Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 21 To July 27, 2025

Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 826 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 847NOMINAL INDEXYash Sharma and Ors vs. West Central Railway and Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 826 Teena Choudhary v. UPSC & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 827 Banti Kumar Mathur v. The State Of Nct Of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 828 X v. Y 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 829 SANEESH SOMAN v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 830 Anurag Dalmia v. Income Tax Office 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 831 Mold Tek Packaging Limited v. Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 832 MS VEERJI RESTAURANT PRIVATE LIMITED v. YASH RAI & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 833 Prabir Purkayastha v. ED and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 834 Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 835 Twenty-Four Frames Factory Private Limited v. John Doe & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 836 Naresh Kumar @ Pahelwan v. State Of Nct Of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 837 SKD v. MG & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 838 AS v. NKS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 839 MOHAMMAD SHAHID @ SAHID v. STATE OF (NCT) OF DELHI & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 840 MOHD RIZWAN ASHRAF v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 841 BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT. LTD v. ANIL KUMAR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 842 Mohd Alam v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 843 HARI SINGH v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2025LiveLaw (Del) 844 B.D. SHARMA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 845 X v. Y 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 846 DR AMIT KUMAR v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 847Post-Wise Identification Within 1% Reservation For Visually Impaired Candidates (Low Vision & Blind) Is Valid For Safety Reasons : Delhi HC Case Name: Yash Sharma and Ors vs. West Central Railway and OrsCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 826A division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul held that identification of posts suitable only for low vision within the 1% reservation for visually impaired is valid, as post-wise identification within reserved vacancies based on the nature of duties and safety requirements is permissible, and blind candidates cannot claim posts not identified as suitable for them.'Unhappy With Approach': Delhi HC Tells UPSC For Ousting Eligible CAPF Candidate Who Mistakenly Uploaded Outdated OBC CertificateCase title: Teena Choudhary v. UPSC & Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 827The Delhi High Court has expressed its 'unhappiness' with the Union Public Service Commission for ousting an aspirant from the recruitment process to Central Armed Police Force, merely because she uploaded the caste certificate of an earlier date.'Raises Suspicion': Delhi HC Expresses Alarm Over Missing Case Diaries From Police Record In Murder InvestigationCase title: Banti Kumar Mathur v. The State Of Nct Of DelhiCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 828While dealing with the bail plea of a murder accused, the Delhi High Court was shocked to note that certain case diaries were missing from Police records.Child Being In Husband's Custody After Matrimonial Dispute Not Cruelty Or Harassment U/S 498A IPC: Delhi High CourtTitle: X v. YCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 829The Delhi High Court has observed that the child being in custody of the husband after matrimonial disputes arise between the parties is not cruelty or harassment under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.“…merely because the child was in the custody of the husband after disputes interse arose, cannot be equated with cruelty or harassment as envisaged under Section 498A IPC,” Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.Merely Receiving A Package Without Being Aware Of Illicit Contents Not 'Possession' Under NDPS Act: Delhi High CourtTitle: SANEESH SOMAN v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAUCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 830The Delhi High Court has ruled that merely receiving a package without the accused being aware of its illicit contents is not “conscious possession” under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.“The act of merely receiving a package, absent any material to suggest that the Applicant was aware of its illicit contents, prima facie, cannot by itself satisfy the legal threshold of “possession” under the NDPS Act,” Justice Sanjeev Narula said.Unauthenticated Documents From Foreign Govt Regarding Swiss Bank Account Of Assessee Can't Form Basis For Criminal Action: Delhi HCCase title: Anurag Dalmia v. Income Tax OfficeCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 831The Delhi High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against an assessee under Section 276C, 276D and 277 of the Income Tax Act 1961 merely on the basis of some unauthorised documents alleging existence of an undisclosed Swiss Bank account in his name.Advisable For Legislature To Correct Lacuna On What Constitutes 'Infringement' Under Patents Act: Delhi High CourtCase title: Mold Tek Packaging Limited v. Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 832The Delhi High Court has suggested to the legislature to define what constitutes 'infringement' under the Patents Act 1970.A...

Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 21 To July 27, 2025

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags