Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 8 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 27NOMINAL INDEXBonanza Enterprises v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Customs & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 8 Aditya Kumar Mallick vs Union of India and Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 9 Mr. Pawan Gupta & Anr. vs. Miton Credentia Trusteeship Services Limited & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 10 Akhil Bhartiya Dharma Prasar Samiti v. UOI & Ors...
Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 8 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 27
NOMINAL INDEX
Bonanza Enterprises v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Customs & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 8
Aditya Kumar Mallick vs Union of India and Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 9
Mr. Pawan Gupta & Anr. vs. Miton Credentia Trusteeship Services Limited & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 10
Akhil Bhartiya Dharma Prasar Samiti v. UOI & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 11
FMI Limited vs. Midas Touch Metalloys Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 12
Rajeev Shukla vs. Gopal Krishna Shukla 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 13
Rajasthan Equestrian Association vs.Union Of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 14
Anahita Chaudhary Union Of India & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 15
SHWETA CHOWDHERY v. HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 16
MD HEYDAITULLAH v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 17
TEFCIL BREWERIES LIMITED v. ALFA LAVAL (INDIA) LIMITED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 18
ATS Township Pvt Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 1(1) Delhi & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 19
Abhishek Bansal v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 58(3), Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 21
Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India vs. Akshay Kumar Malhotra 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 22
Late Sh. Lal Chand Verma Through His Legal Heir v. Union Of India & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 23
Novartis Ag & Anr. vs. Natco Pharma Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 24
Amar Singh And Sons Tree Nuts LLP v. The Superintendent Of Customs, Epm, Import & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 25
Gautam Thadani v. Director Income Tax (Investigation) And Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 26
Sonansh Creations Pvt Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 27
Case title: Bonanza Enterprises v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Customs & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 8
The Delhi High Court recently called upon the Customs Department to make use of Section 153(c) of the Customs Act, 1962 which empowers it to serve notices through email.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Amit Sharma said such an approach will prevent delay and non-appearances, leading to expeditious disposal of matters.
Delhi High Court Rejects Plea Challenging CAT 2024 Results
Title: Aditya Kumar Mallick vs Union of India and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 9
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the results of Common Admission Test (CAT) 2024 for admissions in top management institutes.
Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju rejected the plea moved by a candidate, Aditya Kumar Mallick, who was aggrieved with an incorrect answer to Question No. 18 from Verbal Ability and Reading Comprehension Portion, thereby affecting the exam results.
Case Title: Mr. Pawan Gupta & Anr. vs. Miton Credentia Trusteeship Services Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 10
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has held that the Plaintiffs are not barred from availing the remedy under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 even against individual(s)/entities who are not party to the Family Settlement out of which the dispute arose.
The application for ad interim injunction was held to be not maintainable due to pending Arbitration proceedings in regard to the Family Settlement and a pending Application under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.
Title: Akhil Bhartiya Dharma Prasar Samiti v. UOI & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 11
The Delhi High Court has refused to pass directions to the Central Government on a petition seeking “comprehensive rehabilitation package” for Pakistan migrants who have obtained citizenship under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said that rehabilitation package was purely a matter of policy of the Government.
Case title: FMI Limited vs. Midas Touch Metalloys Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 12
The Delhi High Court has made a temporary injunction absolute in favour of the measuring tapes manufacturer, FMI Limited, against passing off of its 'INDI' tapes by a business dealing in identical goods.
The plaintiff FMI Limited, submitted that it is the largest manufacturer of measuring tapes, spirit levels measuring wheels in the Indian sub-continent and also that is well-established in over 60 countries.
FMI stated that it adopted the trademark 'INDI' in 2015 and has registered other formative marks. It stated that it advertises its goods in various e-commerce websites such as Amazon and IndiaMart. It stated that its sales figures for FY 2022-23 and 2023-24 was Rs.67.85 crore, 76.63 crore respectively.
Case title: Rajeev Shukla vs. Gopal Krishna Shukla
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 13
The Delhi High Court has observed that mentioning a wrong section of law in an application would not considered fatal to case if the substance of application was clear and no prejudice would be caused to the opposite party.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja remarked, “Procedural errors, including mentioning incorrect provision of law should not override the substantive justice. The Court has enough powers under Section 151 CPC to ensure that justice is served.”
Case title: Rajasthan Equestrian Association vs.Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 14
The Delhi High Court has constituted a 5-member Fact-Finding Committee to conduct a detailed investigation into the ground level realities of Equestrian sports in India, focusing on issues including assessment of infrastructure, participation and representation of athletes, and the role of clubs in the development of the sport.
The Committee would function under the chairmanship of Retired Judge of the Delhi High Court Justice Najmi Waziri. The other members include representatives from the Union Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Sports Authority of India (SAI), nominee from the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) and two Equestrian sportspersons from Equestrian sports–Ms. Divyakriti Singh and Ms. Shruti Vora, who represented India at national and international championships.
Case title: Anahita Chaudhary Union Of India & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 15
The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has recently informed the Delhi High Court about the documents that an individual who has undergone a gender change abroad can submit upon returning to India, in order to reflect the change of gender in the passport.
The Court disposed of a plea moved by a transgender woman–petitioner, whose grievance raised in the plea had been redressed inasmuch as the petitioner had been issued a passport with the changed name, gender marker, and appearance, as requested in the petitioner's January 2023 application.
DHJS 2024: Delhi High Court Refuses To Modify Cut Off Date For Candidates' Age
Title: SHWETA CHOWDHERY v. HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 16
The Delhi High Court has refused to modify the criteria according to which candidates appearing in Delhi Higher Judicial Services (DHJS) 2024 examination must have attained the age of 35 years on January 01, 2024.
A division bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Amit Mahajan rejected the plea filed by a candidate, Shweta Chowdhery, who challenged the one of the conditions mentioned in the public notice issued on December 27 last year by the High Court stipulating January 01, 2024 as the date by which the candidates had to have attained the age of 35.
Title: MD HEYDAITULLAH v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 17
The Delhi High Court has recently denied bail to an alleged member of ISIS in a case registered by National Investigation Agency (NIA) accusing him of radicalising youths using cyber space.
A division bench comprising of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma dismissed the plea moved by MD Heydaitullah, observing that the mandate of Section 43(D)(5) of UAPA was clearly applicable in the case.
“ISIS had been declared to be a terrorist organisation and judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the world at large knows about the activities of ISIS. The aforesaid chats further reflect the intention of the Appellant to join ISIS (Dawlah) and was ready to perform Hijrah (travel) for the same,” the Court said.
Case Title: TEFCIL BREWERIES LIMITED v. ALFA LAVAL (INDIA) LIMITED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 18
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that taking the date of receipt of the corrected award as the starting point and not as the date of disposal would actually go contrary to the plain reading of Section 34(3) of the Act. This will apply even in cases where an application under Section 33 of the Act has been filed.
Case title: ATS Township Pvt Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 1(1) Delhi & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 19
The Delhi High Court has held that the provision under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessing officer of a searched person to record 'satisfaction' and handover documents regarding undisclosed income of another person cannot be substituted by merely uploading such information on the Department's insight portal.
Case title: Abhishek Bansal v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 58(3), Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 21
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that merely producing transaction documents to establish that payments were made to an entity is not sufficient to defend the allegations of accommodation entries.
Case title: Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India vs. Akshay Kumar Malhotra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 22
The Delhi High Court has observed that the regulatory functions of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) does not encompass seeking or requisitioning information about individual complaints from a Telecom Service Provider for the purpose of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act).
Case title: Late Sh. Lal Chand Verma Through His Legal Heir v. Union Of India & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 23
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 159 of the Income Tax Act can be invoked to proceed against the legal representative of an assessee, only in cases where the reassessment notice was issued to the assessee during his lifetime, not after.
Case title: Novartis Ag & Anr. vs. Natco Pharma Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 24
In relation to commercial disputes, the Delhi High Court has observed that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 does not prevent the application of Order 8 Rule 9 CPC for filing additional written statement after the expiry of 120 days for filing the written statements.
Case title: Amar Singh And Sons Tree Nuts LLP v. The Superintendent Of Customs, Epm, Import & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 25
Based on a circular issued by the Finance Ministry, the Delhi High Court has affirmed that the Customs Department cannot encash the bank guarantee furnished by a trader, whose import/export transactions are in dispute, if the latter has made a pre-deposit with his appeal against the demand and penalty.
Case title: Gautam Thadani v. Director Income Tax (Investigation) And Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 26
The Delhi High Court has held that the delay in issuing requisition under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be condoned if the same is explained by the Authority concerned.
The provision contemplates powers to requisition books of account, etc. It stipulates that where a search has already been conducted by any authority under any other law, the Income Tax authority shall authorize the Assessing Officer to make requisition to that authority to deliver books of accounts and assets seized to the AO.
Case title: Sonansh Creations Pvt Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 27
The Delhi High Court has turned down the contention that an Assessing Officer, at the stage of passing an order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for initiation of reassessment proceedings, is not required to form any opinion as to the genuineness or veracity of the information available against an assessee.