Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1574 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1628

NOMINAL INDEX

Tara Dutt v. State (and connected appeal) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1576

Tara Dutt v. State (and connected appeal) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1576

Living Media India Limited and Anr v. Amar Ujala Limited and Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1578

Visage Beauty and Healthcare Private Limited v. Freecia Professional India Private Limited & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1579

Rajesh Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1580

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Delhi v. KRBL Infrastructure Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1581

ITC Limited v. Pelican Tobacco Co Ltd & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1582

Tara Dutt v. State (and connected appeal) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1583

Haveli Restaurant and Resorts Limited v. Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1584

Hermes International & Anr. v. Macky Lifestyle Private Limited & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1585

M/S Arjun Engineering Co. v. Additional Commissioner Of Goods And Service Tax, North Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1586

Cheeli J Ratnam v. Union Of India & Ors. (and batch) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1587

M/S Ganga Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1588

Tarun Arora v. Commissioner Of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1589

Naresh Bansal & Ors. v. Adjudicating Authority And Anr (and batch) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1590

Rajani Products v. Madhukar Varandani, Proprietor Of M/S NaturalIndia Oils And Proteins & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1591

Ashim Kumar Ghosh v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1592

Mohammad Rashid v. The Commissioner Of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1593

JATINDER PAL SINGH v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1594

Gulfam v. Commissioner Of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1595

Shyamsundar Sharma v. ACIT/ Initiating Officer, Benami Prohibition Unit-2, Delhi & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1596

Pavneet Oberoi v. The Commissioner Of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1597

RAVINDER PAL SINGH CHAUHAN v. DELHI RACE CLUB (1940) LTD AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1598

Medilabo RFP Inc. v. The Controller Of Patents 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1599

Sunil Niranjan Shah v. Vijay Bahadur 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1600

M/S Om Fire Safety Company Pvt Ltd v. Umakant 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1601

Saurabh Gupta v. Sheopals Pvt Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1602

Techsync v. The Superintendent Of Customs Siib Acc Imports And Ors (and connected petition) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1603

Navin Road Lines Vs. Assistant Registrar Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1604

Imagine Marketing Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner Cgst Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1605

Sanjeev Krishan Sharma v. Punjab National Bank and Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1606

Tesla Inc. v. Tesla Power India Private Limited & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1607

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA versus CFM ASSET RECONSTRUCTION PVT LTD & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1608

Koninklijke Philips N.V. & Ors. v. Karma Mindtech & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1609

Yatin Miglani v. Commissioner Of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1610

IDP Education India Private Limited v. Government Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1611

AJAY ALIAS VISHAL VEERU DEVGAN v. THE ARTISTS PLANET & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1612

J M Jain Prop SH Jeetmal Choraria vs. UOI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1613

Fateh Education Consulting Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Wazirpur & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1614

Trident Limited v. Controller Of Patents 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1615

SARWAR RAZA v. OMBUDSMAN RBI & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1616

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Artura Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1617

Irish Distillers International Limited v. Stardford Spirits Pvt Ltd & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1618

ANU DUGGAL v. STATE & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1619

Ping Pong Global Limited Through Its Managing Director Siddhartha Jain v. Union Of India Through Joint Secretary & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1620

Sanjay Khurana v. Income Tax Department Ministry Of Finance 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1621

JAGDISH KAUR versus JASBIR SINGH SANDHU & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1622

Amir Chand Jagdish Kumar Exports Ltd. v. Knam Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1623

Yasin Malik v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1624

MS. NILANJANA BHOWMICK v. RAVI NAIR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1625

X v. Y 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1626

Sushma v. Rattan Deep & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1627

Sanjay Aggarwal v. Union Of India & Ors (and connected matters) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1628

The Delhi High Court upheld the 2021 conviction of former Delhi Police ASI Tara Dutt for offering ₹50,000 bribe to a judge of the Tis Hazari Courts,­ so as to secure a job (peon at Delhi district courts) for one of the co-accused, Mukul Kumar.

Delhi High Court Upholds Divorce, Says Wife's Claim Of 'Not Recalling' Overnight Stays With Another Man Invites Judicial Suspicion

Case title: KA v. SA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1577

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal preferred by a wife, challenging the divorce decree passed over her alleged extra marital relationship with two men.

Delhi High Court Protects 'Aaj Tak' Mark, Restrains News Agencies From Using It In Source Code And Meta Tags

Case Title: Living Media India Limited and Anr v. Amar Ujala Limited and Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1578

The Delhi High Court restrained Amar Ujala and News18 from using the trademark 'Aaj Tak' in their website source code or as meta tags, after both companies informed the Court that they had already removed the infringing links and did not wish to contest the trademark suit filed by Living Media India Ltd, owner of the Aaj Tak news brand.

Delhi High Court Restrains Cosmetic Company From Copying Visage Beauty's O3+ Facial Kits Packaging And Mark

Case Title: Visage Beauty and Healthcare Private Limited v. Freecia Professional India Private Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1579

In a clash over look-alike facial kits, the Delhi High Court has granted Visage Beauty an interim injunction restraining Freecia Professional India from copying its packaging layout, usage instructions, ingredients text and from using the trademark 'DERMOMELAN'.

Voluntary Retirement Deemed Accepted If Not Rejected Within Stipulated Period; Subsequent Demand For Technical Resignation Invalid: Delhi HC

Case Name : Rajesh Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1580

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that voluntary retirement is deemed automatically accepted if not expressly rejected within the stipulated period, and any subsequent demand for technical resignation cannot override a retirement that has already taken effect.

Assessee Not Required To Prove “Source Of Source” Of Funds Credited Prior To Finance Act 2022: Delhi High Court

Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Delhi v. KRBL Infrastructure Ltd

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1581

The Delhi High Court has held that once the initial onus cast upon an assessee to show the genuineness of its creditors is duly discharged, the question as to whether the funds of the creditor were obtained through genuine purchases or not cannot be gone into by the Revenue.

Delhi High Court Protects 'Gold Flake' Mark Against Lookalike 'Gold Flame' and 'Gold Fighter' Cigarettes

Case Title: ITC Limited v. Pelican Tobacco Co Ltd & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1582

The Delhi High Court confirmed a temperory injunction restraining Pelican Tobacco Co. Ltd. from manufacturing or selling its “Gold Flame” and “Gold Fighter” cigarettes, holding that their packaging and marks were deceptively similar to ITC Limited's well-known “Gold Flake” brand.

Prevention Of Corruption Act | Unsolicited Offer Of Bribe Which Is Refused By Public Servant Constitutes Abetment: Delhi High Court

Case title: Tara Dutt v. State (and connected appeal)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1583

The Delhi High Court has held that an unsolicited offer of a bribe to a public servant constitutes the offence of abetment, punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, irrespective of whether there was a prior demand or subsequent acceptance.

Delhi High Court Upholds Registration Of 'Amritsar Haveli' Marks; Rejects Challenge By Haveli Restaurant

Case Title: Haveli Restaurant and Resorts Limited v. Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1584

The Delhi High Court has ruled that no restaurant can claim exclusive rights over the commonly used word “Haveli,” dismissing appeals by Haveli Restaurant and Resorts Ltd. and upholding the registration of the marks “Amritsar Haveli” and “The Amritsar Haveli” for food and restaurant services.

Delhi High Court Declares 'Hermès' And Its 'Birkin' Bag's 3-D Shape As Well-Known Trademarks In India

Case Title: Hermes International & Anr. v. Macky Lifestyle Private Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1585

The Delhi High Court recognised the three-dimensional shape of Hermès' iconic Birkin bag, along with the “Hermès” name and its stylised logos, as well-known trademarks in India.

'Infraction Of Natural Justice': Delhi High Court On One-Day Notice Given For Personal Hearing Against GST Demand

Case title: M/S Arjun Engineering Co. v. Additional Commissioner Of Goods And Service Tax, North Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1586

The Delhi High Court has said that granting mere one-day notice to an assessee for attending personal hearing with respect to proposed GST demands amounts of 'infraction' of natural justice.

Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rules Prescribing Different Retirement Ages For Officers Of Coast Guard Based On Rank

Case title: Cheeli J Ratnam v. Union Of India & Ors. (and batch)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1587

The Delhi High Court declared as unconstitutional Rule 20(1) and 20(2)1 of the Coast Guard (General) Rules, 1986 which prescribe rank-based superannuation age.

Delhi High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost On Senior Citizen Who Failed To Attend Personal Hearing Over ₹1.95 Crore GST Demand

Case title: M/S Ganga Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1588

The Delhi High Court has directed the Customs Department to grant one more opportunity to a septuagenarian woman, who failed to appear for personal hearing in connection with ₹1,95,11,160 demand raised against her firm.

Delhi HC Allows Time-Barred Appeal Against Customs' Confiscation Of Gold, Says Traveller Cannot Be Left Remediless Due To Wrong Legal Advice

Case title: Tarun Arora v. Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1589

The Delhi High Court allowed an air traveller to prefer a time-barred appeal against confiscation of gold by the Customs Department, upon his arrival from Thailand.

Property From Illegal Cricket Betting Activities Constitutes 'Proceeds Of Crime', Can Be Attached By ED: Delhi High Court

Case title: Naresh Bansal & Ors. v. Adjudicating Authority And Anr (and batch)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1590

The Delhi High Court has held that though cricket betting is not a separate predicate offence under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the property generated from such illegal activities can be attached by the Enforcement Directorate.

Delhi High Court Cancels Copyright For Edible Oil Label Bearing 'Swastik', Says It Copies Rajani Products' Artwork

Case Title: Rajani Products v. Madhukar Varandani, Proprietor Of M/S NaturalIndia Oils And Proteins & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1591

The Delhi High Court has cancelled a copyright registration granted for an edible oil label featuring a 'Swastik' device, holding that the artwork was a substantial reproduction of a label long used by Rajani Products, a manufacturer and seller of edible oils. Finding that the rival work lacked originality, the Court directed that the entry be expunged from the Register of Copyright.

Delhi High Court Clears 'SoEasy' Trademark For Hindi Learning Platform, Calls It Suggestive and Distinctive

Case Title: Ashim Kumar Ghosh v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1592

The Delhi High Court has overturned the Trade Marks Registrar's refusal to register the mark “SoEasy” for a Hindi learning and testing platform, holding that the phrase is suggestive rather than descriptive and is therefore capable of trademark protection. The Court directed the Registrar to process the application for registration.

S.110 Customs Act | Extension To Issue SCN Must Be Granted Before Expiry Of Initial Six-Month Period: Delhi High Court

Case title: Mohammad Rashid v. The Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1593

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the six-month extension contemplated under Section 110 of the Customs Act 1962 for issuance of a show cause notice after detention of goods by the Customs must be issued before expiry of the initial six-month window.

Delhi High Court Quashes Criminal Intimidation FIR After Settlement, Asks Accused To Pay ₹25K For Benefit Of Destitute Girls

Title: JATINDER PAL SINGH v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1594

The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR over allegations of hurt and criminal intimidation after the victim as well as the accused entered into a settlement agreement.

Statement Made Before Customs Officer U/S 108 Customs Act Over Goods Seizure Not Admissible In Evidence: Delhi High Court

Case title: Gulfam v. Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1595

The Delhi High Court has held that statements made by an assessee to the Customs Department under Section 108 of the Customs Act 1962, upon seizure of its goods, is not admissible as evidence in court of law.

Standard Of 'Reason To Believe' In Benami Act Is Stricter Than 'Reasonable Suspicion' Under BNSS: Delhi High Court

Case title: Shyamsundar Sharma v. ACIT/ Initiating Officer, Benami Prohibition Unit-2, Delhi & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1596

The Delhi High Court has held that the standard of 'reason to believe' prescribed under Section 24 of the Benami Act is higher than 'reasonable suspicion' under Section 35 of BNSS which empowers a police officer to arrest a person for alleged involvement in a cognizable offence.

Customs | Oral Waiver Of SCN Untenable In Law, Continued Detention Of Goods Illegal: Delhi High Court

Case title: Pavneet Oberoi v. The Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1597

The Delhi High Court has held that continued detention or seizure of goods by the Customs Department would be untenable in law, where the Show Cause Notice or the personal hearing have been waived via an oral waiver.

High Court Refuses To Restrain Delhi Race Club From Enforcing 'Family Unit' Cap In Horse Races

Title: RAVINDER PAL SINGH CHAUHAN v. DELHI RACE CLUB (1940) LTD AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1598

The Delhi High Court refused to pass an interim order restraining the Delhi Race Club from enforcing 'family unit' cap qua the number of horses for races for Delhi Meeting 2025-2026.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Rejection Of Medilabo's Patent For Neurodegenerative-Disease Drug

Case Title: Medilabo RFP Inc. v. The Controller Of Patents

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1599

The Delhi High Court has set aside a Patent Office order refusing Medilabo RFP's patent application for a pharmaceutical composition used in treating neurodegenerative diseases, holding that the authority rejected the application without examining the amended claims and without explaining how the invention fell within the bar on “methods of treatment” under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970.

Delhi High Court Protects Gaay Chhap Detergent, Restrains Use Of 'Gopal Gai Chhap' and 'Cow Brand' Marks

Case Title: Sunil Niranjan Shah v. Vijay Bahadur

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1600

The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction in favour of Gaay Chhap, a Kanpur-based detergent brand, restraining a Uttar Pradesh trader from using the marks “Gopal Gai Chhap” , “Cow Brand,” and similar labels for detergent soaps, cakes, and washing powders.

Any Interpretation Diluting Commercial Courts Act Defeats Its Purpose; No Leniency For Litigants Who Protract Proceedings: Delhi High Court

Case title: M/S Om Fire Safety Company Pvt Ltd v. Umakant

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1601

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Commercial Courts Act was enacted with a specific aim of expediting commercial disputes and the processes adopted by them can't be in such a casual manner, so as to convert them into general civil suit.

Delhi High Court Finds No Similarity Between 'OPAL' and 'SHEOPAL'S' Mark, Denies Injunction to OPAL Cosmetics

Case Title: Saurabh Gupta v. Sheopals Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1602

The Delhi High Court has upheld a Commercial Court order refusing interim injunction to cosmetics brand OPAL, holding that its mark is not deceptively similar to “SHEOPAL'S,” a mark used by Sheopals Pvt. Ltd. (SPL), which also manufactures beauty and wellness products.

Delhi High Court Imposes ₹50K Costs On Customs For “Harassing” Companies Importing Body Massagers

Case title: Techsync v. The Superintendent Of Customs Siib Acc Imports And Ors (and connected petition)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1603

The Delhi High Court has slammed the Customs Department for “unnecessarily harassing” two entities involved in import of body massagers.

GST Migration Not Taxpayer's Burden: Delhi HC Directs CESTAT To Hear Appeal After Pre-Deposit Was Made Under Excise Head Due To Portal Failure

Case Title: Navin Road Lines Vs. Assistant Registrar Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1604

The Delhi High Court has held that where the Service Tax portal had become non-functional after the migration to the GST regime, the taxpayer cannot be compelled to make the mandatory pre-deposit strictly under the Service Tax ledger for maintainability of an appeal. The Court observed that once the deposit has already gone to the Government exchequer under the Excise Head.

Delhi High Court Slams GST Authorities For 'Mechanically' Cancelling Registration Of BoAt's Parent Company

Case title: Imagine Marketing Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner Cgst Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1605

The Delhi High Court has slammed the GST authorities for cancelling the registration of Imagine Marketing Ltd., the parent company of smart wearables brand boAt, without considering the company's replies.

Delhi High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Litigant For Misusing Writ Jurisdiction To Stall DRT, NCLT Proceedings

Cause Title: Sanjeev Krishan Sharma v. Punjab National Bank and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1606

The Delhi High Court imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh on a litigant while dismissing his writ petition that sought to halt proceedings pending before two Debts Recovery Tribunals and the National Company Law Tribunal.

Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Tesla Inc, Extends Bar on Indian Company's Use of 'Tesla' Marks In EV Market

Case Title: Tesla Inc. v. Tesla Power India Private Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1607

The Delhi High Court on Monday granted relief to the U.S.-based electric vehicle company Tesla Inc. by directing that the undertaking earlier given by the India-based Tesla Power India Pvt. Ltd., stating that it will not manufacture or market electric vehicles or use any mark deceptively similar to 'Tesla' for EVs, shall continue until the trademark infringement suit is finally decided.

Settlement With Concessionaire Doesn't Erase NHAI's Role In Dispute: Delhi High Court Dismisses Substitution Petition

Case Title: NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA versus CFM ASSET RECONSTRUCTION PVT LTD & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1608

The Delhi High Court refused to interfere with an arbitral tribunal's order rejecting the plea of National Highways Authority of India's (NHAI) to substitute itself with a special purpose vehicle (SPV) in an ongoing arbitration initiated by CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. (CFM ARC).

Delhi High Court Rejects Philips' Plea For Perjury Action Against Ex-Employee In Software Piracy Case

Case Title: Koninklijke Philips N.V. & Ors. v. Karma Mindtech & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1609

The Delhi High Court has refused to initiate perjury proceedings against a former Philips employee, holding that Philips had not produced the kind of clear and unquestionable evidence required for criminal action. The ruling came in a copyright and trade secret dispute involving Philips' medical imaging software “IntelliSpace Portal” (ISP).

S.128A Customs Act | Six-Month Timeline To Decide Appeals Not Mandatory, But Must Apply Where Possible: Delhi High Court

Case title: Yatin Miglani v. Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1610

The Delhi High Court has held that though Section 128A(4A) of the Customs Act, 1962 prescribes that appeals “shall” be decided within six months, the timeline is applicable only where it is possible to do so.

Long-Pending GST Refund Appeals Hurt Businesses: Delhi High Court To Appellate Body

Case title: IDP Education India Private Limited v. Government Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1611

The Delhi High Court has observed that long pendency of GST appeals seeking tax refund can hurt financial front of businesses.

Delhi High Court Protects Personality Rights Of Actor Ajay Devgn, Orders Take Down Of Obscene Content

Title: AJAY ALIAS VISHAL VEERU DEVGAN v. THE ARTISTS PLANET & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1612

The Delhi High Court passed an interim order protecting the personality rights of bollywood actor Ajay Devgn.

Delhi High Court Upholds GST Notice Based On Income Tax Intelligence; Cautions Dept Against AI-Generated Fake Citations In SCN

Case Name: J M Jain Prop SH Jeetmal Choraria vs. UOI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1613

The Delhi High Court in a writ petition has upheld Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued by the GST Department which was based on an intelligence, by the Income Tax Department

Marketing For Foreign University Prima Facie Constitutes 'Export Of Services'; Entitled To GST Refund: Delhi High Court

Case title: Fateh Education Consulting Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Wazirpur & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1614

The Delhi High Court said that a private consultancy providing marketing services to a foreign university is prima facie covered by its decision in Delhi Goods and Service Tax DGST v. Global Opportunities Private Limited (2025).

Delhi High Court Quashes Patent Office Order, Sends Trident's 'Air Rich Yarn' Patent Plea Back For Review

Case Title: Trident Limited v. Controller Of Patents

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1615

The Delhi High Court has overturned a Patent Office decision that refused Trident Limited a patent for its “air rich” yarn and fabric technology. The court said the Patent Office failed to properly examine the key feature of the invention, which is the “homogeneous distribution of pores across the radial cross-section of yarn”, and had not correctly assessed obviousness under Indian patent law.

Delhi High Court Issues Directions To Strengthen RBI Ombudsman Complaint System, Calls For Safeguards To Avoid Misuse

Title: SARWAR RAZA v. OMBUDSMAN RBI & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1616

The Delhi High Court issued directions to strengthen the system to deal with customer complaints by Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Ombudsman.

Delhi High Court Declines To Return Plaint In Sun Pharma's Trademark Suit Against Artura, Says Cause Of Action Partly Arose In Delhi

Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Artura Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1617

The Delhi High Court has refused to return the plaint in a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., holding on a prima facie basis that part of the cause of action arose in Delhi through the defendant-Artura Pharmaceuticals' online presence.

Delhi High Court Cancels 'BLUE SPOT' Mark Of Local Spirits Company After Finding It Unused For Five Years

Case Title: Irish Distillers International Limited v. Stardford Spirits Pvt Ltd & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1618

The Delhi High Court has ordered the removal of the trademark “BLUE SPOT” registered to Stardford Spirits Pvt. Ltd.,a local spirits company after finding that the alcohol brand had not been used for more than five years.

Advancing Forensics Can Crack Cases Even After Decades, 'Never Too Late To Seek Truth': Delhi High Court Orders CBI Probe Into 2017 Death

Title: ANU DUGGAL v. STATE & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1619

The Delhi High Court has ordered Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe into death of a 23-year-old hotel manager in 2017, while flagging lapses in the investigation conducted by the Delhi Police.

Delhi High Court Condones Company's Delay In Filing GST Appeal On Ground Of Director's Illness

Case title: Ping Pong Global Limited Through Its Managing Director Siddhartha Jain v. Union Of India Through Joint Secretary & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1620

The Delhi High Court condoned the delay made by a company in challenging the GST demand of over ₹75 lakhs, on grounds of illness of its Director.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Condone 9-Month Delay By Assessee In Filing Revised Income Tax Return

Case title: Sanjay Khurana v. Income Tax Department Ministry Of Finance

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1621

The Delhi High Court has refused to condone a delay of 9-months by an assessee in filing his revised income tax return (ITR).

Courts Can Correct Manifest Computational Errors In Awards Without Re-Appraising Arbitrator's Reasoning: Delhi High Court

Case Title: JAGDISH KAUR versus JASBIR SINGH SANDHU & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1622

The Delhi High Court held that the courts under sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) possess limited but definite authority to correct manifest computation errors without reopening the merits of the case.

Delhi High Court Restrains Knam Foods From Using 'AL-BUSTAN' Rice Packaging, Terms It 'Slavish Copy'

Case Title: Amir Chand Jagdish Kumar Exports Ltd. v. Knam Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1623

The Delhi High Court has barred Knam Foods Pvt. Ltd. from using the “AL-BUSTAN” brand name and its blue-and-yellow rice packaging after finding that the company had “slavishly copied” the design, layout, Arabic script, and even the mobile number printed on the bags of rival rice exporter Amir Chand Jagdish Kumar Exports Ltd.

Delhi High Court Directs Tihar Jail Authorities To Provide Adequate Medical Treatment To Yasin Malik

Title: Yasin Malik v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1624

The Delhi High Court directed the Tihar Jail authorities to provide appropriate medical treatment to convicted Kashmiri separatist leader Yasin Malik sentenced to life imprisonment in a terror funding case.

'Factually Correct Reporting Not Defamation': Delhi High Court Quashes Case Against Journalist Nilanjana Bhowmick

Title: MS. NILANJANA BHOWMICK v. RAVI NAIR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1625

The Delhi High Court has quashed a defamation case filed against journalist Nilanjana Bhowmick over an article published in 2010 in the Times Magazine, observing that factually correct reporting cannot be termed as defamatory.

Delhi High Court Directs Judge To Undergo Training In Matrimonial Laws Citing 'Troubling Lack Of Legal Understanding'

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1626

The Delhi High Court has directed a family court judge to undergo an “appropriate and comprehensive refresher training program” in matrimonial laws, citing serious misapplication of law and by him while dealing with divorce cases.

Delhi High Court Rejects Woman's Claim Of Panchayati Divorce In Jat Community, Says Custom Must Be Strictly Proved

Case title: Sushma v. Rattan Deep & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1627

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that while Section 29 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 recognises customary divorce, the burden to prove prevalence of such a custom is heavy.

SFIO Probe No Bar To PMLA Proceedings: Delhi High Court Upholds ED's Provisional Attachment In ₹6000 Cr Forex Scam

Case title: Sanjay Aggarwal v. Union Of India & Ors (and connected matters)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1628

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that probe by Serious Fraud Investigation Office into the affairs of a company does not bar parallel proceedings under Prevention of Money Laundering Act.