Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 17 To November 23, 2025

Update: 2025-11-23 10:08 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1513 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1573NOMINAL INDEXCHRISTIAN 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...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1513 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1573

NOMINAL INDEX

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

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.

Tags:    

Similar News