Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 04 To August 10, 2025

Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 925 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 945NOMINAL INDEXVinay Sharma v. GNCTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 925 F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag & Anr. v. Zydus Lifesciences Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 926 Ambika Traders Through Proprietor Gaurav Gupta v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication DGGSTI, CGST Delhi North 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 927 Vi-John Healthcare India LLP v. Dabur India Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 928 Tata Power Renewable Energy Limited & Ors. v. Ashok Kumar/S & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 929 Sh. Raj Kumar And Anr. v. Mrs Poonam 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 930 Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 931 MOHD. IMRAN v. THE STATE GNCTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 932 SACHIN YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 933 Shree Radhe Vallabh Traders v. Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi East Commissionerate, New Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 934 Tata Play Ltd v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/ Avato 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 935 YV v. VV 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 936 SJ v. AJ 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 937 SHONEE KAPOOR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 938 Shri Sarabjeet Singh , Proprietor Of M/S Khurana Associates v. The Commissioner Of SGST, Delhi SGST & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 939 X v. Y 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 940 Shamina v. Commissioner Of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 941 NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY v. SATYA NISHTH & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 942 PAUL DEEPAK RAJARATNAM & ORS. versus SURGEPORT LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 943 MOHDMMED JAVED v. UNION OF INIDIA AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 944 Indmoney Tech Private Limited & Anr. v. Ashok Kumar And Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 945 Recovered 'Ganja' Was Only Marginally Above Commercial Quantity, Rigours U/S 37 NDPS Act May Not Apply: Delhi High Court Grants BailCase title: Vinay Sharma v. GNCTDCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 925The Delhi High Court has held that the rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act does not apply strictly in cases where the quantity of contraband recovered from an accused is only marginally above the prescribed commercial quantity.The applicant in this case was apprehended with a bag containing 21.508 kg of ganja.Process Patent | S.104A Of Patents Act Can Be Invoked At Interim Stage To Seek Disclosure Of Defendant's Process: Delhi High CourtCase title: F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag & Anr. v. Zydus Lifesciences LimitedCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 926The Delhi High Court has held that there is no bar on the invocation of Section 104A of the Patent Act 1970 at the initial stage of a suit, when the patent holder seeks disclosure of the defendant's process.For context, Section 104A prescribes that where the subject matter of a patent infringement suit is a 'process' for obtaining a product, the burden is on the defendant to prove that the process used by him to obtain the identical product is different from the patented process.S.74 CGST Act | Consolidated SCN For Multiple Financial Years Necessary To Establish Wrongful Availment Of ITC: Delhi High CourtCase title: Ambika Traders Through Proprietor Gaurav Gupta v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication DGGSTI, CGST Delhi NorthCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 927The Delhi High Court has held that consolidated show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST is not only permissible but necessary, to unearth wrongful availment of ITC over a span of period.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed,“The nature of ITC is such that fraudulent utilization and availment of the same cannot be established on most occasions without connecting transactions over different financial years. The purchase could be shown in one financial year and the supply may be shown in the next financial year. It is only when either are found to be fabricated or the firms are found to be fake that the maze of transactions can be analysed and established as being fraudulent or bogus.'Disproportionate': Delhi High Court Quashes ₹12 Lakh Cost On Vi-John For Delay In Responding To Dabur's Trademark Infringement SuitCase title: Vi-John Healthcare India LLP v. Dabur India LimitedCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 928Granting relief to Vi John Healthcare in connection with a trademark suit filed against it by Dabur for alleged infringement of its Meswak toothpaste packaging, the Delhi High Court set aside a cost of ₹12 lakh imposed on the former by the trial court.The costs were imposed in view of the trial court's previous order that any delay by Vi John in filing its Written Statement shall only be considered subject to a cost of ₹25,000/- for each day of delay.Delhi High Court Passes Summary Judgment In Tata Power's Trademark Infringement Suit, Grants Dynamic Injunction Against John Doe EntityCase title: Tata Power Renewable Energy Limited & Ors. v. Ashok Kumar/S & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 929The Delhi High Court passed summary judgment in favour of Tata Power in a suit filed against infringement of its trademarks, including Tata Power Solaroof and Tata Power EZ Charge.Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh...

Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 04 To August 10, 2025

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags