has upheld Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued by the GST Department which was based on an intelligence, by the Income Tax Department

Marketing For Foreign University Prima Facie Constitutes 'Export Of Services'; Entitled To GST Refund: Delhi High Court

Case title: Fateh Education Consulting Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Wazirpur & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1614

The Delhi High Court said that a private consultancy providing marketing services to a foreign university is prima facie covered by its decision in Delhi Goods and Service Tax DGST v. Global Opportunities Private Limited (2025).

Delhi High Court Quashes Patent Office Order, Sends Trident's 'Air Rich Yarn' Patent Plea Back For Review

Case Title: Trident Limited v. Controller Of Patents

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1615

The Delhi High Court has overturned a Patent Office decision that refused Trident Limited a patent for its “air rich” yarn and fabric technology. The court said the Patent Office failed to properly examine the key feature of the invention, which is the “homogeneous distribution of pores across the radial cross-section of yarn”, and had not correctly assessed obviousness under Indian patent law.

Delhi High Court Issues Directions To Strengthen RBI Ombudsman Complaint System, Calls For Safeguards To Avoid Misuse

Title: SARWAR RAZA v. OMBUDSMAN RBI & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1616

The Delhi High Court issued directions to strengthen the system to deal with customer complaints by Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Ombudsman.

Delhi High Court Declines To Return Plaint In Sun Pharma's Trademark Suit Against Artura, Says Cause Of Action Partly Arose In Delhi

Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Artura Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1617

The Delhi High Court has refused to return the plaint in a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., holding on a prima facie basis that part of the cause of action arose in Delhi through the defendant-Artura Pharmaceuticals' online presence.

Delhi High Court Cancels 'BLUE SPOT' Mark Of Local Spirits Company After Finding It Unused For Five Years

Case Title: Irish Distillers International Limited v. Stardford Spirits Pvt Ltd & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1618

The Delhi High Court has ordered the removal of the trademark “BLUE SPOT” registered to Stardford Spirits Pvt. Ltd.,a local spirits company after finding that the alcohol brand had not been used for more than five years.

Advancing Forensics Can Crack Cases Even After Decades, 'Never Too Late To Seek Truth': Delhi High Court Orders CBI Probe Into 2017 Death

Title: ANU DUGGAL v. STATE & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1619

The Delhi High Court has ordered Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe into death of a 23-year-old hotel manager in 2017, while flagging lapses in the investigation conducted by the Delhi Police.

Delhi High Court Condones Company's Delay In Filing GST Appeal On Ground Of Director's Illness

Case title: Ping Pong Global Limited Through Its Managing Director Siddhartha Jain v. Union Of India Through Joint Secretary & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1620

The Delhi High Court condoned the delay made by a company in challenging the GST demand of over ₹75 lakhs, on grounds of illness of its Director.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Condone 9-Month Delay By Assessee In Filing Revised Income Tax Return

Case title: Sanjay Khurana v. Income Tax Department Ministry Of Finance

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1621

The Delhi High Court has refused to condone a delay of 9-months by an assessee in filing his revised income tax return (ITR).

Courts Can Correct Manifest Computational Errors In Awards Without Re-Appraising Arbitrator's Reasoning: Delhi High Court

Case Title: JAGDISH KAUR versus JASBIR SINGH SANDHU & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1622

The Delhi High Court held that the courts under sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) possess limited but definite authority to correct manifest computation errors without reopening the merits of the case.

Delhi High Court Restrains Knam Foods From Using 'AL-BUSTAN' Rice Packaging, Terms It 'Slavish Copy'

Case Title: Amir Chand Jagdish Kumar Exports Ltd. v. Knam Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1623

The Delhi High Court has barred Knam Foods Pvt. Ltd. from using the “AL-BUSTAN” brand name and its blue-and-yellow rice packaging after finding that the company had “slavishly copied” the design, layout, Arabic script, and even the mobile number printed on the bags of rival rice exporter Amir Chand Jagdish Kumar Exports Ltd.

Delhi High Court Directs Tihar Jail Authorities To Provide Adequate Medical Treatment To Yasin Malik

Title: Yasin Malik v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1624

The Delhi High Court directed the Tihar Jail authorities to provide appropriate medical treatment to convicted Kashmiri separatist leader Yasin Malik sentenced to life imprisonment in a terror funding case.

'Factually Correct Reporting Not Defamation': Delhi High Court Quashes Case Against Journalist Nilanjana Bhowmick

Title: MS. NILANJANA BHOWMICK v. RAVI NAIR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1625

The Delhi High Court has quashed a defamation case filed against journalist Nilanjana Bhowmick over an article published in 2010 in the Times Magazine, observing that factually correct reporting cannot be termed as defamatory.

Delhi High Court Directs Judge To Undergo Training In Matrimonial Laws Citing 'Troubling Lack Of Legal Understanding'

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1626

The Delhi High Court has directed a family court judge to undergo an “appropriate and comprehensive refresher training program” in matrimonial laws, citing serious misapplication of law and by him while dealing with divorce cases.

Delhi High Court Rejects Woman's Claim Of Panchayati Divorce In Jat Community, Says Custom Must Be Strictly Proved

Case title: Sushma v. Rattan Deep & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1627

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that while Section 29 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 recognises customary divorce, the burden to prove prevalence of such a custom is heavy.

SFIO Probe No Bar To PMLA Proceedings: Delhi High Court Upholds ED's Provisional Attachment In ₹6000 Cr Forex Scam

Case title: Sanjay Aggarwal v. Union Of India & Ors (and connected matters)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1628

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that probe by Serious Fraud Investigation Office into the affairs of a company does not bar parallel proceedings under Prevention of Money Laundering Act.