Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 16 To June 22, 2025

Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 682 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 695NOMINAL INDEXManoj Saw v. Ramneek Sabarwal & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 682 INDRAPRASTHA GAS LIMITED versus M/S CHINTAMANI FOOD AND SNACKS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 683 Shakila v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 684 NKJ v. State NCT of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 685 Lovee Narula v. ED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 686 Barun Bhanot v. M/S Annie Impexpo Marketing Pvt Ltd & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 687 R. SANTOSH versus ONE97 COMMUNICATIONS LTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 688 Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd v. Dinesh Kumar Singh & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 689 Vineet Gupta v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 690 M/S Best Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. M/S R.D. Sales 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 691 Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. JSIW Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 692 BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LIMITED versus SG ENTERPRISES & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 693 M/S Lala Shivnath Rai Sumerchand Confectioner Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner, Cgst Delhi-West, New Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 694 Union of India v. M/s Rajiv Aggarwal (Engineers and Contractors) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 695[Motor Accident Claims] Crossing Road Outside Zebra-Crossing Not 'Contributory Negligence' On Part Of Victim: Delhi High CourtCase title: Manoj Saw v. Ramneek Sabarwal & Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 682The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a pedestrian in an accident cannot be held responsible for contributory negligence merely because he was crossing the road from a place other than the Zebra crossing.In doing so, Justice Amit Mahajan relied on Gaytri Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2024) where a coordinate bench held that “even if there was no Zebra Crossing, there can be no presumption of negligence on the part of the pedestrian…The driver of the vehicle has to recognise the first right of the pedestrian and to avoid any person who may be crossing the road.”Applicability Of Arbitration Clause Is To Be Determined By Arbitrator, Cannot Be Decided In S.11 Plea: Delhi High CourtCase Title: INDRAPRASTHA GAS LIMITED versus M/S CHINTAMANI FOOD AND SNACKSCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 683The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that contentions regarding the applicability and relevance of an arbitration agreement are to be dealt with by the arbitrator and cannot be gone into at the stage of section 11 petition. Once the existence of arbitration agreement is not disputed, any dispute related to the applicability of the agreement has to be dealt by the arbitrator.Dependent Siblings, Their Children Not Ousted From Seeking Benefits Under Delhi Victims Compensation Scheme 2018: High CourtCase title: Shakila v. State (NCT of Delhi)Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 684The Delhi High Court has made it clear that siblings, married or unmarried or the children of such siblings, are not ipso facto disentitled from claiming compensation under the Delhi Victims Compensation Scheme, 2018 (DVCS).Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that though the definition of “Dependent” under Clause 2(b) of the DVCS does not include “siblings” however, given the inclusive terminology employed in the definition, non-inclusion of the term “sibling”, cannot ipso facto exclude them from the benefits of the Scheme.'Not Stereotyped Allegations': Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Swapping Wife With His FriendsCase title: NKJ v. State NCT of DelhiCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 685The Delhi High Court has refused to grant bail to a man booked for compelling and swapping his wife with his friends for sexual activities.Stating that the case does not reflect “stereotyped matrimonial dispute allegations”, Justice Girish Kathpalia denied the relief in a 2024 FIR lodged under Sections 498A (Cruelty), 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust), 376 (Rape), 328 (Causing hurt by stupefying),354A (sexual harassment) and 376D (Gang rape) and under Section 6 POCSO Act.S.45 PMLA | Delhi High Court Grants Interim Bail To Money Laundering Accused On Ground Of Illness Of Family MemberCase title: Lovee Narula v. EDCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 686The Delhi High Court granted interim bail to an accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 to attend to his critically ill mother and to make necessary arrangements for her continued medical treatment.Though the Enforcement Directorate submitted that the ground of illness of a family member of the accused is not available under Section 45 of PMLA, Justice Tejas Karia granted the relief on humanitarian grounds.S.138 NI Act | Cheque Holder Must Specifically Demand Payment Of 'Cheque Amount' In Legal Notice: Delhi High CourtCase title: Barun Bhanot v. M/S Annie Impexpo Marketing Pvt Ltd & AnrCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 687The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the legal notice sent to a cheque drawer over dishonor of the instrument, must specifically demand the payment of 'cheque amount'.In the absence of such demand, the preconditions to institute...

Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 16 To June 22, 2025

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags