Delhi High Court Half Yearly Digest: January To June, 2025 [Citations 1 - 719]

Bonanza Enterprises v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Customs & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 8

Aditya Kumar Mallick vs Union of India and Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 9

Mr. Pawan Gupta & Anr. vs. Miton Credentia Trusteeship Services Limited & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 10

Akhil Bhartiya Dharma Prasar Samiti v. UOI & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 11

FMI Limited vs. Midas Touch Metalloys Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 12

Rajeev Shukla vs. Gopal Krishna Shukla 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 13

Rajasthan Equestrian Association vs.Union Of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 14

Anahita Chaudhary Union Of India & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 15

SHWETA CHOWDHERY v. HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 16

MD HEYDAITULLAH v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 17

TEFCIL BREWERIES LIMITED v. ALFA LAVAL (INDIA) LIMITED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 18

ATS Township Pvt Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 1(1) Delhi & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 19

Abhishek Bansal v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 58(3), Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 21

Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India vs. Akshay Kumar Malhotra 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 22

Late Sh. Lal Chand Verma Through His Legal Heir v. Union Of India & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 23

Novartis Ag & Anr. vs. Natco Pharma Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 24

Amar Singh And Sons Tree Nuts LLP v. The Superintendent Of Customs, Epm, Import & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 25

Gautam Thadani v. Director Income Tax (Investigation) And Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 26

Sonansh Creations Pvt Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 27

ZAFAR ABBAS @ JAFFAR v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 28

Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 29

Babrey Singh versus Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 30

X v. Y 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 31

TAEKWONDO FEDERATION OF INDIA v. INDIAN OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION & ORS and other connected matter 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 32

ALEMLA JAMIR v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 33

X v. Y 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 34

Sonansh Creations Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 35

Tahir Hussain v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 36

Rashtravadi Adharsh Mahasangh v. ECI & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 37

Sanjeev Jain v. UOI & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 38

KULDEEP SINGH versus DIRECTOR GENERAL CRPF AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 39

NEERAJ SEHRAWAT @ NEERAJ BAWANIYA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 40

MACLEODS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 41

CENTER FOR RESEARCH PLANNING AND ACTION v. NATIONAL MEDICINAL PLANTS BOARD MINISTRY OF AYUSH GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 42

Ajit Kumar versus Union Of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 43

MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD v. MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISE FACILITATION COUNCIL AND OTHERS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 44

Rohit Kumar v. Income Tax Officer Ward 54 (1), Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 45

Central Electricity Regulatory Commission v. The Additional Director Directorate General Of Gst Intelligence (Dggi) & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 46

Rohit Kumar v. Income Tax Officer Ward 54 (1), Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 47

Aptec Advanced Protective Technologies AG vs. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 48

The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 49

Qamar Jahan v. Union Of India, Represented By Secretary, Ministry Of Finance & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 50

Divine Infracon Pvt Ltd v. Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax 3 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 51

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 9 v. M/S Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S North Delhi Power Limited) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 52

SHIKHAR DHAWAN v. DB DIXON BATTERY PRIVATE LIMITED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 53

Janta Party through its President v. Election Commission of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 54

BILAL ANSARI v. STATE 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 55

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. Delhi Vedanta Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 56

Rohit Kumar v. Income Tax Officer Ward 54 (1), Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 57

Grid Solutions OY (Ltd) v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 58

KULDEEP SINGH v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 59

VIKRAMJIT SINGH v. NCB 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 60

Kamal Envirotech Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Gst And Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 61

Commissioner Of Customs Air Chennai-Vii Commissionerate v. M/S. Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 62

KRBL LIMITED v. PRAVEEN KUMAR BUYYANI & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 63

Synergies Casting Ltd. vs. National Research Development Corporation & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 64

SOHAM BHATTACHARYA AND OTHERS v. THE FACULTY OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF DELHI THROUGH ITS DEAN AND ANOTHER 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 65

M/s Jaiprakash Associates Limited v. M/s NHPC Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 66

KBS Industries Ltd & Anr. v. The Customs Central Excise And Service Tax Settlement Commission Principal Bench New Delhi & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 67

Sanjay Kumar v. SEBI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 68

Ramesh Chander Vs Election Commission Of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 69

AIZAZ KILICHEVA @ AZIZA @ MAYA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 70

MANDIR PUJARI SH ABHIMANYU SHARMA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 71

Roppen Transportation Services Private Limited Vs.Nipun Gupta & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 72

Kuldeep Singh Sengar v. CBI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 73

SUDHIR KUMAR v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 74

JOGINDER SINGH @ JOGINDER RANA v. NIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 75

RK Yadav Through Director Of Income Tax Inv-II And Ors v. Dinesh Kumar 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 76

REKHA KAKKAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 77

Broad Peak Investment Holdings Ltd. And Anr vs. Broad Peak Capital Advisors LLP And Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 78

ZAKIR HUSSAIN v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 79

MUMTIYAJ ALI v. SDM KARAWAL NAGAR & ANR and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 80

DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION v. RAMJAS SCHOOL 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 81

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Usha Gupta & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 82

WTC NOIDA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PVT. LTD V. MS. ARTI KHATTAR & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 83

Vijay Enterprises & Anr v. The Principal Commissioner Of Customs & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 84

M/S Om Gems And Jewellery v. Deputy Commissioner Of Customs (Import) Air Cargo Complex Nscbi Airport & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 85

JYOTI ALIAS KITTU v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 86

DR. PUSHPALATA AND ANR v. RAM DAS HUF & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 87

TIRUPATI NARASHIMA MURARI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 88

Dr. S.R. Sharan v. Election Commission of India & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 90

VIJENDER GUPTA & ORS v. GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 91

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1, New Delhi v. DCM Shriram Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 92

SAIF ALI @ SOHAN v. THE STATE GNCT OF DELHI and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 93

KGF COTTONS PVT LTD v. HALDIRAM SNACKS PVT LTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 94

Parvinder Singh v CBI and other cases 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 95

M/S. Akn Developers Private Limited Versus M/S. Premsons Southend 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 96

SUBHAN ALI v. THE STATE NCT OF DELH I AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 97

HEENA & ORS v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 98

Ashwani Mudgal v. UOI & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 99

Abhinav Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 52 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 100

ABDUL RAB v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 101

HALA KAMEL ZABAL versus ARYA TRADING LTD. & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 102

Rangoli International Pvt Ltd & Ors. vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 103

SANJEEV GUPTA v. REGISTRAR GENERAL DELHI HIGH COURT 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 104

Deepak Chaudhary vs. State & Anr and Connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 105

KIRAN SINGH v. NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 106

Kalu Ram Saini versus Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 107

Dhrone Diwan & Ors v. ECI & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 108

Naresh Balyan v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 109

SYED AHMAD SHAKEEL v. CENTRAL JAIL NO. 8, TIHAR JAIL & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 110

HIMANSHU SINGLA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 111

SULEMAN SAMAD v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 112

Shivani Madan v. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-01 & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 113

Anjali Pandey v. Union Of India And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 114

Lovee Narula vs.Directorate Of Enforcement 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 115

BACHITTAR SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 116

NBCC (INDIA) LIMITED v. AMAN LEKHI & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 117

Saregama India Limited vs. Vels Film International Limited & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 118

Seema Jamwal vs. Union of India and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 119

SHARJEEL IMAM v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matter 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 120

Sandeep Gupta v. Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 121

Sunil Kumar Singh v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 122

LALIT SHARMA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 123

NEERAJ SHARMA v. PIO MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS JKL DIV AYODHYA SECTION AND ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 124

Divyansh Bajpai vs. State (Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi) And Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 125

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -21 v. M/S.Remfry & Sagar 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 126

M/S Vishal Video And Appliances Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner Of Customs Acc(Import) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 127

DR. RAJEEV AGGARWAL v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 128

X v. STATE & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 129

Property Plus Realtors v. Union Of India & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 130

ISHAN TIWARI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 131

MARFING TAMANG @ MAAINA TAMANG v. STATE 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 132

Udaiveer & Ors. vs. Union Of India & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 133

Public Information Officer Office Of District vs. Harish Lamba 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 134

DEEPAK JAIN & ORS v. BASKETBALL FEDERATION OF INDIA & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 135

M/S SMEC India (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 136

DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD versus VOESTALPINE SCHIENEN GMBH, AUSTRIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 137

Ajabs Academy Pvt Ltd vs. Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. (W.P.(C) 702/2025) & Connected Matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 138

The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 v. Adobe Systems Software Ireland Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 139

ISAR ENGINEERS PRIVATE LTD. versus NTPC-SAIL POWER COMPANY LTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 140

Kanwaljeet Kaur v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle (34) 1 Delhi & Ors. and batch 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 141

GOODAI GLOBAL INC v. SHAHNAWAZ SIDDIQU & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 142

PRAVENDRA PRATAP SINGH NATIONAL PRESIDENT (BAHUJAN MUKTI PARTY) v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 143

RAMESH KUMAR KHATRI v. DURGESH PATHAK and other connected matter 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 144

JOHNSON & JOHNSON PTE. LTD v. MR. ABBIREDDI SATISH KUMAR & ORS2025 LiveLaw (Del) 145

Bhushan Power & Steel Limited vs. Union Of India & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 146

Jagdish Chandra vs. State Trading Corporation Of India Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 147

Bhushan Power & Steel Limited vs. Union of India & Anr.m2025 LiveLaw (Del) 148

The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 v. Standard Chartered Grindlays Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 149

DELOITTE HASKINS & SELLS LLP v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 150

ADITYA BIRLA FASHION AND RETAIL LIMITED v. FRIENDS INC & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 151

Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer And Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 152

RENUKA KULKARNI & ORS v. STATE and other connected matter 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 153

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST & ANR v. DR. RAJAT SHRIVASTAVA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 154

Rocktek Infra Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Import) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 155

Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 156

Bharat Singh vs. Karan Singh & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 157

MOHD. RAFAYAT ALI v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 158

Sushil Aggarwal v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs and connected matter 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 159

M/S Addichem Speciallity LLP v. Special Commissioner I, Department Of Trade And Taxes And Anr and batch 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 160

ABHIJEET KUMAR v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 161

THILAKASRI KREPANAND & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 162

Jan Seva Welfare Society (Reg.) v. Union of India and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 163

AMAL SHARMA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 164

HARMEET SINGH v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 165

Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited vs. Sammaan Capital Limited & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 166

Star India Pvt. Ltd vs. IPTV Smarter Pro & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 167

ROJALINI PARIDA v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI THROUGH ITS VICE-CHANCELLOR & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 168

DR PRANNOY ROY & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 169

Anshul Gupta v. Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 170

KORE NIHAL PRAMOD v. UNION OF INDIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 171

JUSTICE (RETD.) S.N. DHINGRA, PRESIDENT, SAMAY YAAN (SASHAKT SAMAJ) v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 172

BHADRA INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD AND ORS. versus AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 173

Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Ashar Nisar & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 174

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. PRASHANT JAIN 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 175

Oracle America, Inc. vs. Mr. Sandeep Khandelwal And Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 176

Rajbir Singh vs. Commissioner Mcd And Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 177

SHOBHA VERMA AND ANR v. ASHOK KAPOOR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 178

Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corp. Ltd. (IRCTC) vs. M/s. Brandavan Food Products 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 179

Aon Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (Successor Entity Of Aon Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1 And Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 180

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1 v. M/S Chemester Food Industries Pvt. Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 181

STATE v. NILESH MISHRA and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 182

RAKESH KUMAR v. CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 183

AJAY v. STATE & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 184

VANEETA GUPTA & ANR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR2025 LiveLaw (Del) 185

Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner Of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 186

Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Benetton India Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 187

Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Benetton India Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 188

M/S Aims Retail Services Private Limited v. Union Of India & Ors. and batch 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 189

DR. B.K. TIWARI ADVISER (NUTRITION) verus UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 190

Gor Sharian v. The Commissioner Of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 191

Principal Commissioner, Central Tax Commissionerate, Gst Delhi West v. M/S Alkarma 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 192

JAN CHETNA JAGRITI AVOM SHAIKSHANIK VIKAS MANCH & ORS v. SH ANAND RAJ JHAWAR SOLE PROPRIETOR OF M/S RR AGROTECH 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 193

Dixon Technologies (India) Limited vs. M/s Jaiico & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 194

UNION OF INDIA & ORS versus CHAND SINGH 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 195

Commissioner Of Income Tax International Tax- 1 New Delhi v. M/S Expeditors International Of Washington Inc 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 196

STATE v. HITESH 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 197

SHOBHIN BALI v. REGISTRAR GENERAL DELHI HIGH COURT 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 198

Munish Kumar Gaur vs. Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 199

News Laundry Media Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Galaxy Zoom India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 200

SAMMAAN FINSERV LIMITED v. SVAMAAN FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 201

Union of India v. Reliance Industries Limited & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 202

ZAHOOR AHMAD PEER v. NIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 203

DELHI COMMISSION FOR WOMEN v. STATE OF NCT DELHI & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 204

TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LIMITED & ANR VS. WWW.TATAPOWERSOLARDEALERSHIP.CO.IN & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 205

HOUSE OF MASABA LIFESTYLE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. MASABACOUTUREOFFICIAL.CO & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 206

THOKCHOM SHYAMJAI SINGH & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH HOME SECRETARY & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 207

Sonu vs. CBI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 208

RELIANCE RETAIL LTD VS. YOUSTAFRANCHISE.NET & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 209

Pragati Construction Consultants v. Union of India and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 210

Vivo Mobile India Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 211

Renewflex Recycling vs. Facilitation Centre Rohini Courts & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 212

Tilak Raj Singh v. Union Of India And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 213

MOHD. DANISH v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 214

MR MIRZA AURANGZEB v. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 215

LALIT SHARMA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 216

SAVE INDIA FOUNDATION v. DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND WILDLIFE & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 217

CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT OF WEST BENGAL v. VAIBHAV BANGAR & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 218

Unison Hotels Pvt Ltd v. KNM Chemicals Pvt Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 219

Mohamed Shamiuddeen v. Commissioner Of Customs & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 220

Moonshine Technology Private Limited vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 221

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA VS. CONTROLLER OF PATENTS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 222

Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 223

ADDICTIVE LEARNING TECHNOLOGY LIMITED & ANR v. ADITYA GARG & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 224

SFDC Ireland Limited v. Commissioner Of Income Tax & Another 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 225

Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) And Ors. vs. Sumit 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 226

SATINDER SINGH BHASIN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 227

Infiniti Retail Limited vs. M/S Croma Wholeseller & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 228

Randeep Singh Surjewala v. ECI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 229

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 230

Idemia Syscom India Private Limited v. M/s Conjoinix Total Solutions Private Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 231

Ateesh Agarwal v. Union Of India And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 232

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 233

Asha Ram Nehra v. Commissioner of Police and Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 234

The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -2 v. Nokia Network OY 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 235

Neelkanth Pharma Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 236

LIFESTYLE EQUITIES CV & ANR. vs. AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 237

Daljeet Singh Gill v. Union Of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 238

CASTROL LIMITED vs. KAPIL & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 239

MR Makhinder Chopra Commissioner Of Customs New Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 240

ESTATE OF MAHARAJA DR KARNI SINGHJI OF BIKANER THROUGH EXECUTRIX v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 241

BIHAR OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION v. PRESIDENT INDIAN OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 242

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THROUGH ITS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 243

Burger King Corporation vs. Swapnil Patil & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 244

M/S Legacy Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 245

Monish Gajapati Raju Pusapati v. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 246

COMMISSIONER DELHI POLICE vs. NHRC 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 247

UNION OF INDIA & ANR v. ALL INDIA POSTAL ACCOUNTS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 248

M/s Isc Projects Private Limited v. Steel Authority of India Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 249

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LTD v. SAREGAMA INDIA LTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 250

SQN LDR PRABHAKAR BHATT vs. MAJ. ANNU LAMBA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 251

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)- 3 v. M/S Ridgeview Construction Pvt. Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 252

ANUPENDER v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 253

SHIVAM PANDEY v. STATE 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 254

Y V v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 256

HARIT NURSERIES WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.) & ANR. v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 257

Y S CHOWDARY v. ED and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 258

GOVIND YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 259

VAIBHAV KUMAR v. STATE THROUGH SHO RAJOURI GARDEN 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 260

Suparshva Swabs (I) v. National Faceless Appeal Centre & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 261

Flourish Hospitals Pvt. Ltd vs. Delhi Development Authority 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 262

CCL 'K' v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 263

Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nicenic International Group Company Limited & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 264

SHABBIR KHAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 265

Jayati Mozumdar v. Managing Committee Sri Sathya Sai Vidya Vihar & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 266

Rajbir Singh Sihmar And Ors v. Union Of India And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 267

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. Nagar Dairy Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 268

Saurabh Tripathi & Ors. v. Jamia Millia Islamia and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 269

Sushil Kumar v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 270

Phonographic Performance Limited vs. Azure Hospitality Private Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 271

GAGAN v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 272

Christian Michel James v. ED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 273

Interglobe Aviation Ltd v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs Acc (Import) New Custom House New Delhi & Ors. and batch 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 274

DHOBI GHAT JHUGGI ADHIKAR MANCH v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 275

Arth Vidhi v. Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 276

CBI v. MD. YASEEN WANI & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 277

Leelam v. Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 278

INCITE HOMECARE PRODUCTS PVT LTD versus R K SWAMY PVT LTD ERSTWHILE RK SWAMY BBDO PVT LTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 279

CBI vs. Neeraj Kumar 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 280

Sudesh Hans v. Gian Chand Hans and Another 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 281

RESCOM MINERAL TRADING FZE versus RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED RINL AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 282

Tata Teleservices Limited v. The Commissioner CGST Delhi East & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 283

PRAGYA SINGH versus DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 284

M/S DD Interiors v. Commissioner Of Service Tax & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 285

Ramesh Chander v. The Chairman Central Board Of Direct Taxes, & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 286

GE Grid (Switzerland) GMBH v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 287

Sentec India Company Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Customs, Delhi & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 288

Rahul Vattamparambil Remesh v. Union Of India & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 289

MRP (IDENTITY WITHHELD) v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 290

MEENU AGRAWAL v. BHARAT GOEL 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 291

Chotiwala Food And Hotels Private Limited vs. Chotiwala & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 292

C SHARMA v. NAVDEEP SINGH & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 293

M/S Kashish Optics Ltd. v. The Commissioner, CGST Delhi West & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 294

YASH RAJ FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 295

Fasttrack Tieup Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 296

Kiranakart Technologies Private Limited vs. Mohammad Arshad & Anr (C.O. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 297

Rattan India Power Ltd. v. BHEL 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 299

Eureka Forbes Limited vs.Om Sai Enterprises & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 300

Puma SE vs. Mahesh Kumar 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 301

JSD Traders LLP v. Additional Commissioner, GST 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 302

Ramada International, Inc. vs. Clubramada Hotels And Resorts Private Limited & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 303

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. WGF Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 304

WRESTLING FEDERATION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT MR. SANJAY SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 305

Cargill India Private Limited v. Central Board Of Direct Taxes. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 306

MOHD. MUNIB v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 307

M/S Ismartu India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India And Others 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 308

M/S Ismartu India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India And Others 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 309

State Bank of India vs. M/S. P. P. Jewellers Private Limited (M/S. P. P. JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 310

JOHNSON & JOHNSON v. PRITAMDAS ARORA T/A M/S MEDSERVE & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 311

ISHA FOUNDATION v. GOOGLE LLC & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 312

M/s ARSS Infrastructure Projects Ltd. v. National Highway Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 313

Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 314

NAVAL KISHORE KAPOOR v. NIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 315

Amirhossein Alizadeh v. The Commissioner Of Customs & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 316

VIJAY KUMAR @ CHAMPION v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 317

Living Media India Limited & Anr. vs. Telegram FZ LLC & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 318

Aabi Binju versus Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 319

M/S Smartschool Education Private Limited Vs M/S Bada Business Pvt. Ltd And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 320

Bentwood Seating System (P) Ltd. vs Airport Authority Of India & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 321

Mercedes Benz Group AG v. Minda Corporation Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 322

GOPAL MISHRA & ANR v. STATE 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 323

DOMINOS IP HOLDER LLC & ANR. v. M/S DOMINIC PIZZA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 324

M/S B Braun Medical India Pvt Ltd v. Union Of India & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 325

Gopika Vennankot Govind v. Union Of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 326

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. SHIVASHISH GUNWAL ADVOCATE 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 327

RAHUL KUMAR VERMA v. BADMINTON ASSOCIATION OF INDIA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 328

NTPC LIMITED versus STARCON INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 329

Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. & Anr vs. Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 330

Muhammad Nazim v. Commissioner Of Customs & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 331

Ircon International Limited vs M/S Pnc-Jain Construction Co (Jv) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 332

DIRECT NEWS PVT. LTD versus DTS TRAVELS PVT. LTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 333

NAMAHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 334

SUDESH CHHIKARA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 335

Kapil Mishra v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 336

KUNDAN KUMAR @ GORE vs. CBI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 337

M/S Saha Traders Zonal Joint Director General Of Foreign Trade(Cla) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 338

SHAHID NASIR v. NIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 339

THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LIMITED v. GAURAV ROY BHATT & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 340

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Delhi v. D Light Energy P. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 341

Anuj Ahuja vs. Sumitra Mittal 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 342

BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v. DEAYOUNG JUNG AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 343

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. M/S East Delhi Leasing Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 344

Amal Krishna v. Union Of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 345

X v. Y 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 346

Precitech Enclosures Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Rudrapur Precision Industries 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 347

MANNAT GROUP OF HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. M/S MANNAT DHABA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 348

Greesh Verma Jairath vs. State NCT Of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 349

RAMESH CHANDRA v. THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 350

SHAKTI PUMP INDIA LTD versus APEX BUILDSYS LTD and Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 351

M/S VALLABH CORPORATION versus SMS INDIA PVT LTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 352

FAITH CONSTRUCTIONS versus N.W.G.E.L CHURCH 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 353

F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE AG & ANR v. NATCO PHARMA LIMITED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 354

CREATIVELAND ADVERTISING PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. WINZO GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 355

SIDDHARTH SOOD versus MUNISH KUMAR AGGARWAL 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 356

Bridgestone Corporation vs. M/S Merlin Rubber 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 357

Jai Durga Rubberised Fabrics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 358

Sai Kiran Goud Tirupathi v. Commissioner Of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 359

AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 360

Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. Indian Broadcasting Foundation 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 361

ASHLOK v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matter 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 362

Paras Products v. Commissioner Central Gst, Delhi North (and batch) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 363

Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 364

Husky Injection Molding Systems Shanghai Ltd & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 365

Lavkush Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 366

SUNEHRI BAGH BUILDERS PVT LTD versus DELHI TOURISM AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 367

RADICO KHAITAN LIMITED versus HARISH CHOUHAN 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 368

APPLAUSE ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED v. WWW.9XMOVIES.COM.TW & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 369

Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Raj Belts & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 370

M/S GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD versus S.C WADHWA AND SONS (HUF) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 371

Ivy Entertainment Private Limited vs. HR Pictures 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 372

MS. RUCHI KALRA & Ors v. SLOWFORM MEDIA PVT. LTD & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 373

SH VIJAI PRATAP SINGH v. DELHI HIGH COURT, THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 374

RESILIENT INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/S BHARAT PAY AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 375

RAHUL SINGH versus BORDER SECURITY FORCE & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 376

Mohammad Arham v. Commissioner Of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 377

National Restaurant Association v. Union Of India & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 378

Ashow Swain v. Union of India & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 379

AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA versus DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 380

Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 381

Huawei Telecommunications India Company Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 2 & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 382

Mohd. Salim Khan v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 383

Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. DRI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 384

Avika Shahi And Anr vs. Medical Counselling Committee And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 385

HOSHIAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 386

SANOJ KUMAR MISHRA VS. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 387

VIKAS CHAWLA @ VICKY v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 388

M/s Dewan Chand v. Chairman cum Managing Director and Another 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 389

RAMCHANDER versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 390

The Commissioner Of Central Tax, CGST Delhi East v. M/S Simplex Infrastructure Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 391

Vedanta Limited v. CBIC 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 392

Backbone Overseas v. Assistant Commissioner Of Customs, Foreign Post Office , New Delhi And Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 393

Shiv Parkash Bansal v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-14 Delhi & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 394

BHARAT BHUSHAN SHARMA v. GOVT.NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 395

Lufthansa Cargo AG v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 396

Customs Dept Should Serve Notices By Email In Addition To Post, Will Prevent Delay And Non-Appearances: Delhi High Court

Case title: Bonanza Enterprises v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Customs & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 8

The Delhi High Court recently called upon the Customs Department to make use of Section 153(c) of the Customs Act, 1962 which empowers it to serve notices through email.

A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Amit Sharma said such an approach will prevent delay and non-appearances, leading to expeditious disposal of matters.

Delhi High Court Rejects Plea Challenging CAT 2024 Results

Title: Aditya Kumar Mallick vs Union of India and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 9

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the results of Common Admission Test (CAT) 2024 for admissions in top management institutes.

Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju rejected the plea moved by a candidate, Aditya Kumar Mallick, who was aggrieved with an incorrect answer to Question No. 18 from Verbal Ability and Reading Comprehension Portion, thereby affecting the exam results.

No Bar To Avail Remedy U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act Even Against Non-Parties To Subject Matter Of Dispute: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Mr. Pawan Gupta & Anr. vs. Miton Credentia Trusteeship Services Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 10

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has held that the Plaintiffs are not barred from availing the remedy under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 even against individual(s)/entities who are not party to the Family Settlement out of which the dispute arose.

The application for ad interim injunction was held to be not maintainable due to pending Arbitration proceedings in regard to the Family Settlement and a pending Application under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.

'Policy Matter': Delhi High Court Refuses To Order 'Rehabilitation Package' For Pakistan Migrants Under CAA

Title: Akhil Bhartiya Dharma Prasar Samiti v. UOI & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 11

The Delhi High Court has refused to pass directions to the Central Government on a petition seeking “comprehensive rehabilitation package” for Pakistan migrants who have obtained citizenship under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said that rehabilitation package was purely a matter of policy of the Government.

Structural, Phonetic Similarity: Delhi High Court Grants Relief To 'INDI' Measuring Tapes Manufacturer Against 'INDEED' Mark

Case title: FMI Limited vs. Midas Touch Metalloys Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 12

The Delhi High Court has made a temporary injunction absolute in favour of the measuring tapes manufacturer, FMI Limited, against passing off of its 'INDI' tapes by a business dealing in identical goods.

The plaintiff FMI Limited, submitted that it is the largest manufacturer of measuring tapes, spirit levels measuring wheels in the Indian sub-continent and also that is well-established in over 60 countries.

FMI stated that it adopted the trademark 'INDI' in 2015 and has registered other formative marks. It stated that it advertises its goods in various e-commerce websites such as Amazon and IndiaMart. It stated that its sales figures for FY 2022-23 and 2023-24 was Rs.67.85 crore, 76.63 crore respectively.

Application Mentioning Wrong Section Of Law Not Fatal If It Doesn't Cause Prejudice To Court Or Opposite Party: Delhi High Court

Case title: Rajeev Shukla vs. Gopal Krishna Shukla

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 13

The Delhi High Court has observed that mentioning a wrong section of law in an application would not considered fatal to case if the substance of application was clear and no prejudice would be caused to the opposite party.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja remarked, “Procedural errors, including mentioning incorrect provision of law should not override the substantive justice. The Court has enough powers under Section 151 CPC to ensure that justice is served.”

Delhi High Court Constitutes Fact-Finding Committee To Investigate Governance Issues In Equestrian Sports

Case title: Rajasthan Equestrian Association vs.Union Of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 14

The Delhi High Court has constituted a 5-member Fact-Finding Committee to conduct a detailed investigation into the ground level realities of Equestrian sports in India, focusing on issues including assessment of infrastructure, participation and representation of athletes, and the role of clubs in the development of the sport.

The Committee would function under the chairmanship of Retired Judge of the Delhi High Court Justice Najmi Waziri. The other members include representatives from the Union Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Sports Authority of India (SAI), nominee from the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) and two Equestrian sportspersons from Equestrian sports–Ms. Divyakriti Singh and Ms. Shruti Vora, who represented India at national and international championships.

MEA Informs Delhi High Court Of Documents Required For Gender Change Recognition In Passports After Surgery Abroad

Case title: Anahita Chaudhary Union Of India & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 15

The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has recently informed the Delhi High Court about the documents that an individual who has undergone a gender change abroad can submit upon returning to India, in order to reflect the change of gender in the passport.

The Court disposed of a plea moved by a transgender woman–petitioner, whose grievance raised in the plea had been redressed inasmuch as the petitioner had been issued a passport with the changed name, gender marker, and appearance, as requested in the petitioner's January 2023 application.

DHJS 2024: Delhi High Court Refuses To Modify Cut Off Date For Candidates' Age

Title: SHWETA CHOWDHERY v. HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 16

The Delhi High Court has refused to modify the criteria according to which candidates appearing in Delhi Higher Judicial Services (DHJS) 2024 examination must have attained the age of 35 years on January 01, 2024.

A division bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Amit Mahajan rejected the plea filed by a candidate, Shweta Chowdhery, who challenged the one of the conditions mentioned in the public notice issued on December 27 last year by the High Court stipulating January 01, 2024 as the date by which the candidates had to have attained the age of 35.

Delhi High Court Denies Bail To 'ISIS Associate' In UAPA Case, Says He Was Advocating 'Jihad' To Establish Caliphate

Title: MD HEYDAITULLAH v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 17

The Delhi High Court has recently denied bail to an alleged member of ISIS in a case registered by National Investigation Agency (NIA) accusing him of radicalising youths using cyber space.

A division bench comprising of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma dismissed the plea moved by MD Heydaitullah, observing that the mandate of Section 43(D)(5) of UAPA was clearly applicable in the case.

“ISIS had been declared to be a terrorist organisation and judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the world at large knows about the activities of ISIS. The aforesaid chats further reflect the intention of the Appellant to join ISIS (Dawlah) and was ready to perform Hijrah (travel) for the same,” the Court said.

Date Of Receipt Of Corrected Award Would Be Taken As Disposal Date U/S 34(3) Of Arbitration Act, Even When Application U/S 33 Has Been Filed: Delhi HC

Case Title: TEFCIL BREWERIES LIMITED v. ALFA LAVAL (INDIA) LIMITED

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 18

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that taking the date of receipt of the corrected award as the starting point and not as the date of disposal would actually go contrary to the plain reading of Section 34(3) of the Act. This will apply even in cases where an application under Section 33 of the Act has been filed.

Uploading Information On Insight Portal Not A Substitute For Handing Over Material To AO For Non-Searched Entity U/S 153C Of IT Act: Delhi HC

Case title: ATS Township Pvt Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 1(1) Delhi & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 19

The Delhi High Court has held that the provision under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessing officer of a searched person to record 'satisfaction' and handover documents regarding undisclosed income of another person cannot be substituted by merely uploading such information on the Department's insight portal.

Assessee Must Clearly Establish 'Movement Of Goods' To Defend Allegations Of Accommodation Entries: Delhi HC

Case title: Abhishek Bansal v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 58(3), Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 21

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that merely producing transaction documents to establish that payments were made to an entity is not sufficient to defend the allegations of accommodation entries.

TRAI's Obligations Don't Extend To Seeking Info Under RTI Act On Status Of Complaints Lodged With Telecom Service Providers: Delhi HC

Case title: Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India vs. Akshay Kumar Malhotra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 22

The Delhi High Court has observed that the regulatory functions of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) does not encompass seeking or requisitioning information about individual complaints from a Telecom Service Provider for the purpose of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act).

Income Tax Dept Can Invoke S.159 When Reassessment Notice Was Issued During Lifetime Of Deceased Assessee: Delhi HC

Case title: Late Sh. Lal Chand Verma Through His Legal Heir v. Union Of India & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 23

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 159 of the Income Tax Act can be invoked to proceed against the legal representative of an assessee, only in cases where the reassessment notice was issued to the assessee during his lifetime, not after.

Commercial Court Act Doesn't Prevent Applicability Of Order 8 Rule 9 CPC For Filing Additional Written Statement After 120 Days: Delhi HC

Case title: Novartis Ag & Anr. vs. Natco Pharma Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 24

In relation to commercial disputes, the Delhi High Court has observed that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 does not prevent the application of Order 8 Rule 9 CPC for filing additional written statement after the expiry of 120 days for filing the written statements.

Customs Dept Cannot Encash Bank Guarantee Furnished By Trader During Pendency Of Appeal If Pre-Deposit Is Made: Delhi HC Affirms

Case title: Amar Singh And Sons Tree Nuts LLP v. The Superintendent Of Customs, Epm, Import & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 25

Based on a circular issued by the Finance Ministry, the Delhi High Court has affirmed that the Customs Department cannot encash the bank guarantee furnished by a trader, whose import/export transactions are in dispute, if the latter has made a pre-deposit with his appeal against the demand and penalty.

Delay In Issuing Requisition U/S 132A Of Income Tax Act Due To Investigation By Department Can Be Condoned: Delhi HC

Case title: Gautam Thadani v. Director Income Tax (Investigation) And Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 26

The Delhi High Court has held that the delay in issuing requisition under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be condoned if the same is explained by the Authority concerned.

The provision contemplates powers to requisition books of account, etc. It stipulates that where a search has already been conducted by any authority under any other law, the Income Tax authority shall authorize the Assessing Officer to make requisition to that authority to deliver books of accounts and assets seized to the AO.

AO Bound To Ascertain 'Correctness' Of Information Available Against Assessee, 'Decide' Whether It Is Sufficient To Reopen Assessment: Delhi HC

Case title: Sonansh Creations Pvt Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 27

The Delhi High Court has turned down the contention that an Assessing Officer, at the stage of passing an order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for initiation of reassessment proceedings, is not required to form any opinion as to the genuineness or veracity of the information available against an assessee.

Supporting Terrorist Organization Either Monetarily Or Through Networking Prohibited Under UAPA: Delhi High Court

Title: ZAFAR ABBAS @ JAFFAR v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 28

The Delhi High Court has ruled that giving support to a terrorist organization either monetarily or in the form of networking or meetings is clearly prohibited under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1976.

A division bench comprising of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma said that UAPA permits various measures to be taken against terrorists and terrorist organisations, including freezing of assets, for protecting the country and for prevention of terrorist acts from taking place.

2018 Tweet Case: Delhi High Court Closes Mohammed Zubair's Plea To Return Devices Allegedly Seized Beyond Scope Of FIR

Title: Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 29

The Delhi High Court has disposed of a petition moved by Alt News Co Founder Mohammed Zubair, in connection with 2018 tweet case, seeking that any device or document seized by the Delhi Police, being beyond the allegation in FIR, be restored to him.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma closed the plea and asked Zubair to move an appropriate application before the concerned magistrate to seek the relief.

'Punishment Is Not Disproportionate When Officer Displays Negligent And Irresponsible Conduct', Delhi High Court

Case Title: Babrey Singh versus Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 30

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur dismissed a Petition challenging an order of punishment awarded to the Petitioner for being irresponsible while supervising an area he was assigned. The Court held that the punishment was not disproportionate as the Petitioner had been negligent in a similar incident in the past and had shown no signs of improvement leading in another such incident where criminals could steal under the supervision and watch of the Petitioner.

Living Together In Shared Household In A Relationship 'In Nature Of Marriage' Also Domestic Relationship Under DV Act: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 31

The Delhi High Court has held that two persons who lived together in a shared household through a relationship in the “nature of marriage” would also be called to be in a domestic relationship under the Domestic Violence Act.

“Even otherwise, in terms of Section 2 (f) of the Act, the relationship of parties living together through a relationship in the “nature of marriage” would also fall within the definition of domestic relationship,” Justice Amit Mahajan said.

Delhi High Court Directs Taekwondo Federation Of India To Conduct Fresh Open Selection Trials For 2025 National Games

Title: TAEKWONDO FEDERATION OF INDIA v. INDIAN OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION & ORS and other connected matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 32

The Delhi High Court has directed the Taekwondo Federation Of India (TFI) to conduct fresh open selection trials for selecting two players in each weight category for both male and female for upcoming National Games to be held at Uttarakhand commencing from January 28.

Justice Sachin Datta said that after the trials, two players shall be selected in each weight category who would be given a wild card entry to participate in the 38th National Games, 2025.

Terror Funding Case: Delhi High Court Dismisses Second Bail Plea Of NSCN(IM) Leader Alemla Jamir

Title: ALEMLA JAMIR v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 33

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the second regular bail appeal of Naga insurgent group National Socialist Council of Nagaland-Isak Muivah (NSCN (IM)) leader Alemla Jamir in relation to a terror funding case probed by National Investigation Agency.

A division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur found no merit in the appeal challenging dismissal of the bail by the trial court.

Interim Maintenance Order Can Be Granted Merely On Satisfaction That Wife's Application Prima Facie Discloses Domestic Violence: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 34

The Delhi High Court has observed that an order for interim maintenance can be granted merely upon the satisfaction of the Court that the application by the wife prima facie disclosed the commission of domestic violence.

“While the veracity of the case of the wife would be tested during the course of trial, interim relief can be granted merely upon the satisfaction that the application by the wife prima facie disclosed the commission of domestic violence,” Justice Amit Mahajan said.

If Assessee Produces Accounts, AO Must Be Satisfied That Accommodation Entries Exist Before Proceeding U/S 148 Of Income Tax Act: Delhi HC

Case title: Sonansh Creations Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 35

The Delhi High Court has held that an Assessing Officer is required to be satisfied that accommodation entries as alleged in show cause notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 exist, particularly where the assessee produces its accounts.

In doing so, a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma heavily relied on its recent ruling in Sonansh Creations Pvt Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr. where it was held that to initiate reassessment proceedings under the Act, the AO must conduct an enquiry with respect to the information that suggests escapement of income, to ascertain its correctness.

Delhi High Court Grants Custody Parole To Tahir Hussain For Filing Nomination Papers For Assembly Polls

Case Title: Tahir Hussain v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 36

The Delhi High Court has granted custody parole to former Aam Aadmi Party Councillor Tahir Hussain for subscribing Oath and for filing his nomination papers in the upcoming Assembly polls from Mustafabad constituency as a member of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) party.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna directed the State to facilitate filing of nomination papers on the concerned date and to provide the facility for completing the formalities before and after the filing of Nomination Papers for contesting the elections.

Consider Adopting Technological Tools To Eliminate Duplicate Names In Voters List: Delhi High Court To ECI

Title: Rashtravadi Adharsh Mahasangh v. ECI & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 37

The Delhi High Court has asked the Election Commission of India (ECI) to consider adopting technological tools that would assist it in eliminating duplicate names of individuals in the voters list.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela disposed of a public interest litigation seeking action against individual voters maintaining multiple entries in the voters list in the national capital.

Delhi High Court Rejects PIL Against CM Atishi For Allowing Manish Sisodia To Use Her Govt Bungalow

Title: Sanjeev Jain v. UOI & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 38

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking action against Chief Minister Atishi for allowing senior AAP leader and former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and his family members to use the government allotted bungalow.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela rejected the PIL filed by Sanjeev Jain, claiming to be a social worker and an RTI activist.

Disability Attributable To Service, Authorities Cannot Contradict Medical Proof, Delhi High Court Grants Disability Pension

Case Title: KULDEEP SINGH versus DIRECTOR GENERAL CRPF AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 39

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur while allowing a Petition of the Petitioner seeking disability pension held that in absence of reasons as to how the disability arose, it could be presumed that in cases where the personnel while being appointed to the post was declared fit, the disability having arisen later could be attributable to or aggravated by service.

Right To Speedy Trial Not A 'Free Pass' For Undertrial To Be Released On Bail: Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Neeraj Bawana In Murder Case

Title: NEERAJ SEHRAWAT @ NEERAJ BAWANIYA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 40

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the right to speedy trial derived from Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not a “free-pass” for every undertrial, demanding to be enlarged on bail regardless of the criminal antecedents and the nature of the offence.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said that where there are grave criminal antecedents, the larger interests of society must prevail over the individual rights of an undertrial.

Revocation Petition Can Be Filed Or Sustained After Expiry Of Term Of Patent: Delhi High Court

Title: MACLEODS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 41

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a revocation petition can be filed or sustained after the expiry of the term of the patent.

While dealing with a patent infringement suit, Justice Amit Bansal observed that just because the term of the patent has expired, it would not mean that the suit has become infructuous, as the cause of action still survives.

Expert Tribunal's Award Did Not Suffer From Patent Illegality, Cannot Be Set Aside U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: CENTER FOR RESEARCH PLANNING AND ACTION v. NATIONAL MEDICINAL PLANTS BOARD MINISTRY OF AYUSH GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 42

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has held that the scope of interference by the Court with the arbitral award under Section 34 is very limited, and the Court is not supposed to travel beyond the aforesaid scope to determine whether the award is good or bad.

In the present case, the court held that the expert tribunals award did not suffer from patent illegality, and thus could not be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

'APAR Can't Be Interfered With If It Complies With Guidelines And Is Not Actuated By Malice', Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ajit Kumar versus Union Of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 43

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur dismissed a Writ Petition seeking to upgrade the Petitioner's Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) based on being graded as 'very good' and 'outstanding' in the previous years. The Court further held that the APAR could not be interfered with as the Reporting Officer had written the same considering the attitude and dealings of the Petitioner and no guidelines or rules were violated in doing so.

Arbitral Award Cannot Be Challenged In Writ Petition, Party Must Use Remedy U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD v. MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISE FACILITATION COUNCIL AND OTHERS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 44

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that it cannot entertain a writ petition challenging an arbitral award, and the petitioner should challenge the award by taking recourse to appropriate remedies under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

Absence Of Formal Communication U/S 148A Of Income Tax Act Not Fatal When Opportunity To Question Reassessment Had Been Provided: Delhi HC

Case title: Rohit Kumar v. Income Tax Officer Ward 54 (1), Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 45

The Delhi High Court observed that absence of a formal notice under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not fatal to reassessment proceedings initiated in the twilight zone when the inquiry provisions were introduced by the Finance Act, 2021.

A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma noted that the Department had provided an opportunity to the petitioner-assessee to question the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148, which was the “underlying principle” of Section 148A.

Tariff, License Fee Received By Electricity Regulatory Commissions Not Exigible To Tax: Delhi High Court

Case title: Central Electricity Regulatory Commission v. The Additional Director Directorate General Of Gst Intelligence (Dggi) & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 46

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that amounts received by the Electricity Regulatory Commissions under the heads of filing fee, tariff fee, license fee, annual registration fee and miscellaneous fee are not exigible to tax.

A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma thus allowed the petitions filed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission as well as the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission against the show cause notices issued to them by the GST Department.

S.149 IT Act | Additions Made During Reassessment Don't Validate Proceedings Initiated For Income Escapement Below ₹50 Lakh Threshold: Delhi HC

Case title: Rohit Kumar v. Income Tax Officer Ward 54 (1), Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 47

The Delhi High Court has held that the benchmark of minimum Rs. 50 lakh income escapement prescribed under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 must be met at the very initiation of reassessment proceedings.

A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma observed,

“Additions ultimately made in the course of reassessment would not validate the initiation of proceedings if founded on income of INR 46,17,000/- having escaped assessment and thus evidently below the threshold of INR 50 lakhs.”

Arbitrator's Order Determining Substantive Rights Of Parties Constitutes “Award”, Amenable To Challenge U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi HC

Case Title: Aptec Advanced Protective Technologies AG vs. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 48

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur has held that orders passed by the Arbitrator during the pendency of Arbitral proceedings, which finally determines any substantive rights of the parties, constitutes an interim Arbitral Award, and can be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Samsung India Electronics Not A 'Permanent Establishment' Of Samsung Korea, Cannot Be Taxed In India: Delhi High Court

Case title: The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 49

The Delhi High Court has held that Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd (SIEL), a wholly owned subsidiary of South Korea-based Samsung Electronics Co. is not its 'Permanent Establishment' (PE) in India, hence not exigible to tax here.

A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar agreed with ITAT's findings that the secondment of employees by Samsung Korea was merely with the objective of facilitating the activities of SIEL, not its own.

Baggage Rules Should Be Reviewed To Prevent Harassment Of Genuine Air Travellers Carrying Gold Jewellery To Attend Weddings: Delhi HC

Case title: Qamar Jahan v. Union Of India, Represented By Secretary, Ministry Of Finance & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 50

The Delhi High Court has urged the Central government as well as the Customs department to review the Baggage Rules, 2016 which regulate the amount of gold or gold jewellery that can be carried by a person travelling to India by air.

A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma observed,

“While, there is no doubt that any illegal smuggling of gold deserves to be curbed, at the same time, bona-fidely and genuine tourists/travellers, including people from Indian Origin such as the OCI Cardholders, PIOs etc., could be travelling for social engagements in India or social events such as marriages etc., with gold, which could be of a much higher value than the permissible limits.

ITAT Cannot Decide On Grounds Not Addressed By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals): Delhi High Court

Case title: Divine Infracon Pvt Ltd v. Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax 3

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 51

The Delhi High Court recently said aside an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, deciding grounds that did not arise from the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

[S.115JB Income Tax Act] Delhi HC Rejects Dept's Appeals Against Tata Power's Joint Venture With Delhi Govt For Supply Of Electricity

Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 9 v. M/S Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S North Delhi Power Limited)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 52

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it stood prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would be inapplicable to an electricity generation company.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma thus dismissed the Department's appeals against Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited, a joint venture of Tata Power with the Delhi government for purposes of power generation and distribution of electricity in two districts of Delhi.

Arbitration Dispute: Delhi High Court Restrains DB Dixon Battery From Using Images Of Shikhar Dhawan While Promoting Its Products

Title: SHIKHAR DHAWAN v. DB DIXON BATTERY PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 53

The Delhi High Court has restrained DB Dixon Battery Private Limited, manufacturer of lead acid storage batteries, from using the images of former cricketer of the India Men's National Cricket Team Shikhar Dhawan while promoting its products.

Justice Subramonium Prasad issued notice on a plea filed by Dhawan for interim injunction to restrain DB Dixon Battery Private Limited from using his images while promoting its lead acid storage batteries.

Justice Prasad also issued notice on another plea filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute.

Delhi High Court Rejects Janta Party's Plea Against Rule To Reserve Election Symbol Only For Recognised Political Parties

Title: Janta Party through its President v. Election Commission of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 54

The Delhi High Court has rejected a petition filed by Janta Party challenging the Election Symbol (Reservation & Allotment) Order, 1968, on reservation of election symbol only for recognised registered political parties.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed the plea, observing that the issue raised has been settled in various judgments.

Delhi HC Rejects Argument That Wife's Hospitalization Is Essential For Invoking S.498A, Says 'Narrow Interpretation' Will Silence Many Victims

Title: BILAL ANSARI v. STATE

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 55

The Delhi High Court has rejected a husband's argument that hospitalization of the wife is essential for establishing cruelty and harassment to her and for invoking Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

“Allowing such an argument to prevail – that hospitalization is a prerequisite for invoking Section 498A – would erode the very purpose of the provision. Section 498A of IPC was enacted to address the plight of women who suffer various forms of cruelty, not just physical abuse that results in visible injuries,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

Delhi High Court Distinguishes From SC's Sky Light Judgment, Declines Assessment Issued In Wrong Name After Entity's Merger

Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. Delhi Vedanta Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 56

The Delhi High Court on Friday declined the Income Tax Department's appeal to treat as 'curable', the error committed in naming the relevant entity while issuing reassessment notices.

A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma refused to grant the benefit which the Supreme Court had given to the Department in Sky Light Hospitality LLP v. Assistant commissioner of Income-tax (2018).

[S.151 IT Act] SC Judgment In Rajeev Bansal Doesn't Affirm Authority Of Joint Commissioner To Accord Approvals For Reassessment: Delhi HC

Case title: Rohit Kumar v. Income Tax Officer Ward 54 (1), Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 57

The Delhi High Court has held that the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India and Ors. vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) did not affirm the authority of a Joint Commissioner to grant approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for initiation of reassessment proceedings.

The provision precludes the Assessing Officer from issuing notice for reassessment after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year, unless the Principal Chief Commissioner or Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the AO that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice.

Whether Entity Is 'Permanent Establishment' Is A Fact-Specific Issue, Must Be Examined Separately For Different Tax Periods: Delhi High Court

Case title: Grid Solutions OY (Ltd) v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 58

The Delhi High Court has held that whether an entity is a Permanent Establishment (PE) of a foreign company or not is a “fact-specific” issue which must be examined separately for different tax periods.

A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed,

“The position of a PE being a facts-specific issue and thus liable to be examined against the backdrop of what obtained in a particular tax period…”

Mindset That Women Should Endure Suffering In Matrimonial Homes Emboldens Perpetrators: Delhi High Court On Dowry Deaths

Title: KULDEEP SINGH v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 59

While denying bail to a husband in a dowry death case, the Delhi High Court has said that the mindset that women should continue to endure suffering in their matrimonial homes as it is the “right” thing to do after marriage “emboldens” perpetrators.

“This mindset emboldens, and is exploited by, perpetrators including a husband, who kills his wife, exploiting the situation that the victim wife has nowhere else to go, as her parental family is also advising her to live with him despite the torture and physical abuse. In cases such as the present one, granting bail liberally could encourage such practices and offences,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

NDPS Act | Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Former Punjab AAG Booked For Transporting Drugs, Says Twin Conditions U/S 37 Satisfied

Title: VIKRAMJIT SINGH v. NCB

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 60

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to lawyer and former Additional Advocate General for the State of Punjab in a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 last year.

Justice Jasmeet Singh granted relief to Vikramjit Singh, observing that the "twin conditions" given under section 37 of the NDPS Act were "satisfied" in the case. The court also noted that the petitioner had been in custody since February 26, 2024 and the chargesheet had already been filed showing that the investigation is complete.

Penalties Like Seizure, Detention Of Goods In Transit U/S 129 CGST Act Shouldn't Be Imposed To Penalise Minor Breaches: Delhi High Court

Case title: Kamal Envirotech Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Gst And Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 61

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 129 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 which pertains to detention, seizure and release of goods while in transit cannot be invoked for imposing penalties for minor breaches, like incomplete e-way bill.

Importation Of Wireless Access Points Which Operate Solely On MIMO Technology Exempt From Customs Duty: Delhi High Court

Case title: Commissioner Of Customs Air Chennai-Vii Commissionerate v. M/S. Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 62

Coming to the rescue of an IT distribution company, the Delhi High Court has held that the import of Wireless Access Points (WAPs), which operate on MIMO technology, are exempt from Customs duty.

In doing so, the division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that the word “and” used between 'MIMO and LTE Products', which are eligible for exemption under the relevant notification issued by the Centre, is disjunctive.

'Bharat Gate' Mark Infringes 'India Gate' Mark, Phonetically Similar: Delhi High Court Rules In Favour Of KRBL Rice Company

Title: KRBL LIMITED v. PRAVEEN KUMAR BUYYANI & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 63

The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of KRBL Limited, a company known for its India Gate brand of basmati rice, in a trademark infringement case against “Bharat Gate” brand selling basmati rice.

A division bench comprising of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul set aside a commercial court's order vacating the ad interim injunction granted in favour of India Gate, restraining Bharat Gare from using its trademark in respect of rice or any other associated or allied product.

Section 13 Of Commercial Courts Act Doesn't Provide Any Independent Right To Appeal In Arbitration Matters: Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Synergies Casting Ltd. vs. National Research Development Corporation & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 64

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur has held that an order which neither sets aside nor refuses to set aside the arbitral award, does not fall under the ambit of Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act and is not appealable.

The court observed that appeals in arbitration matters are maintainable only if expressly provided for in section 37/ 50 of the A&C Act. Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 does not confer an independent right to appeal.

High Court Asks Delhi University To Ensure Date-Sheets Are Issued At Least 15 Days Prior To Commencement Of Law Exams

Title: SOHAM BHATTACHARYA AND OTHERS v. THE FACULTY OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF DELHI THROUGH ITS DEAN AND ANOTHER

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 65

The Delhi High Court has asked the Dean and Head of Delhi University's Faculty of Law to ensure that future date-sheets are issued at least 15 days before the commencement of examinations.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma strongly urged the varsity's Dean of the Faculty of Law to take all administrative decisions, including the issuance of date-sheets, with due regard for the interests of students.

Referral Courts At Post-Award Stage Must Protect Parties From Being Forced To Arbitrate Non-Arbitrable Claims: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Jaiprakash Associates Limited v. M/s NHPC Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 66

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad, while refusing to appoint an arbitrator in a Section 11 petition, has held that the referral court in a post-award stage must protect the parties from being forced to arbitrate when, after prime facie scrutiny of the facts the claims are found to be non-arbitrable. The court applied the 'eye of the needle' test, which allows the referral court to reject arbitration in exceptional circumstances where the claims are deadwood.

Trader Cannot Accept Settlement Commission's Order U/S 127C Of Customs Act 'In Parts': Delhi High Court

Case title: KBS Industries Ltd & Anr. v. The Customs Central Excise And Service Tax Settlement Commission Principal Bench New Delhi & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 67

The Delhi High Court has held that an order passed by the Settlement Commission under Section 127C of the Customs Act, 1962 is in the nature of a 'settlement' and cannot be accepted by a trader only in part.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “Given the nature of the order passed under Section 127C of the Act – which is in the nature of a settlement – it would not be permissible to dissect the same and accept that parts of the order which are favourable to the applicant while rejecting the other directions which are not. The order of Settlement Commission must be accepted in entirety. ”

Court Not Prohibited From Looking Into Material Considered By SEBI While Adjudicating Plea For Compounding Of Offence: Delhi High Court

Case title: Sanjay Kumar v. SEBI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 68

The Delhi High Court has held that the SEBI (Settlement Proceedings) Regulations, 2018, cannot prohibit any Court from looking into material which led the SEBI or its High Powered Advisory Committee (HPAC) to allow or reject a plea for compounding of offences alleged under the SEBI Act, 1992.

Regulation 29(2) of the Settlement Regulation provides that material placed before the HPAC or the Board cannot be used as evidence before any court or Tribunal.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking ECI To Specify Special Circumstances For Using EVMs In Each Constituency

Case title: Ramesh Chander Vs Election Commission Of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 69

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal seeking directions to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to comply with Section 61A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA) before proceeding with any elections through EVMs.

Section 61A RPA states that "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the rules made thereunder, the giving and recording of votes by voting machines in such manner as may be prescribed, may be adopted in such constituency or constituencies as the Election Commission may, having regard to the circumstances of each case, specify."

Foreign National Can't Seek Release From 'Executive Detention' Under Foreigners Act In Bail Proceedings: Delhi High Court

Title: AIZAZ KILICHEVA @ AZIZA @ MAYA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 70

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a foreign national cannot seek release from “executive detention” imposed by the Central Government by invoking Section 14 and Section 14A of the Foreigners Act under bail proceedings.

“Ergo, bail proceedings relate only to the release of a person from 'judicial custody' and cannot be employed to seek release from 'executive detention,” Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking To Prohibit Sale And Consumption Of Tobacco Near Temples

Title: MANDIR PUJARI SH ABHIMANYU SHARMA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 71

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking to prohibit the sale and consumption of tobacco products near temples.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said that the authorities can take necessary action as per law if they find any violation.

“Needless to state that if the concerned authorities find any violation of the Cigarette and other Tobacco Product (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce Act), 2003 or any rules made thereunder, the authorities are required to take the necessary action in accordance with law,” the Court said while disposing of the plea.

Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Rapido Against Registration Of Its Trademark By Another Party

Case title: Roppen Transportation Services Private Limited Vs.Nipun Gupta & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 72

The Delhi High Court has allowed rectification petitions filed by Roppen Transportation Services, which runs Rapido bike/taxi services, against registration of 'RAPIDO' mark by another party.

Roppen Transportation Services (petitioner) submitted that it has multiple trademark registrations for its RAPIDO marks and the earliest registration was in November, 2017. It stated that it was incorporated in 2015 and has a presence in the pan-Indian market.

Unnao Rape: Delhi High Court Grants Interim Bail To Kuldeep Sengar For Undergoing Cataract Surgery At AIIMS

Case Title: Kuldeep Singh Sengar v. CBI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 73

The Delhi High Court has granted interim bail to expelled BJP leader Kuldeep Singh Sengar, convicted in the Unnao rape case, in order to undergo cataract surgery at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in the national capital.

A division bench comprising of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar ordered that Sengar be released on bail tomorrow (January 23, subject to him furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of like amount.

Woman's Consent For Sexual Relations Does Not Extend To Capturing Private Moments, Posting Them On Social Media: Delhi High Court

Title: SUDHIR KUMAR v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 74

The Delhi High Court has observed that the consent given by a woman for engaging in sexual relations with a man does not extend to capturing her private moments and posting inappropriate videos on social media.

“Even if the consent for sexual relations had been given at any point of time by the complainant, such consent cannot, in any manner, be construed as consent to capture and post her inappropriate videos on social media platforms,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

[UAPA] Long Incarceration Can't Lead To Bail When Case Involves Transnational Terrorism, Anti-National Activities: Delhi High Court

Title: JOGINDER SINGH @ JOGINDER RANA v. NIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 75

The Delhi High Court has observed that long incarceration in itself cannot lead to an accused being released on bail where the case involves transnational terrorism and anti-national activities.

“This Court while acknowledging that speedy trial is necessary as a Constitutional prescription, observes that in cases involving anti-national activities and terrorism on an international scale, long incarceration in itself ought not to lead to enlargement on bail when facts show involvement in such activities which can have a national and transnational impact,” a division bench comprising of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Dharmesh Sharma said.

Delhi HC Rejects Income Tax Director's Appeal U/S 19 Contempt Of Courts Act, Says Appeal Maintainable Only If Order Imposes Punishment

Case title: RK Yadav Through Director Of Income Tax Inv-II And Ors v. Dinesh Kumar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 76

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by a Director of Income Tax under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

A division bench of Justices Chandra Dhari Singh and Manoj Jain observed that in the absence of the contempt court recording a finding of guilt or imposing a punishment, the appeal preferred under Section 19 by an alleged contemnor, the Income Tax Director in this case, is not maintainable.

[CrPC] Subsequent Sanction After Cognizance Is Taken Won't Cure Initial Defect: Delhi High Court

Title: REKHA KAKKAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 77

The Delhi High Court has observed that the sanction to prosecute under Section 197 of CrPC obtained after cognizance is taken will not cure the initial defect in cognizance.

“It is settled law that the Sanction had to be obtained prior to taking of cognizance. Subsequent sanction would not cure the initial defect in cognizance,” Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.

Sporadic Use Of Trademark In India No Ground To Assume Goodwill Or Reputation: Delhi High Court

Case title: Broad Peak Investment Holdings Ltd. And Anr vs. Broad Peak Capital Advisors LLP And Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 78

The Delhi High Court has observed that sporadic use of a trademark in India cannot be a ground to assume that the said trademark has acquired reputation and goodwill of the mark in India.

Justice Amit Bansal also noted that an internationally well-known mark itself is not a ground to assume that there has been a spillover of its reputation and goodwill in India.

Accused's Rights Under Article 21 Prevail Over Restrictions On Grant Of Bail Under NDPS Act: Delhi High Court

Title: ZAKIR HUSSAIN v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 79

The Delhi High Court has observed that the rights of an accused enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India prevail over the restrictions on grant of bail mentioned under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

“I am of the view that the restrictions given under section 37 of NDPS Act cannot take precedence over the petitioner's rights guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India,” Justice Jasmeet Singh said.

Delhi Riots: High Court Directs Delhi Govt To Release Compensation Amount To Victims Based On Claims Commission Recommendations

Title: MUMTIYAJ ALI v. SDM KARAWAL NAGAR & ANR and other connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 80

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to release compensation amount to various victims of the 2020 North-East Delhi riots based on the recommendations of the Claims Commission.

Justice Sachin Datta was dealing with a batch of 20 petitions moved by various victims of the riots seeking compensation in accordance with Delhi Government's “Assistance Scheme for the Help of Riot Victims.” Some of the petitioners seek enhanced compensation.

Briefing Standing Counsel, Obtaining Approvals From Officials Not 'Sufficient Cause' For Condoning Delay In Filing Appeal: Delhi High Court

Title: DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION v. RAMJAS SCHOOL

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 81

While rejecting an appeal moved by Delhi Government's Directorate of Education, the Delhi High Court has ruled that obtaining approvals from officials of its departments and briefing the standing counsel are not “sufficient cause” for application of condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

“In any event, in our considered view the aforesaid plea taken by the appellant in the said application qua obtaining approvals from various officials of its departments, briefing the learned Standing Counsel (Civil) for GNCTD as also preparing and perusing the appeal paper book cannot be said to be justifiable and treated as “sufficient cause” for the said application under Section 5 of the Act to be allowed. Thus, the same inspire no confidence in us,” a division bench comprising of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee said.

[MV Act] Family Pension Paid To Deceased's Family Can't Be Deducted While Calculating Compensation: Delhi High Court

Case title: Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Usha Gupta & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 82

The Delhi High Court has observed that the family pension being received by legal heirs of a deceased cannot be considered for calculating compensations towards 'Loss of Dependency' payable under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna was considering the appellant/Insurance Company's challenge to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award, which granted around Rs. 13.36 lakh of compensation to claimants (respondent nos. 1&2). The claimants are the wife and son of the deceased, who died in a road accident aged 80 years.

Issue Related To Existence Of Arbitration Agreement Cannot Be Decided Ex-Parte, Without Hearing Respondent: Delhi High Court

Case Title: WTC NOIDA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PVT. LTD V. MS. ARTI KHATTAR & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 83

A Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur held that the District Judge should not have decided the issue related to the existence of an arbitration agreement ex-parte, without calling upon the respondent to give its stand on the same.

Additionally, the court held that an arbitration agreement, by virtue of the presumption of separability, survives the principal contract in which it was contained.

Customs Dept Cannot Run Parallel Proceedings By Passing Penalty Order While Challenge To SCN Is Pending Before Court: Delhi HC

Case title: Vijay Enterprises & Anr v. The Principal Commissioner Of Customs & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 84

The Delhi High Court has set aside a final order of penalty passed by the Customs Department against a paper trader for alleged undervaluation of imported goods, stating that the same was passed during pendency of challenge to the show cause notice (SCN) issued to the trader.

A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma observed, “passing of the impugned Order-in-Original while the impugned SCN was under challenge before this Court would amount to initiation of parallel proceedings rendering the scrutiny of the Court as infructuous.”

Once Court Orders Release Of Bank Guarantee Furnished By Trader, Customs Dept Can't Hold Back Compliance And Direct Adjustment In Demand Order: Delhi HC

Case title: M/S Om Gems And Jewellery v. Deputy Commissioner Of Customs (Import) Air Cargo Complex Nscbi Airport & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 85

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that once a court of law directs the Customs Department to release the bank guarantee furnished by a trader, the Department cannot turn around and say that the amount will be adjusted towards the final demand order.

A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma were dealing with the writ petition moved by a firm importing gold jewellery. The firm had availed the benefit of an exemption Notification, which it claimed granted the benefit of NIL rate of Basic Customs Duty.

Men Too Are Entitled To Same Protection From Cruelty And Violence As Women: Delhi High Court

Title: JYOTI ALIAS KITTU v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 86

The Delhi High Court has ruled that just as women deserve protection from cruelty and violence, men too are entitled to the same safeguards under the law.

Justice Swarana Kanta denied anticipatory bail to a wife who poured boiling water mixed with chilli powder on her husband resulting in burn injuries to him. She sought a lenient view in the case on the ground of being a woman.

Observing that empowerment of one gender and protection to it cannot come at the cost of fairness towards another, the Court said it cannot differentiate between genders when it comes to acts of physical violence or causing injuries.

Merely Marrying Muslim Man Doesn't Result In Automatic Conversion From Hinduism To Islam: Delhi High Court In Partition Suit

Title: DR. PUSHPALATA AND ANR v. RAM DAS HUF & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 87

While dealing with a partition suit, the Delhi High Court has observed that merely marrying a Muslim man does not result in an automatic conversion from Hinduism to Islam.

Justice Jasmeet Singh was dealing with a partition suit filed in 2007 by the eldest daughter of a man from his first wife against him as well as his two sons from the second wife.

Another daughter from the first wife was transposed as the second plaintiff. In December 2008, the father died during the pendency of the suit.

Delhi High Court Upholds Dismissal Of Plea Against ECI Registration Granted To AIMIM As Political Party

Title: TIRUPATI NARASHIMA MURARI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 88

The Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of a petition seeking quashing of the registration granted by Election Commission of India (ECI) to All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Musalimeen (AIMIM) as a political party.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela rejected the appeal moved by Tirupati Narashima Murari challenging the dismissal of the plea by a single judge in November last year.

Releasing Documents To Media Before Court's Consideration Not Acceptable: Delhi High Court In Criminal Contempt Case

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. ROOP DARSHAN PANDEY AND ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 89

While dealing with a criminal contempt case, the Delhi High Court has observed that releasing documents and pleadings to media even before the Courts have considered them is not acceptable.

“The habit of releasing pleadings and documents to the media even before Courts have had the opportunity to consider the same is also not acceptable as it tends to prejudice the parties and influence independent decision-making by Courts,” a division bench comprising of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma said.

Delhi High Court Rejects Plea For Allotment Of Permanent Election Symbol To Rashtriya Bahujan Congress Party

Title: Dr. S.R. Sharan v. Election Commission of India & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 90

The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea seeking allotment of permanent election symbol of sewing machine to Rashtriya Bahujan Congress Party which should not be allotted to any other person or political party.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela refused to entertain an appeal filed by Dr. SR Saran- President of the political party.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Order Special Sitting Of Legislative Assembly To Table CAG Reports

Title: VIJENDER GUPTA & ORS v. GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 91

The Delhi High Court has refused to direct a special sitting of the Delhi Legislative Assembly to table 14 reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG).

Justice Sachin Datta said that the Court was not inclined to accept the prayer of seeking the special sitting to table the reports in question.

However, the Court directed that once the Legislative Assembly is constituted and summoned pursuant to upcoming elections, requisite steps shall be taken by the Delhi Government for laying the CAG Reports, as expeditiously as possible.

Rates Charged By Power Distribution Companies, State Board For Electricity Can Be Considered To Determine Its Market: Delhi HC

Case Title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1, New Delhi v. DCM Shriram Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 92

The Delhi High Court has held that the rate at which power is supplied by the State Electricity Board (SEB) or the Power Distribution Companies is an appropriate metric for determining the market price of electricity.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma further held that the rate at which electricity is sold on the Indian Energy Exchange (IEX) platform is not a 'comparable' and should not be considered to determine the market value of the power supplied by the Assessee to its industrial units.

Trial Courts' Obligation To Compute And Award Victim Compensation Can't Be Delegated To DSLSA U/S 357 CrPC: Delhi HC 5 Judge Bench

Title: SAIF ALI @ SOHAN v. THE STATE GNCT OF DELHI and other connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 93

A five judge bench of the Delhi High Court has ruled that the obligation and duty casted upon the trial courts to compute and award quantum of victim compensation cannot be delegated to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority Statutory Authority (DSLSA) as the same would run contrary to the scheme of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The full bench comprised Justice Rekha Palli, Justice Prathiba M Singh, Justice Subramonium Prasad, Justice Saurabh Banerjee and Justice Manoj Jain.

The larger bench was constituted after a single judge in 2021 took note of the inordinate delay in passing of orders on sentence as a result of the implementation of the directions issued by a Full Bench in Karan v. State of NCT of Delhi.

[Arbitration Act] Application U/S 34 Without Award Copy Or Vakalatnama Is Merely A 'Stack Of Papers' Filed To Save Limitation: Delhi HC

Case Title: KGF COTTONS PVT LTD v. HALDIRAM SNACKS PVT LTD

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 94

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, filed without the award itself, would not be a valid filing.

Case title: Parvinder Singh v CBI and other cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 95

The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to four co-owners of basement of a coaching centre in city's Old Rajinder Nagar area– Rau's IAS, where three civil services aspirants had died after drowning in July last year.

Justice Sanjeev Narula granted bail to Parvinder Singh, Tajinder Singh, Harvinder Singh and Sarbjit Singh and asked them to deposit Rs. 5 lakh with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority towards the welfare of the families of the deceased.

This was after the Court was informed that s directed by the Supreme Court, the accused were willing to make a voluntarily donation of Rs. 5 lakh, in aggregate, in the corpus.

When Counter-Claim Is Related To Primary Dispute, It Can Be Filed Before Tribunal U/S 23 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S. Akn Developers Private Limited Versus M/S. Premsons Southend

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 96

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has held that while any counter-claim may relate to a different cause of action, it can still stem from a primary dispute between the parties. Thus, the court held that the governing factor would be to see whether it has any connection with the original dispute or is isolated and separable.

For all purposes, the court observed that the counter-claim in this case was, directly or indirectly, related to the primary dispute between the parties and the claim in question.

Sexual Assault Against Minors By Trusted Ones Magnify Betrayal, Leave Permanent Psychological Scars: Delhi High Court

Title: SUBHAN ALI v. THE STATE NCT OF DELH I AND ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 97

The Delhi High Court has observed that sexual assault committed against minors by those who occupy positions of trust or confidence magnify the betrayal and leave permanent psychological scars in the lives of the victims.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma denied bail to a man in a POCSO case accusing him of sexually assaulting a minor girl who called him “chachu”. The man was the father of the minor's friend and was her neighbour.

Delhi HC Grants Interim Relief To Family Seeking 'Postmortem Sperm Retrieval' Of Deceased Man For Potential Use In Assisted Reproductive Therapy

Title: HEENA & ORS v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 98

The Delhi High Court has ordered that Postmortem Sperm Retrieval (PMSR) procedure be conducted on a man who committed suicide in the national capital on January 22.

Justice Sachin Datta was dealing with a plea moved by the parents and sister of the deceased seeking that his semen be preserved through PMSR, a process which allows retrieval of viable sperm from a deceased individual for potential future use in Assisted Reproductive Therapy (ART).

Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking De-Recognition Of Aam Aadmi Party For Non-Disclosure Of Criminal Antecedents

Title: Ashwani Mudgal v. UOI & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 99

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking de-recognition of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) alleging that it violated a Supreme Court ruling mandating publishing of criminal antecedents by candidates and political parties.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela rejected the plea moved by one Ashwani Mudgal who contended that there was a violation of the judgment as the AAP and its candidates failed to disclose the criminal antecedents i.e. being accused in the alleged liquor scam.

Time Spent To Defend Reassessment Notice Issued Without Following Procedure Doesn't Extend Limitation For Revenue When Issuing Fresh Notice: Delhi HC

Case title: Abhinav Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 52

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 100

The Delhi High Court has held that if the Revenue issues a reassessment notice to an assessee under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without following due procedure, it cannot later issue fresh reassessment notice beyond the prescribed period, claiming that time spent on earlier litigation is to be excluded for the purposes of computing limitation.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “Notice issued under Section 148 of the Act in the earlier round was set aside on the ground that the AO had not followed the mandatory requirement of seeking an approval from the competent authority…The fact that the Revenue had not taken the steps in accordance with law cannot possibly be construed as a factor in favour of the Revenue for extending the limitation.”

Bar On Bail Under NDPS Act Not Attracted When No Contraband Recovered From Accused Who Was Merely In Contact With Co-Accused: Delhi HC

Title: ABDUL RAB v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 101

The Delhi High Court has held that mere contact with co-accused person found in possession of a contraband cannot be treated to be corroborative material in absence of substantive material found against such an accused.

Justice Amit Mahajan said that when no recovery is affected from an accused, merely because such an accused was allegedly in touch with the co-accused persons, the bar on grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not be attracted.

Appointment Of Arbitrator In International Commercial Arbitration By HC Does Not Vitiate Award: Delhi High Court

Case Title: HALA KAMEL ZABAL versus ARYA TRADING LTD. & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 102

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that the appointment of the Arbitrator in an International Commercial Arbitration (“ICA”) by the Chief Justice of the High Court, does not vitiate the impugned award.

The bench held that the objection to the appointment of the arbitrator should have been raised during the arbitration proceedings. Since the parties failed to do so, they were deemed to have waived their right to object.

FIR Not Invalidated By Quashing Fraud Classification Of Bank Account If It Prima Facie Discloses Cognizable Offences: Delhi HC

Case title: Rangoli International Pvt Ltd & Ors. vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 103

In a plea for quashing an FIR against a company accused of allegedly committing fraudulent transactions, the Delhi High Court observed that quashing of a fraud classification of a bank account does not in itself vitiate the First Information Report (FIR) lodged on the basis of such classification if the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offence.

Justice Sanjeev Narula stated, “The procedural irregularities in the fraud classification process do not ipso facto vitiate the criminal investigation unless it is shown that the FIR is malicious or lacks a legal foundation altogether. There may be an overlap in the two issues, however, both are yet separate and distinct for the purpose of the investigation in the impugned FIR/RC.

Delhi High Court Closes PIL Seeking Time Bound Scrutiny, Curing Defects Of Fresh Matters For Listing

Title: SANJEEV GUPTA v. REGISTRAR GENERAL DELHI HIGH COURT

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 104

The Delhi High Court has closed a public interest litigation seeking a time bound scrutiny and raising of defects of fresh matters for listing before the Court.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said that the issues, if found to be relevant, would be taken up on the administrative side of this Court.

“We do not find it apposite to issue any notice on the judicial side in the present PIL whereby the petitioner seeks to draw attention to certain purported deficiencies and lacunae in the filing/raising of defects, clearing of such defects and the listing of matters thereafter before the Court,” the Bench said.

[SC/ST Act] Courts Duty To Ensure Social Welfare Legislations Are Not Misused & False Complaints Are Not Perpetuated: Delhi High Court

Case title: Deepak Chaudhary vs. State & Anr and Connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 105

While quashing a First Information Report (FIR) under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('PoA Act'), the Delhi High Court remarked that such welfare legislations should not be misused for ulterior motives and that the court has to ensure that false complaints are not allowed to continue.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma commented, “The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has been enacted with the purpose of safeguarding vulnerable sections of society from humiliation and harassment and ensuring that perpetrators of such offences are brought to book and subjected to harsh punishment.

Human Rights Commissions Not 'Toothless Tigers', Their Recommendations Are Binding: Delhi High Court

Title: KIRAN SINGH v. NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 106

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the recommendations of the State or National Human Rights Commissions are binding in nature and the purpose of enactment of the Human Rights Act would be nullified if they are held to be mere recommendatory bodies.

A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma said that holding that Human Rights Commissions can only make recommendations which are not binding would render them completely toothless and nullify the object of India ratifying the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Two Candidates Secure Same Marks, Age Determines Selection: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Kalu Ram Saini versus Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 107

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur reiterated that in cases where two candidates secure the same marks, age should determine the selection of such candidates. The Bench allowed a Writ Petition wherein the Petitioner sought appointment based on having secured the same marks as that of another candidate who was appointed to the post.

Delhi High Court Closes PIL Against AAP's 'Spam' Calls On Freebies Amid Assembly Polls, Asks ECI To Ensure No Use Of Vilifying Material

Title: Dhrone Diwan & Ors v. ECI & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 108

The Delhi High Court has directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to ensure that political parties and their candidates do not use any vilifying material during elections which vitiates the atmosphere.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela disposed of a PIL alleging that the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) was making “spam calls” on a daily basis to the public to publicise “freebies” and to disseminate hatred, biases and vilifying material in the wake of upcoming Assembly polls.

Delhi High Court Refuses Custody Parole To AAP MLA Naresh Balyan Booked In MCOCA Case

Case Title: Naresh Balyan v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 109

The Delhi High Court has refused to grant custody parole to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Naresh Balyan who has been booked in a case registered under the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, related to an alleged organised crime.

Balyan had sought custody parole on the ground that his wife was contesting the upcoming Delhi Legislative Assembly elections without any prior experience in politics.

Denying Phone Call Access To Prisoners Involved In MCOCA, Terrorist Acts Not Arbitrary: Delhi High Court's Prima Facie View

Title: SYED AHMAD SHAKEEL v. CENTRAL JAIL NO. 8, TIHAR JAIL & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 110

The Delhi High Court has observed that prima facie, denial of telephonic calls to prisoners involved in terrorist activities and offences under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA) and Public Safety Act is not arbitrary.

“Prima facie, the denial of regular telephonic and electronic communication to a prisoner who is involved in terrorist activities and offences such as under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime l Act and Public Safety Act without adequate safeguards, cannot be considered as arbitrary or unreasonable,” a division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said.

Moral Views Of Judge Have No Role In Adjudication But Courts Must Consider Social Background In Which Offences Take Place: Delhi HC

Title: HIMANSHU SINGLA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 111

The Delhi High Court has observed that while moral views of a judge has no role to play in adjudication of cases but Courts must consider the social background in which the offences take place.

“While the moral views of the judge or a particular segment of society should have no role in such adjudication, courts must consider the social background and circumstances in which incidents or offenses take place,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

The Court dismissed a plea moved by an accused challenging the trial court order framing charges against him in a rape case. The complainant-woman alleged that accused had established sexual relations with her on multiple occasions on false pretext of marriage.

S.479 BNSS | Trial Courts Must Not Mechanically Adjourn Bail Pleas Of Undertrials Who Completed One-Half Of Maximum Imprisonment: Delhi HC

Title: SULEMAN SAMAD v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 112

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the trial courts must promptly pass orders and must not mechanically adjourn bail applications moved in cases covered by Section 479 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, where the undertrial prisoners have already undergone one half of the maximum imprisonment.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that in case a judge proceeds on leave, it must be brought to the notice of the concerned Link Judge that such cases are to be taken up on priority, either on the next date or at the shortest possible date.

Co-Owner Of Property Not Receiving Income From It Not Liable To Pay Tax On Income From Such Property: Delhi High Court

Case title: Smt. Shivani Madan v. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-01 & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 113

The Delhi High Court has held that where a property is held jointly but only one co-owner reaps the benefit of income from such property, the other co-owner cannot be held liable to pay tax merely by virtue of co-ownership.

A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, “the [Income Tax] Act fails to raise any presumption in law, of income necessarily arising or being liable to be assessed in the hands of an individual merely because it be a signatory to an instrument of conveyance. In our considered opinion, the question of taxability would necessarily have to be answered bearing in mind the individual who had in fact obtained benefits from the property.”

Foreign Nationals Coming To India Not Required To Declare Personal Gold Jewellery To Customs: Delhi High Court

Case title: Anjali Pandey v. Union Of India And Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 114

The Delhi High Court has held that foreign nationals coming to India need not declare to the Customs Department their gold jewellery which they are carrying for bonafide personal use.

A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma further held that the Customs Department must make a distinction between 'jewellery' and 'personal jewellery', while seizing items for violation of the Baggage Rules, 2016 which are framed under the Customs Act, 1962.

'Not A Minor Offence, Part Of Crime Syndicate': Delhi HC Denies Bail To PMLA Accused Booked For Supplying Spurious Anti-Cancer Medicines

Case title: Lovee Narula vs.Directorate Of Enforcement

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 115

The Delhi High Court has denied bail to an accused/applicant booked under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) for his alleged involvement in the illegal procurement of empty vials and raw materials of anti-cancer drugs.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh in his order said, "In the present case, the applicant has not been charged for some minor offence that has simple economic ramifications, rather he has been charged for supplying and selling of spurious life saving anti-cancer medicines and that he is part of an established crime syndicate. This factual position does not satisfy the consciousness of this Court and there are considerable reasons to believe that there is likelihood that the applicant might commit offence while on bail as the applicant does not have clean criminal antecedents. Thus, the said argument stands rejected".

Delhi High Court Asks DSLSA To Frame Mechanism To Monitor Appearance Of Legal Aid Counsels In District Courts

Case Title: BACHITTAR SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 116

The Delhi High Court has directed the Secretary of Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to ensure that an appropriate mechanism is put in place to monitor the appearance of legal aid counsels in cases where they have been appointed in all the District Courts in the national capital.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that it must be ensured that legal aid counsels duly inform the Secretary of the concerned DLSA about their regular appearances in the cases assigned to them.

Dariya Khan Tomb's Protected Area To Be Treated As 1.25 Acres: Delhi High Court Clarifies

Title: NBCC (INDIA) LIMITED v. AMAN LEKHI & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 117

The Delhi High Court has clarified that the protected area of the Dariya Khan Tomb, situated in city's east Kidwai Nagar, would be treated as 1.25 acres.

A division bench comprising Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee was dealing with an appeal filed by NBCC (India) Limited challenging a single judge order rejecting its application seeking correction of a purported factual error in a ruling wherein was recorded that the Dariya Khan Tomb was located in an area of 14 acres.

'Composer Can't Assign Rights Of Movie Song' : Delhi High Court Rejects Ilaiyarajaa's Copyright Claim For 'En Iniya Pon Nilave' Song

Case title: Saregama India Limited vs. Vels Film International Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 118

In a copyright infringement suit filed by Saregama India Limited against Vels Film International Limited concerning the song 'Iniya Pon Nilave', the Delhi High Court has ruled that Saregama is the owner of the song. However, the Court allowed Vels Film to use the song in its film 'Aghathiyaa', following Saregama's acceptance of a license fee of Rs.30 lakh from Vels Film.

Justice Mini Pushkarna further observed that the music composer of the original song Ilaiyaraja had no right to assign the right in the lyrics of the song to Vels as he is not its owner.

Employee's Death Attributable To Government Service Conditions; Entitled To Extraordinary Pension & Ex-Gratia Compensation : Delhi HC

Case Name : Seema Jamwal vs. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 119

A division judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Navin Chawla & Justice Shalinder Kaur held that deceased employee entitled to extraordinary pension and ex-gratia compensation, if death was attributable to or aggravated by government service conditions, such as exposure to hostile work environments or extreme weather conditions.

Premature To Examine Objections Against Movie Based On Delhi Riots When Certification Request Pending Before CBFC: High Court

Title: SHARJEEL IMAM v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 120

The Delhi High Court has said it is “premature” to examine the objections raised against “2020 Delhi” movie, which is based on 2020 North-East Delhi riots, noting that film's certification is pending consideration before the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).

“Thus, at this stage, when the request for the requisite certification is still pending consideration by the CBFC, it is premature for this Court to examine the objections of the petitioners in respect of the Movie,” Justice Sachin Datta said.

Employer Cannot Indefinitely Withhold Voluntary Retirement Without Valid Grounds: Delhi HC

Title: Sandeep Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 121

A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur ruled that an employer cannot indefinitely withhold voluntary retirement under Rule 56(k) of the Fundamental Rules. The court held that pending vigilance clearance or mere potential inquiries are not valid grounds for withholding retirement. It further clarified that the employer must communicate any rejection before the notice period expires; else, it would amount to deemed acceptance.

Financial Misconduct In Government Service Warrants Dismissal; No Compassionate Allowance For Acts Of Moral Turpitude: Delhi HC

Title: Sunil Kumar Singh v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 122

Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur upheld the dismissal of a Pay Clerk (Central Reserve Police Force) who was charged with financial misconduct and forgery. The court found that tampering with government records and misappropriation of funds constituted grave offenses that warranted his dismissal from service. The court also rejected the plea for compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. It held that acts involving moral turpitude disqualified the employee from such benefits.

Delhi High Court Reschedules Date Of Elections To All Bar Associations To February 28

Title: LALIT SHARMA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 123

The Delhi High Court has rescheduled the date of elections to all Bar Associations in the national capital from February 07 to February 28, 2025.

A full bench comprising Justice Yashwant Varma, Justice Rekha Palli and Justice C Hari Shankar noted that in a resolution passed by the High Court's Security Committee last year, it was resolved that all the Election Commissioners, Returning Officers together with the Presidents or Secretaries of all the Bar Associations would make necessary arrangements for procurement of EVMs or Ballot Papers and will coordinate for setting up card reader machines and other equipments well in time.

Delhi High Court Asks CIC To Decide If 'Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra' Trust Is Public Authority Under RTI Act

Title: NEERAJ SHARMA v. PIO MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS JKL DIV AYODHYA SECTION AND ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 124

The Delhi High Court has directed the Central Information Commission (CIC) to decide whether “Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra” trust is a public authority under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Justice Sanjeev Narula directed the CIC to decide the question after affording opportunity of hearing to the RTI applicant Neeraj Sharma as well as the Public Information Officer (PIO) of Union Ministry of Home Affairs, as expeditiously as possible.

Familial Relationship Between Prosecutrix And Accused Doesn't Negate Possibility Of 'Promise Of Marriage': Delhi HC Refuses To Quash Rape FIR

Case title: Divyansh Bajpai vs. State (Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi) And Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 125

While refusing to quash an FIR under Section 376 IPC for false promise of marriage, the Delhi High Court observed that the nature of the relationship between the parties is a crucial factor in determining whether there was any promise of marriage and whether the consent was vitiated by a misconception of fact.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was considering the petitioner's plea to quash FIR under Section 376 IPC lodged by his distant relative/prosecutrix.

Fees Paid By Law Firm Remfry & Sagar To Use Name & Goodwill Of Founder Is Business Expense, Deductible U/S 37 Of Income Tax Act: Delhi HC

Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -21 v. M/S.Remfry & Sagar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 126

The Delhi High Court has held that the fees paid by IPR law firm Remfry & Sagar to acquire the goodwill vested in a company run by the family members of its deceased founder, is a business expense deductible under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.

A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja observed, “the primary, nay, sole purpose for incurring expenditure towards license fee was to use the words “Remfry & Sagar” and derive benefit of the goodwill attached to it. The appellant do not dispute that Dr. Sagar had validly acquired the goodwill and that the same constituted a valuable asset which was transferable.”

Ensure Counsel Appearing On Advance Service Are Instructed Properly: Delhi HC Asks Customs, GST Department, DRI And DGGI To Frame SOP

Case title: M/S Vishal Video And Appliances Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner Of Customs Acc(Import)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 127

The Delhi High Court has asked the Customs Department, the Central GST Department, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Directorate of General GST Intelligence (DGGI) to make sure that counsel representing them on advance service are instructed properly.

A bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma ordered the Commissioner of Customs to prepare an SOP as to the manner in which the Department shall ensure that instructions are given to the nominated Counsels in the matter when advance copies are served.

Delhi High Court Orders Inspection On 'Dummy Schools' Allowing Students To Take Exams Without Attending Classes

Title: DR. RAJEEV AGGARWAL v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 128

The Delhi High Court has directed that an inspection be conducted on “dummy schools” in the national capital which are providing the facility of allowing the students to take the examination without attending the classes.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela directed the Delhi Government and Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to conduct the survey or inspection and also to take permissible action on the issue.

Mere Threats Without Intention To Cause Alarm To Complainant Not Criminal Intimidation: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. STATE & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 129

The Delhi High Court has observed that mere threats by the accused without any intention to cause alarm to the complainant does not constitute the offence of criminal intimidation.

“A bare perusal of Section 506 of the IPC makes it clear that before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that an accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant. Mere threats given by the accused not with an intention to cause alarm to the complainant would not constitute an offence of criminal intimidation,” Justice Amit Mahajan said.

Date Of Assessment Order Recommending Penalty For Accepting Cash Above ₹2 Lakh Not Relevant For Determining Limitation U/S 275 Of Income Tax Act: Delhi HC

Case title: Property Plus Realtors v. Union Of India & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 130

The Delhi High Court has held that the date of the assessment order, wherein an Assessing Officer recommended separate penalty proceedings against the assessee under Section 271DA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for accepting more than ₹2 lakh in cash, is not relevant for determining the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c).

Delhi High Court's Administrative Side To Consider Amending Or Framing Rules To Expedite Proceedings Before Family Courts

Title: ISHAN TIWARI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 131

The Delhi High Court's administrative side is set to consider framing appropriate rules or amending the existing rules to streamline the procedure to expedite proceedings before the Family Courts in the national capital.

The development ensued after a division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed an order while disposing of a PIL on the issue.

Furnishing Grounds Of Arrest Just An Hour Before Remand Hearing Not Compliance Of Section 50 CrPC: Delhi High Court

Title: MARFING TAMANG @ MAAINA TAMANG v. STATE

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 132

The Delhi High Court has observed that furnishing grounds of arrest in writing to an arrestee just about an hour before the remand hearing cannot be due or adequate compliance of the requirements of Section 50 of CrPC.

The provision mandates that grounds of arrest must be communicated to an arrestee “forthwith” upon the arrest of a person.

Encroachment Delaying DDA's Yamuna River Restoration Work: Delhi HC Rejects Farmers' Plea For Occupation In Flood Plain, Imposes ₹5K Cost

Case title: Udaiveer & Ors. vs. Union Of India & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 133

In a plea for a restrain on Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and other authorities from disturbing the possession of land located on the Yamuna river bank by certain farmers, the Delhi High Court said that it appeared that the petitioners had encroached upon the land which falls in the flood plain area.

The court further said that this had also delayed the implementation of public project–'Restoration and Rejuvenation of River Yamuna Project' causing huge nation costs and loss to revenue of the State. The court also said that the "mischief" by the petitioners was apparent as after the demolition for removal of unauthorized encroachment and construction, the petitioners had tried to reclaim the property by carrying on cultivation of vegetables.

Info Requiring Analysis Of Legal Proceedings Outside Purview Of RTI Act: Delhi HC Quashes Order To Inform On Ex-Parte Injunctions Given By ADJ

Case title: Public Information Officer Office Of District vs. Harish Lamba

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 134

Setting aside CIC's order directing Patiala House Court PIO to furnish information on the number of cases in which a judge granted ex-parte injunction in relation to cases represented by a particular advocate and in suits filed by a particular company, the Delhi High Court observed such queries require an analysis of the relevant judicial proceedings.

It further said that such an analysis sought for in the present case, falls under the Delhi District Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2008, which exempts disclosure of information when such information does not exist or when it amounts to analyzing the information for the applicant which does not form part of any existing record.

Not Having Birth Certificate Due To Socio-Economic Backwardness No Ground To Deny Participation In Sport Events: Delhi High Court

Title: DEEPAK JAIN & ORS v. BASKETBALL FEDERATION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 135

he Delhi High Court has observed that not having a birth certificate evidencing age of an individual due to socio-economic backwardness is no ground to deny the opportunity to compete or participate in sport events.

“This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that on account of socio- economic backwardness, it may not have been feasible in some cases, to obtain the birth certificates/other documents evidencing the age of the person within certain years from the date of birth. However, merely for this reason such persons cannot be denied the opportunity of competing in sporting events,” Justice Sachin Datta said.

Suo Moto Disallowance Made By Assessee Under Bonafide Belief Of Tax Liability Can Be Rectified U/S 264 Of Income Tax Act Without Amending ITR: Delhi HC

Case title: M/S SMEC India (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 136

The Delhi High Court has held that an application for revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be preferred by an assessee who makes suo motu disallowance in its Return of Income (RoI/ ITR), under a bonafide yet mistaken belief that the same was liable to be offered for taxation.

A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar added that the assessee cannot be denied relief merely on the ground that the application was moved without amending the RoI.

Construction Of Terms Of Contract Must Be Primarily Decided By Arbitrator, Not Court U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: 'DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD versus VOESTALPINE SCHIENEN GMBH, AUSTRIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 137

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that Construction of the terms of the contract is primarily for the arbitrator to decide, unless it is found that such a construction is not at all possible.

Delhi High Court Disposes Pleas For Release Of Payment To Coaching Institutes Under 'Jai Bhim Mukhyamantri Pratibha Vikas Yojna'

Case title: Ajabs Academy Pvt Ltd vs. Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. (W.P.(C) 702/2025) & Connected Matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 138

The Delhi High Court has disposed of petitions where various coaching institutes sought directions to the Delhi government to implement 'Jai Bhim Mukhyamantri Pratibha Vikas Yojna', after taking note of the steps being taken by the Special Secretary of the Department for the Welfare of SC/ST/OBC (DSCST) to resolve the issue concerning payment to coaching institutes under the said scheme.

The yojna/scheme was introduced to provide quality coaching in competitive examinations for selection in various government services for economically disadvantaged SC/ST/OBC/EWS candidates. The Delhi government's order dated 09 September 2019 fixed the duration of the coaching and a maximum ceiling of coaching fee to which the institution would be entitled per candidate.

Adobe India Is Not Dependent Agent PE Of Adobe Ireland: Delhi High Court Negates Attribution Of Further Profits

Case title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 v. Adobe Systems Software Ireland Ltd

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 139

The Delhi High Court has upheld an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to the effect that Adobe Systems India Pvt. Ltd is not a dependent agent permanent establishment (DAPE) of Adobe Systems Software Ireland Ltd.

In doing so, a division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar affirmed that no further attribution of profit can be made as Adobe India was remunerated at arm's length.

Award Passed By Improperly Appointed Arbitrator Is Non-Est In Law And Invalid: Delhi High Court

Case Title: ISAR ENGINEERS PRIVATE LTD. versus NTPC-SAIL POWER COMPANY LTD

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 140

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that it is settled law that the Arbitrator is a creature of the contract and has to function within four corners of contract. If a particular mechanism is contemplated for his appointment, the same must be followed in its true letter, spirit and intent, failing which the Arbitrator is without jurisdiction and the appointment is non-est and invalid.

What Is The Time Period Surviving U/S 149 Of Income Tax Act For Issuing Reassessment Notices: Delhi High Court Explains

Case title: Kanwaljeet Kaur v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle (34) 1 Delhi & Ors. and batch

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 141

The Delhi High Court has interpreted the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal to elucidate the time period surviving under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for issuing reassessment notices.

A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar concluded that the period between 20 March 2020 to 30 June 2021 would be excluded from limitation, in view of Section 3(1) of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020.

Delhi High Court Rules In Favour Of Korean Brand 'Beauty Of Joseon', Orders Cancellation Of Identical Trademark

Title: GOODAI GLOBAL INC v. SHAHNAWAZ SIDDIQU & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 142

The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of “Beauty of Joseon”, a Korean beauty brand, while ordering cancellation of an identical trademark registered in favour of a man on “proposed to be used basis.”

Justice Amit Bansal allowed the plea moved by Goodai Global Inc, the parent company which owns Beauty of Joseon brand.

ECI Can't Supervise Internal Elections Of Political Parties Under Section 29A Of Representation Of People Act: Delhi High Court

Title: PRAVENDRA PRATAP SINGH NATIONAL PRESIDENT (BAHUJAN MUKTI PARTY) v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 143

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Election Commission of India (ECI) does not have supervisory jurisdiction regarding internal matters of elections of political parties under Section 29A of Representation of People Act, 1951.

Section 29A deals with registration of associations and bodies as political parties with ECI. The provision states that any association or body of individuals calling itself a political party shall make an application to the Commission for its registration as a political party.

Not Maintaining Proper Accounts Of Election Expenditure Not 'Corrupt Practice' Under RP Act: Delhi HC Rejects Plea Against AAP Candidate

Title: RAMESH KUMAR KHATRI v. DURGESH PATHAK and other connected matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 144

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a candidate not maintaining proper accounts of election expenditure or not accurately disclosing the expenditure undertaken by him does not constitute “corrupt practice” under Section 123 of Representation of People Act, 1951.

Court Has Jurisdiction In Trademark Suits If Goods Marketed Online Can Be Accessed In Their Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

Title: JOHNSON & JOHNSON PTE. LTD v. MR. ABBIREDDI SATISH KUMAR & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 145

The Delhi High Court has observed in a case of trademark infringement, even if a party is not physically selling impugned goods in a specific territory, but is offering them for sale through a website accessible in that territory, the Court where the goods are sold online would have jurisdiction to try the matter.

Delhi High Court Quashes PMLA Proceedings Against BPSL In ₹47,000 Crore Bank Fraud Case Due To Successful CIRP

Case title: Bhushan Power & Steel Limited vs. Union Of India & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 146

The Delhi High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against Bhushan Power & Steel Limited (BPSL) in relation to a complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) in view of Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

Delhi High Court Directs State Trading Corporation Of India To Fully Reimburse Medical Expenses Of ₹23.79 Lakhs To Its Retired Employee

Case title: Jagdish Chandra vs. State Trading Corporation Of India Ltd

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 147

The Delhi High Court has directed the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd (STC) to reimburse medical expenses of Rs.23.79 lakh to one of its former employees, incurred by him due to the hospitalization of his wife.

Corporate Debtor Immune From Prosecution Under PMLA Post Approval Of Resolution Plan: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Bhushan Power & Steel Limited vs. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 148

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has held that in accordance with Section 32A(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), a Corporate Debtor that has successfully undergone a resolution process under Section 31 of the IBC shall not be prosecuted for offences committed prior to the commencement of the CIRP.

Superannuation Fund | Limit On Deduction Of Employer's Contribution Applies To Initial/ Annual Contribution, Not Additional Payments: Delhi HC

Case title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 v. Standard Chartered Grindlays Ltd

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 149

The Delhi High Court has held that the limit prescribed under Section 36(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act 1961, on deductions that an employer can seek for contributions made towards superannuation funds, applies only at the stage of setting up the fund or making ordinary annual payments.

A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said any contribution made additionally in discharge of an overarching obligation would not be rendered as a disallowable expense.

Delhi High Court Upholds Validity Of S.132 Of Companies Act Establishing National Financial Reporting Authority, NFRA Rules

Title: DELOITTE HASKINS & SELLS LLP v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. and other connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 150

The Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 132 of the Companies Act, 2013, and Rules 3, 8, 10 and 11 of the National Financial Reporting Authority Rules, 2018.

Section 132 of the Companies Act states: (1) The Central Government may, by notification, constitute a National Financial Reporting Authority to provide for matters relating to accounting and auditing standards under this Act.

Delhi High Court Declares 'Peter England' As Well Known Trademark, Says Public Figures Regularly Acted As Brand Ambassadors

Title: ADITYA BIRLA FASHION AND RETAIL LIMITED v. FRIENDS INC & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 151

The Delhi High Court has declared “Peter England”, an international menswear brand, as a well-known trademark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The Court noted that the brand has spent huge amount on the endorsement of its products by various actors like Ayushman Khurrana as well as players of Chennai Super Kings Cricket Team.

Not An Enabling Provision, Proscribes Reassessment Action Beyond Limitation: Delhi HC Explains Timelines U/S 149 Of Income Tax Act

Case title: Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer And Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 152

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, which prescribes a limitation period for initiating reassessment against an assessee, is not an enabling provision but rather a proscription on the Assessing Officer's powers.

Bald Allegations Against Investigating Officer Not Sufficient To Transfer Probe To Another Agency: Delhi High Court

Title: RENUKA KULKARNI & ORS v. STATE and other connected matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 153

The Delhi High Court has observed that transfer of investigation to another agency is only done in rare and exceptional cases where high officials of State authorities are involved.

“Accusations against an investigating officer alone is not sufficient to transfer investigation unless there is sufficient material to show that the investigating officer is mixed up with the accused. Bald allegations are not sufficient for transfer of investigation,” Justice Subramonium Prasad said.

Ratan Tata Is Well-Known Personal Name, Needs To Be Protected From Unauthorised Use By Third Party: Delhi High Court

Title: SIR RATAN TATA TRUST & ANR v. DR. RAJAT SHRIVASTAVA & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 154

The Delhi High Court has said that the name of industrialist Ratan Tata is a “well- known personal name or trademark” which needs to be protected from any unauthorised use by any third party.

Justice Mini Pushkarna ruled in favour of Ratan Tata Trust in a suit filed against a journalist- Dr. Rajat Srivastava, alleging that the latter was unauthorisedly using Ratan Tata's name to host an award ceremony.

Imposition Of Conditions By Customs For Provisional Release Of Seized Goods 'Discretionary': Delhi HC Tunes Down 130% Bank Guarantee

Case title: Rocktek Infra Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Import)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 155

The Delhi High Court has held that the imposition and severity of conditions imposed by the Customs Department for permitting provisional release of seized goods is “discretionary” in nature.

In doing so, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma scaled down the alleged onerous condition imposed on an importer, for executing a Bank Guarantee of 130% of the deferential duty.

Delhi High Court Grants Custody Parole To MP Engineer Rashid To Attend Parliament, Proscribes Him From Using Internet Or Speaking To Media

Title: Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 156

The Delhi High Court granted custody parole of two days to Jammu and Kashmir MP Rashid Engineer, who is detained in relation to a terror funding case registered under UAPA.

Rashid sought custody parole in order to attend the Parliamentary budget session. The Court has granted custody parole to Rashid for February 11 and 13.

Mediation Time Period Can Be Excluded While Computing Limitation For Filing Written Statement: Delhi High Court

Case title: Bharat Singh vs. Karan Singh & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 157

The Delhi High Court has observed that the time spent during the mediation process can be excluded while calculating the limitation period for filing a written statement under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

Consensual Nature Of Relationship Irrelevant For Prosecution Under POCSO Act: Delhi High Court

Title: MOHD. RAFAYAT ALI v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 158

The Delhi High Court has observed that prima facie, the consensual nature of relationship between the accused and prosecutrix is irrelevant for prosecution under the POCSO Act.

Rejecting the accused's plea that the relationship between him and the prosecutrix was consensual in nature, Justice Sanjeev Narula said:

“This plea of consensual relationship is legally immaterial. Under the POCSO Act, the age of the victim is the decisive factor, and if the victim is below 18 years of age, the law presumes that she is incapable of giving valid consent. The alleged consensual nature of the relationship is, therefore, prima facie irrelevant for the purpose of prosecution under the POCSO Act.”

No Unfettered Right To Cross-Examine Person Making Statements U/S 138(B) Customs Act: Delhi High Court

Case title: Sushil Aggarwal v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs and connected matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 159

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a person facing charges under the Customs Act, 1962 does not have an unfettered right under Section 138B, to cross-examine the informant or person making incriminatory statements.

S.107 CGST Act Prescribes Independent Regime Of Limitation For Filing Appeals, Application Of S.5 Limitation Act Stands Excluded: Delhi HC

Case title: M/S Addichem Speciallity LLP v. Special Commissioner I, Department Of Trade And Taxes And Anr and batch

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 160

The Delhi High Court has held that since Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prescribes an “independent regime” to determine the limitation period for filing statutory appeals, the provision for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands excluded.

Close Proximity At Workplace Often Results In Sexual Relationships Which Get Reported As Crimes After Turning Sour: Delhi High Court

Title: ABHIJEET KUMAR v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 161

The Delhi High Court has said that close proximity at the workplace, many times, results in consensual sexual relationships which later get reported as crimes such as rape after they turn sour.

“In the present times, many a times close proximity at workplace results in consensual relationships which on turning sour, get reported as crimes, making it pertinent to be conscious of the distinction between the offence of rape and consensual sex between two adults,” Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.

Delhi High Court Quashes LOC Against Two Individuals Issued Over 2021 Toolkit Case

Title: THILAKASRI KREPANAND & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 162

The Delhi High Court has quashed a look out circular issued against two individuals over the toolkit case registered by the Delhi Police in relation to the 2021 farmers' protest.

Justice Sanjeev Narula quashed the LOC against Thilakasri Krupanand and Shantunu Muluk, noting that the investigation has been ongoing for nearly four years and yet no chargesheet was filed against them.

Delhi High Court Orders Creating Of Common App For MCD, DDA & NDMC Regarding Complaints On Public Toilets

Title: Jan Seva Welfare Society (Reg.) v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 163

The Delhi High Court has directed that a common application be developed to be used by Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) for attending to the grievances in relation to malfunctioning of public toilets in the national capital.

Police Must Fully Cooperate With Municipal Bodies For Implementation Of Traffic Management Plans: Delhi High Court

Title: AMAL SHARMA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 164

The Delhi High Court has said that the police authorities must extend their fullest cooperation to the municipal or local bodies for implementation of traffic management plans in the national capital.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was hearing a public interest litigation filed by one Amal Sharma highlighting the issue of haphazard parking in Delhi.

Magistrate Can't Direct Superior Officer Like DCP To Register FIR Under Section 156(3) Of CrPC: Delhi High Court

Title: HARMEET SINGH v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 165

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a magistrate has no power to direct a superior officer such as a DCP to register an FIR under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that as per the statutory mandate, the Magistrate is only empowered to direct the in-charge officer of the police station to conduct investigation and not any officer of a superior rank.

Both Denote Respect: Delhi HC Restrains Infringement Of NBFC's 'SVAMAAN' Trademark By Identical Business Using 'SAMMAAN' Name

Case title: Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited vs. Sammaan Capital Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 166

The Delhi High Court has granted a temporary injunction in favour of Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited, a non-banking finance company (NBFC) providing microfinance loans, against trademark infringement by other businesses providing identical services using the 'SAMMAAN' formative name in their corporate logo.

Delhi High Court Directs Blocking Access Of IPTV Websites Infringing Star India's Content

Case title: Star India Pvt. Ltd vs. IPTV Smarter Pro & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 167

The Delhi High Court has issued a temporary injunction in favour of the entertainment and media company, Star India Pvt. Ltd, against infringement of its copyrights and broadcast reproduction rights by IPTV streaming applications.

Evolve Mechanism For Online Classes, Time Frame For Students' Representation On Short Attendance: High Court To Delhi University, BCI

Title: ROJALINI PARIDA v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI THROUGH ITS VICE-CHANCELLOR & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 168

The Delhi High Court has asked the Delhi University and the Bar Council of India to evolve mechanism to enable students to attend LLB classes online and for specific time-frame in which they may make representation regarding short attendance.

Delhi High Court Permits NDTV Founders Prannoy Roy, Radhika Roy To Travel Abroad

Title: DR PRANNOY ROY & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 169

The Delhi High Court permitted NDTV's former directors and promoters Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy to travel to Dubai in August.

Justice Sachin Datta noted that the duo has been permitted to travel abroad on various occasions and both of them have complied with the conditions imposed on them in judicial orders.

Delhi High Court Junks PIL To Conduct NEET UG Exam Twice A Year Like JEE, Says Decision Lies With Concerned Authorities

Title: Anshul Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 170

The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a PIL for conducting the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET-UG) examination twice a year in multiple shifts on the lines the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) is held.

Delhi High Court Expresses Concern Over Delay In Implementation Of Judicial Orders But Refuses To Order 'Compliance Cells' In Govt Departments

Title: KORE NIHAL PRAMOD v. UNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 171

The Delhi High Court observed that it is the exclusive executive domain of the government to evolve a robust mechanism to ensure compliance of judicial orders.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela disposed of a plea highlighting the alleged “systemic inefficiencies and bureaucratic inertia” prevalent in government departments due to delayed implementation of judicial orders.

Delhi High Court Rejects Retired Justice SN Dhingra's PIL Against Election Freebies, Asks Him To Approach Supreme Court In Pending Case

Title: JUSTICE (RETD.) S.N. DHINGRA, PRESIDENT, SAMAY YAAN (SASHAKT SAMAJ) v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 172

The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a PIL filed by retired Justice SN Dhingra against the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and Indian National Congress (INC) over their political promises to distribute cash to the voters in polls.

Award Cannot Be Set Aside When No Objections Were Raised Before Arbitrator Or Court U/S 12(5) Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: BHADRA INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD AND ORS. versus AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 173

The Delhi High Court bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul held that the award cannot be set aside solely on the ground that the appointment of the Arbitrator was illegal in view of section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (Arbitration Act) when no such objections were raised before the Arbitrator or the court under section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains Rogue Apps & Websites From Illegally Streaming Star India's Content

Case title: Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Ashar Nisar & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 174

The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of Star India Pvt. Ltd against copyright infringement of its content by rogue apps and websites such as Ninja TV, RTS TV, Kyte TV, Picaso TV, Stream India and Hotstar Mod App.

Delhi High Court Discharges Lawyer In Criminal Contempt Case, Asks Him To Not Indulge In Aggressive Behaviour In Future

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. PRASHANT JAIN

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 175

The Delhi High Court has discharged a lawyer in a criminal contempt case and asked him not to indulge in aggressive behaviour in the future.

A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Dharmesh Sharma took a compassionate view of the matter and accepted the apology of the lawyer.

'Deceptively Similar': Delhi HC Orders Cancellation Of 'Javatpoint' Trademark In Oracle America's Plea Challenging Infringement Of Its 'JAVA' Mark

Case title: Oracle America, Inc. vs. Mr. Sandeep Khandelwal And Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 176

The Delhi High Court ordered the cancellation of the trademark registration of 'javapoint' in a plea filed by the American software company, Oracle America Inc, which owns the rights over Java software.

Justice Amit Bansal in his order said, "As may be seen from the side-by-side comparison of the marks set out in the table above, the impugned mark subsumes the petitioner's mark JAVA in its entirely and is almost identical with its mark JAVASCRIPT. The minor difference/ addition in the impugned mark does not render it different from the petitioner's prior and reputed JAVA marks when considered in totality. It is therefore evident that the impugned mark is deceptively similar to the petitioner's JAVA marks. This Court further notes that the petitioner also provides series of JAVA training and certification courses around the world including online courses accessible by users in India. Therefore, the target consumers of the rival parties are identical and overlapping".

Decide On Uniformity In Interest Rate For Delayed Payment Of Retiral Benefits: Delhi High Court To CAT

Case title: Rajbir Singh vs. Commissioner Mcd And Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 177

The Delhi High Court has directed the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to decide on the issue of uniformity in judicial orders passed by the Tribunal in respect of the rate of interest to be awarded on delayed payment of retiral benefits by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), by constituting an appropriate bench for the matter.

"Hybrid Courts Are Also Courts": Delhi HC Objects To Lawyer Appearing On VC From Park, Calls For Sensitization To Ensure Courtroom Decorum

Title: SHOBHA VERMA AND ANR v. ASHOK KAPOOR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 178

Taking exception to a lawyer appearing through videoconferencing while standing in a park with a mobile phone in his hand, the Delhi High Court has called for sensitization of lawyers on maintaining decorum while appearing in hybrid courts.

Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Against IRCTC In Dispute Over Reimbursement For Catering Services, Sets Aside Interest As 'Patently Illegal'

Case Title: Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corp. Ltd. (IRCTC) vs. M/s. Brandavan Food Products

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 179

The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur has reiterated the limited scope of interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“A&C Act”). The court upheld the arbitral award granted in favour of M/s Brandavan Food Products Ltd. (“Claimant”) in a dispute regarding the reimbursement of differential costs for meals and beverages supplied under a catering contract with the Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. (IRCTC) (“Respondent”). The court set aside the interest award as 'patently illegal' as interest could not be granted on amounts not due as of a particular date.

Transfer Pricing | Resolution Under Mutual Agreement Procedure Is By Consensus, Cannot Be Imposed Upon Assessee: Delhi HC

Case title: Aon Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (Successor Entity Of Aon Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1 And Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 180

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a dispute with respect to arm's length price in a transfer pricing can be resolved under Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) only by consent and negotiations between contracting parties.

High Court Within Whose Jurisdiction AO Passes Assessment Order Has Jurisdiction To Entertain Appeal U/S 260A Income Tax Act: Delhi HC

Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1 v. M/S Chemester Food Industries Pvt. Ltd

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 181

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that only such High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer passing an impugned assessment order is situated would have the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Courts Must Avoid Disparaging Remarks Which Lower Credibility Of Investigating Authority: Delhi High Court

Title: STATE v. NILESH MISHRA and other connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 182

The Delhi High Court has observed that the use of scathing and disparaging remarks which tend to lower the credibility of the investigating authority ought to be avoided by the courts.

Justice Amit Mahajan said that strong criticism and vituperative remarks, may have a devastating impact on the reputation and career of police officials which are not only unnecessary but also have serious consequences on the careers of public servants.

Passport, Personal ID Details Can't Be Disclosed To Third Party Under RTI Act: Delhi High Court

Title: RAKESH KUMAR v. CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 183

The Delhi High Court has ruled that details about passport and personal identification documents cannot be disclosed to a third party under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Justice Sachin Datta referred to various judgments on the issue and said: “…disclosures which may be sought by a third party under the provisions of RTI act pertaining to passport or any other personal identification document, squarely falls under the ambit of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.”

Misuse Of Section 498A IPC Doesn't Mean Genuine Cases Of Harassment Don't Exist: Delhi High Court

Title: AJAY v. STATE & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 184

The Delhi High Court has observed that the misuse of Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, does not mean that genuine cases of harassment do not exist.

Mere Demand For Dowry Not Offence U/S 498A IPC, Simpliciter Allegation Of Intimidation Not Harassment: Delhi High Court

Title: VANEETA GUPTA & ANR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 185

The Delhi High Court has said that mere demand for dowry is no offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and simpliciter allegation of intimidation does not constitute harassment.

Justice Amit Mahajan made the observation while quashing an FIR registered by a wife against the relatives of the husband. The case was registered against the husband, parents and the relatives in 2019.

Delhi High Court Orders Customs To Release Traveller's Gold Worth ₹20 Lakh, Iphone, Playstation & More Over Failure To Issue SCN

Case title: Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 186

The Delhi High Court ordered the Customs authorities to release a traveller's gold worth over ₹14 lakh and other branded articles like iPhone, PlayStation, etc. over the authority's failure to issue him a show cause notice.

ALP Not Concerned With Commercial Expediency Of International Transaction, Assessee Reporting Loss Not Grounds To Deem ALP Nil: Delhi HC

Case title: Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Benetton India Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 187

The Delhi High Court has held that a Transfer Pricing Officer cannot compute the arm's length price of an assessee's international transactions as nil, merely because despite the services availed from such transactions, the assessee incurred a loss in business.

TPO's Role Is To Determine ALP Of International Transactions, Can't Act As AO To Probe Legitimacy Of Such Transactions: Delhi High Court

Case title: Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Benetton India Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 188

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the role of a Transfer Pricing Officer is to conduct a transfer pricing analysis and determine the arm's length price of an assessee's international transaction and the TPO cannot act as an Assessing Officer to probe the legitimacy of such transactions.

Disabling 'Regional Lock' Of Phone To Allow Use Outside India Doesn't Make It 'Used Goods' Ineligible For Duty Drawbacks: Delhi High Court

Case title: M/S Aims Retail Services Private Limited v. Union Of India & Ors. and batch

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 189

The Delhi High Court has held that merely unlocking/ activating a new mobile phone by disabling the “regional lock” which is put by original equipment manufacturers to restrict usage to a specific geographical location, does not make the mobile phone a “used” good.

'Courts Can't Interfere In Executive Function Of Pay Commission, Delhi High Court Dismisses Petition Claiming Pay Parity

Case Title: DR. B.K. TIWARI ADVISER (NUTRITION) verus UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 190

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul held that the Petitioner who was an Advisor (Nutrition) could not be granted the same salary as that of the Advisor (Ayurveda) and Advisor (Homeopathy). The Bench held that since the posts were different, it could not be expected that the nature of duties performed by the employees could be the same and therefore, granting the petitioner the pay scale which was at par with the other posts would not be possible. The Bench further ruled that matters falling within the province of expert bodies like Pay Commission could not be interfered with by courts.

Customs Department Must Intimate Party About Disposal Of Confiscated Property Both Via Email And On Mobile: Delhi High Court

Case title: Gor Sharian v. The Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 191

The Delhi High Court has held that the Customs Department must ensure that the intimation of disposal of detained or confiscated property is given to the concerned party both via email as also the mobile number.

Quashing Of Show Cause Notice On One Issue Doesn't Mean Other Demands Are Not Liable To Be Adjudicated: Delhi High Court

Case title: Principal Commissioner, Central Tax Commissionerate, Gst Delhi West v. M/S Alkarma

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 192

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that if a show cause notice is quashed by a higher authority on one issue, it doesn't mean that other issues raised in the SCN are not liable to be adjudicated.

The observation was made by the bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma in a case where the SCN was quashed by another division bench of the High Court so far as the issue relating to duty on free supply of materials was concerned. However, the CESTAT proceeded to discharge the entire SCN.

Educated Litigant Must Keep Track Of Litigation, Duty Doesn't End Merely By Signing Lawyer's Fee Cheque: Delhi High Court

Title: JAN CHETNA JAGRITI AVOM SHAIKSHANIK VIKAS MANCH & ORS v. SH ANAND RAJ JHAWAR SOLE PROPRIETOR OF M/S RR AGROTECH

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 193

The Delhi High Court has said that an educated litigant must keep track of his litigation and that his duty does not end merely by signing the lawyer's fee cheque.

“An educated urban litigant cannot claim same protection of this rule as extended to an uneducated rustic litigant in the sense that where the latter completely banks upon his counsel and fails to keep a track of his litigation, it is understandable, but it is not understandable where the former does so.”

Delhi High Court Re-Affirms Discretion Of Arbitral Tribunal To Implead 'Non-Signatory' As 'Necessary Party' In Arbitration Proceedings

Case Title: Dixon Technologies (India) Limited vs. M/s Jaiico & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 194

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has reaffirmed that an Arbitral Tribunal has the authority to implead non-signatories to an arbitration, provided they are deemed 'necessary parties' to the proceedings.

Courts Must Examine Judgments Of Acquittal Holistically To Arrive At Conclusion, Delhi High Court Sets Aside Judgment Of CAT

Case Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS versus CHAND SINGH

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 195

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul set aside the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal by which the order of cancellation of the Respondent was quashed. The Bench noted that the order of cancellation was set aside on the basis of the Respondent having disclosed the pendency of the criminal case against him while applying for appointment. However, the Tribunal had not examined whether it was an honourable acquittal which stood as the main issue before the Tribunal in determining if the cancellation of appointment was just and fair.

Income Tax Act | 'Fee For Technical Services' Means Transfer Of 'Specialised'/ 'Distinctive' Knowledge Or Skill By Service Provider: Delhi HC

Case title: Commissioner Of Income Tax International Tax- 1 New Delhi v. M/S Expeditors International Of Washington Inc

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 196

The Delhi High Court has held that Fee for Technical Services (FTS) as contained under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is concerned with the transfer of 'distinctive', 'specialized' knowledge, skill, expertise and know-how by a service provider.

Adolescents Should Be Allowed To Have Romantic Relationships Without Fear Of Criminalization: Delhi High Court In POCSO Case

Title: STATE v. HITESH

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 197

While dealing with a POCSO case, the Delhi High has observed that adolescents should be allowed to engage in romantic and consensual relationships without the fear of criminalization.

DJS 2023: Delhi High Court Rejects Plea To Issue Fresh List For Viva Voce

Title: SHOBHIN BALI v. REGISTRAR GENERAL DELHI HIGH COURT

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 198

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking issuance of fresh or revised list of shortlisted candidates for viva voce for Delhi Judicial Service Examination, 2023.

A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur dismissed the plea filed by a candidate- Shobhin Bali, while refusing to interfere with the results declared for the Mains examination.

Only Apprehension, No Empirical Data: Delhi HC Closes PIL For CBI Probe Into Alleged Fraud By Building & Construction Workers Welfare Board

Case title: Munish Kumar Gaur vs. Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 199

The Delhi High Court has closed a PIL that sought a CBI investigation into alleged irregularities and fraud committed by the officers of Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board in connivance with political parties, where funds were allegedly siphoned off under the guise of providing allowance to construction workers.

Defamation: Delhi High Court Directs Karma News To Take Down Article Accusing Organizers Of 'Cutting South' Event Of 'Distorting' India's Map

Title: News Laundry Media Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Galaxy Zoom India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 200

The Delhi High Court has directed Karma News, a Kerala-based news channel, to take down an article on “Cutting South 2023” event accusing media outlet Newslaundry and other organizers of the programme of “corruption” and “distorting the map of India.”

Delhi High Court Stays Injunction Against Samman Capital In Trademark Case By Svamaan Financial Services

Title: SAMMAAN FINSERV LIMITED v. SVAMAAN FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 201

The Delhi High Court has stayed the operation of a single bench's order that temporarily restrained Sammaan Capital Limited from using 'SAMMAAN' mark in a trademark infringement plea moved by Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited, a non-banking finance company (NBFC) providing microfinance loans.

Violates Public Trust Doctrine: Delhi HC Sets Aside Tribunal's Award Allowing RIL To Explore 'Migrated Gas' Without Express Permission

Case Title: Union of India v. Reliance Industries Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 202

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee, while hearing an appeal under Section 37 of the A&C Act, set aside an arbitral award in favour of Reliance Industries Limited(RIL).

[UAPA] Harbouring Terrorists Provides Them 'Veil Of Secrecy', Creates 'Safe Havens' Endangering Citizens' Security: Delhi High Court

Title: ZAHOOR AHMAD PEER v. NIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 203

Underscoring that harbouring terrorists is a serious offence under UAPA, the Delhi High Court has said that such an act creates “safe havens” for terrorists and provides them a “veil of secrecy” which endangers the life and security of the citizens.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Quash 2016 FIR Against Former DCW Chief Swati Maliwal For 'Naming' 14-Yr-Old Rape Victim

Title: DELHI COMMISSION FOR WOMEN v. STATE OF NCT DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 204

The Delhi High Court has refused to quash FIR registered in 2016 against Rajya Sabha MP and former Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) Chief for allegedly revealing the identity of a 14-year-old rape victim.

The minor girl had died in a hospital here after a neighbour allegedly raped her repeatedly in city's Burari area in 2016. As per the FIR, the minor was forced a corrosive substance down her throat which damaged her internal organs.

Delhi High Court Injuncts Imposter Domain Names From Infringing Trademark Of Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd

Case Title: TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LIMITED & ANR VS. WWW.TATAPOWERSOLARDEALERSHIP.CO.IN & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 205

The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favour of Tata Power Solar Systems Limited, restraining several registrants of domain names from using the domain names and email addresses infringing upon the trademark of the company.

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Instagram Handles From Infringing House Of Masaba's Trademarks

Case Title: HOUSE OF MASABA LIFESTYLE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. MASABACOUTUREOFFICIAL.CO & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 206

The Delhi High Court has issued a temporary injunction in favour of fashion designer Masaba Gupta's brand House Of Masaba Lifestyle Private Limited, against trademark infringement of its 'Masaba' and 'House of Masaba' marks by certain Instagram pages/handles.

Mandate Of Serving Grounds Of Arrest In Writing Under UAPA Applies To Arrests From Date Of SC's Pankaj Bansal Ruling: Delhi High Court

Title: THOKCHOM SHYAMJAI SINGH & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH HOME SECRETARY & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 207

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the mandate of serving grounds of arrest in writing to an arrestee under UAPA will apply to arrests from the date of pronouncement of Supreme Court ruling in Pankaj Bansal case delivered on October 03, 2023, and not from the date of pronouncement of subsequent decision in Prabir Purkayastha case.

S.173(8) CrPC Inapplicable To Additional Document Already Part Of Record In Incomplete Form, Without Introducing New Allegations: Delhi HC

Case title: Sonu vs. CBI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 208

While upholding the Trial Court's order allowing the prosecution to introduce an additional document, the Delhi High Court has observed that the introduction of the document, which was already a part of the record in an incomplete form and did not introduce any new facts or allegations, did not amount to placing 'fresh evidence'. The Court stated that introducing the additional document was a 'rectification' and thus compliance with Section 173(8) of the CrPC, requiring a supplementary chargesheet, was not necessary.

Delhi HC Restrains Rogue Websites From Infringing Trademark Of Reliance's 'YOUSTA' Fashion Brand, Orders Blocking Of Social Media Accounts

Case title: RELIANCE RETAIL LTD VS. YOUSTAFRANCHISE.NET & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 209

The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Reliance Retail Ltd, restraining several rogue websites and social media accounts from infringing the trademark of its 'Yousta' fashion brand.

Failure To Attach Impugned Arbitral Award Along With Section 34 Application Would Render Filing Non-Est: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Pragati Construction Consultants v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 210

A full bench of Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Rekha Palli, Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Saurabh Banerjee while hearing a reference made by a single judge bench in Pragati Construction Consultants v. Union of India [FAO(OS)(COMM) 70/2024] held that if the party challenging an award u/s 34 of the A&C Act does not attach the impugned arbitral award with the Section 34 application, the filing will be considered "non-est." The Court further held that the filing of the arbitral award along with the Section 34 application is an essential requirement.

AO Becomes 'Functus Officio' After Closure Of Assessment, Must Put Relevant Incriminating Material To Assessee To Re-Confer Jurisdiction: Delhi HC

Case title: Vivo Mobile India Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 211

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that after the closure of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer becomes 'functus officio' and to re-confer jurisdiction upon the AO to initiate re-assessment proceedings, relevant incriminating material ought to be put to the assessee.

Sending Legal Notice Or Mediation Request Doesn't Satisfy Section 12A Of Commercial Courts Act Mandating Mediation: Delhi High Court

Case title: Renewflex Recycling vs. Facilitation Centre Rohini Courts & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 212

The Delhi High Court has observed that sending a legal notice or mediation request to a party cannot be considered as a 'compliance' of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which mandates mediation before the institution of a commercial suit.

Central Govt Employee Cannot Change Destination Midway While Claiming Leave Travel Concession: Delhi High Court

Case title: Tilak Raj Singh v. Union Of India And Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 213

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that in terms of the Central Civil Services (Leave Travel Concession) Rules, 1988 an employee cannot change travel destination midway through the journey and if due to some unavoidable circumstance it has been changed, the same has to be a destination which is en route.

Speedy Trial Can't Be At Cost Of Fairness Of Trial: High Court In Delhi Riots Case

Title: MOHD. DANISH v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 214

While dealing with a case concerning the 2020 North-East Delhi riots, the Delhi High Court has observed that expedition in trial cannot be at the cost of fairness of trial, since that would be against all canons of justice.

Delhi High Court Junks PIL Against 'Illegal Constructions' At Ajmeri Gate, Imposes ₹10K Costs

Title: MR MIRZA AURANGZEB v. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 215

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking to demolish the alleged illegal and unauthorized constructions within the regulated area of city's Ajmeri Gate.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela imposed Rs. 10,000 costs on the petitioner- Mirza Aurangzeb to be deposited with Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund.

Delhi High Court Again Reschedules Date Of Elections To All Bar Associations To March 21

Title: LALIT SHARMA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 216

The Delhi High Court has rescheduled again the date of elections to all Bar Associations in the national capital from February 28 to March 21, 2025.

A full bench comprising Justice Yashwant Varma, Justice Rekha Palli and Justice C Hari Shankar took cognizance of the fact that the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) was yet to constitute its Election Commission.

High Court Orders Forest Department, Delhi Police To Evolve Mechanism For Rescuing Distressed Birds

Title: SAVE INDIA FOUNDATION v. DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND WILDLIFE & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 217

The Delhi High Court has asked the Delhi Government's forest department and Delhi Police to evolve a mechanism for rescuing the distressed birds in the national capital.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was dealing with a PIL filed by Save India Foundation seeking issuance of directions to the authorities to take immediate action for rescuing distressed birds.

Inter Cadre Transfer Can't Be Denied Solely Citing Shortage Of Officers: Delhi High Court Raps West Bengal Govt

Title: CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT OF WEST BENGAL v. VAIBHAV BANGAR & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 218

The Delhi High Court has rapped the action of West Bengal government for refusing, in multiple cases, the prayer for inter cadre transfers (ICTs) on the ground of shortage of officers.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Challenge Against Arbitral Award Rejecting Counterclaim For Failure To Raise Timely Objections On Quality Of Goods

Case Name: Unison Hotels Pvt Ltd v. KNM Chemicals Pvt Ltd

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 219

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has upheld an Arbitral award stating that objections regarding the quality of goods must be raised within a reasonable time as per section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The court concurred with the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal that since the Petitioner failed to dispute the quality of supplies within a reasonable time, its counterclaims were rightly dismissed.

Delhi HC Grants Relief To Foreigner Whose Rolex Watch Was Seized By Customs, Says Waiver Of Show Cause & Hearing In 'Standard Form' Not Lawful

Case title: Mohamed Shamiuddeen v. Commissioner Of Customs & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 220

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that authorities making a traveller waive show cause notice before confiscation of goods, etc. under Section 124 of the Customs Act 1962, on a mere proforma, is not lawful.

A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma thus granted relief to a permanent resident of Hong Kong, whose Rolex wristwatch valued at ₹30,29,400/- was confiscated by the Customs Department at the airport.

Delhi High Court Passes John Doe Order Against Rogue Websites Infringing Online Gaming Company Baazi Group's Trademark

Case title: Moonshine Technology Private Limited vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 221

The Delhi High Court has issued a temporary injunction against 'rogue websites' from accessing and using the domain names infringing the trademark of Moonshine Technology Private Limited, the parent company of Baazi Group of Companies providing online gaming products and services.

S.10(4) Patents Act | Delhi HC Rejects Appeal For Salmonella Microorganism-Based Live Vaccine, Says Application Lacks 'Inventive Contribution'

Case Title: THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA VS. CONTROLLER OF PATENTS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 222

The Delhi High Court has upheld the refusal to grant a patent to the Regents of the University Of California relating to a recombinant Salmonella microorganism-based live vaccine for preventing enteric bacterial infection.

Delhi High Court Asks NIA Court To Expeditiously Decide MP Engineer Rashid's Bail Plea In UAPA Case

Title: Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 223

The Delhi High Court asked a National Investigation Agency (NIA) Court to decide expeditiously the bail plea filed by Jammu and Kashmir MP Rashid Engineer in a terror funding case registered under UAPA.

Conversational Tweets On 'X' Thread Can't Be Assessed In Isolation To Determine Defamation: Delhi High Court Rejects Plea Of 'LawSikho'

Title: ADDICTIVE LEARNING TECHNOLOGY LIMITED & ANR v. ADITYA GARG & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 224

The Delhi High Court has observed that the utterances in the nature of tweets in a conversational thread on X platform (formerly Twitter) are not to be assessed in isolation for determining the claim of defamation.

“The Court has to consider that nature of the medium (X) is casual and fast paced, conversational in character and an elaborate analysis of a 140-character tweet (or even more than that) may be disproportional,” Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said.

S.197 IT Act | AO Must Form Prima Facie Opinion Regarding Taxability In India Before Rejecting Assessee's Application For Nil TDS: Delhi HC

Case title: SFDC Ireland Limited v. Commissioner Of Income Tax & Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 225

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that before rejecting an assessee's application under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for nil TDS or deduction of tax at a lower rate, the assessing officer must form a prima facie opinion regarding the assessee's taxability in India.

RPwD Act | Hyper Rigid Approach While Dealing With Disabled Candidates Dilutes Purpose Of 'Reasonable Accommodation': Delhi High Court

Case title: Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) And Ors. vs. Sumit

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 226

While hearing a plea against a decision granting exemption to an orthopaedically disabled person from typewriting test after the results were declared, the Delhi High Court observed that the approach of a court while dealing with persons with disabilities must be "qualitatively different" from one adopted for able-bodied candidates.

Man Arrested By UP Police Without Informing Delhi Police, High Court Seeks Response On Compliance Of Protocol For Inter-State Arrests

Title: SATINDER SINGH BHASIN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 227

The Delhi High Court has sought response of the Commissioner of Police, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh as to whether any protocol has been agreed to with the Delhi Police in case of Inter-State arrests as per a 2019 decision of a division bench.

A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Dharmesh Sharma said that there is a need to ensure that the prescribed protocol for inter-state arrests is followed by the UP Police.

Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains Domain Names/Websites From Infringing Tata Group's 'CROMA' Trademark

Case title: Infiniti Retail Limited vs. M/S Croma Wholeseller & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 228

The Delhi High Court issued a permanent injunction in favour of the Tata Group's subsidiary Infiniti Retail Limited, the owner of 'CROMA' trademark, against trademark infringement by domain names/websites using the said mark.

Will Decide Congress MP Randeep Surjewala's Plea For Electoral Rolls Of Maharashtra, Haryana Within Three Months: ECI To Delhi High Court

Title: Randeep Singh Surjewala v. ECI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 229

The Delhi High Court disposed of a plea filed by Congress MP Randeep Singh Surjewala seeking a direction on the Election Commission of India (ECI) to decide his representation seeking supply of the electoral rolls for the Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha polls conducted in the States of Maharashtra and Haryana from 2009 to 2024.

Delhi High Court Quashes ₹2000 Crore Tax Reassessment Notice Against Maruti Suzuki For Alleged Escapement Of Income In AY 2009-10

Case title: Maruti Suzuki India Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 230

The Delhi High Court has quashed the reassessment action initiated by the Income Tax Department against car manufacturer Maruti Suzuki India Ltd for alleged escapement of income in the Assessment Year 2009-10.

MSMED Act Will Prevail Over Arbitration Act In Disputes Pertaining To A Party Which Is An MSME: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Idemia Syscom India Private Limited v. M/s Conjoinix Total Solutions Private Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 231

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has reiterated that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a general law governing the field of arbitration whereas the MSMED Act, 2006 governing a very specific nature of disputes concerning MSMEs, is a specific law and being a specific law would prevail over Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Man Accused Of Taking ₹2 Crore Dowry Seeks Income Tax Dept Probe Into Wife's Family, Delhi High Court Rejects Plea

Case title: Ateesh Agarwal v. Union Of India And Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 232

The Delhi High Court has rejected the writ petition filed by a man, seeking an inquiry into the finances of his wife and her family who claimed to have paid him ₹2 crores dowry, in addition to spending crores of rupees on their wedding.

CBDT Cannot Impose Limitations To Extinguish Rights Granted Under Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 233

Recently, the Delhi High Court held that Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) cannot impose limitations to extinguish rights granted under Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court held that the wide powers granted to the CBDT are not for extinguishing a right that is conferred by the Act. Accordingly, the Court Circular No. 07/2007 dated 23 October 2007 issued by the CBDT to the be ultra vires the Income Tax Act.

Retrospective Pay Reduction Without Prior Notice And Recovery Of Excess Payments After 19 Years Is Not Permissible : Delhi High Court

Case Name : Asha Ram Nehra v. Commissioner of Police and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 234

A division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Manoj Jain held that reducing employee's pay retrospectively without prior notice and recovering excess payments after the period of 19 years is not permissible.

DTAA | Subsidiary Of A Company Does Not Ipso Facto Constitute Its Permanent Establishment: Delhi High Court

Case title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -2 v. Nokia Network OY

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 235

The Delhi High Court has held that a subsidiary or an entity which is substantially controlled by another entity in a contracting State does not by itself become a Permanent Establishment (PE) of that other entity.

Bank Account Frozen Over 'Suspicious Transaction' Of ₹200, Delhi HC Asks Probe Agencies To Show Compassion To Innocent Traders

Case title: Neelkanth Pharma Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 236

The Delhi High Court has expressed concern with investigating agencies freezing the bank accounts of innocent traders while probing cyber crimes.

It observed, “In such types of cyber-crimes, if any fraudster cheats a complainant and with the help of cheated money, when such fraudster buys something using such money, the police, chasing such money-trail, directs freezing the bank accounts of all concerned and in the process, many innocent recipients have to bear the brunt, for no fault of theirs.”

'Deliberate And Wilful Infringement' Of Trademark: Delhi HC Directs Amazon To Pay ₹339.25 Crore To Luxury Brand Beverly Hills Polo Club

Case title: LIFESTYLE EQUITIES CV & ANR. vs. AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 237

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has imposed hefty damages and costs totalling Rs. 339.25 crore on Amazon Technologies Inc for trademark infringement of the luxury lifestyle brand, Beverly Hills Polo Club.

Can't Presume Pending Investigation For Disqualification Under 'Sabka Vishwas Scheme' When Proof Of Service Of Notice Not Available: Delhi HC

Case title: Daljeet Singh Gill v. Union Of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 238

The Delhi High Court granted relief to a trader whose application for availing the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 over service tax dues was declined by the GST Department “without providing any reason”.

Deliberately Misled Consumers: Delhi HC Decrees Castrol Ltd's Trademark Infringement Suit Against Engine Oil Manufacturers, Awards ₹20 Lakh

Case title: CASTROL LIMITED vs. KAPIL & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 239

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction in favour of the automobile lubricants manufacturer Castrol Limited, against trademark and trade dress/package infringement by businesses manufacturing, selling and advertising engine oils and lubricants.

Customs Department's Baggage Rules Have 'Limited Application' On Foreign Tourists: Delhi HC Orders Release Of Russian National's Gold Chain

Case title: MR Makhinder Chopra Commissioner Of Customs New Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 240

The Delhi High Court has held that the Baggage Rules 2016 which are framed under the Customs Act 1962 to ensure that every passenger entering India passes through a Customs check has limited application on foreign tourists coming to India.

Delhi High Court Rejects Plea By Maharaja Karni Singh's Heir Asking Central Govt To Clear Rent Arrears On Bikaner House

Title: ESTATE OF MAHARAJA DR KARNI SINGHJI OF BIKANER THROUGH EXECUTRIX v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 241

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by heir of Late Maharaja Dr. Karni Singh, the last one to hold the title of Maharaja of Bikaner, seeking arrears of rent from Central Government for the Bikaner House property in the national capital.

Delhi High Court Quashes IOA Order Appointing Ad-Hoc Committee To Look After Affairs Of Bihar Olympic Association

Title: BIHAR OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION v. PRESIDENT INDIAN OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 242

The Delhi High Court has quashed an order passed by the President of Indian Olympic Association (IOA) constituting a five member Ad-Hoc committee to look after the affairs of the Bihar Olympic Association.

Justice Sachin Datta said that the decision taken on January 01 did not satisfy the requirements of law and deserved to be set aside.

'Final Report-I' Confidential Document Of CBI But Can Be Produced Before Court At Cognizance Stage In Exceptional Circumstances: Delhi HC

Title: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THROUGH ITS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 243

The Delhi High Court has ruled that production of Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) final report for the perusal of the special court cannot be denied at the stage of cognizance, if exceptional circumstances are made out.

Delhi High Passes John Doe Order Restricting Domain Names From Infringing Burger King's Trademarks & Running Fake Franchise

Case title: Burger King Corporation vs. Swapnil Patil & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 244

The Delhi High Court has granted a temporary injunction in favour of the fast food chain, Burger King Corporation, and directed the suspension of domain names/websites infringing upon its 'BURGER KING' trademarks.

Burger King Corporation (plaintiff) sought an injunction against unknown defendants for running fake franchise/dealership websites using its trademarks. It is alleged that the operators of the domain names are collecting money from innocent and gullible consumers and customers.

Enterprise Manufacturing Specified Items In Designated States Can Seek Tax Deduction U/S 80IC Income Tax Act Without Agreement With Govt: Delhi HC

Case title: M/S Legacy Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 245

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which contemplates tax incentives for enterprises operating in specific industries and locations in India, does not require such enterprises to enter into an agreement with the Government.

[S.292B Income Tax Act] Inadvertent Mistakes In Reassessment Can Be Saved But Assessment Order Overlooking Apparent Error Cannot: Delhi HC

Case title: Monish Gajapati Raju Pusapati v. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 246

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be used to save an assessment order passed by overlooking errors apparent on face of the record.

Delhi High Court Upholds NHRC Order Directing Delhi Police Commissioner To Pay ₹50,000 Compensation To Doctor Over Non-Registration Of FIR

Case title: COMMISSIONER DELHI POLICE vs. NHRC

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 247

The Delhi High Court has upheld an order passed by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), which directed the Delhi Police Commissioner to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000 to a senior doctor for non-registration of an FIR.

Delhi HC Judges Recuse From Hearing Pleas Over Pay Commission Benefits After Lawyer Alleges They Are 'Choosing And Picking' Cases From List

Case Title: UNION OF INDIA & ANR v. ALL INDIA POSTAL ACCOUNTS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 248

Two judges of the Delhi High Court recused from hearing a batch of petitions concerning grant of benefits as per the Pay Commission recommendations, after one of the lawyers claimed that the division bench was “choosing and picking” cases to be heard.

A division bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul called the situation “deeply disturbing” and said that the matters be listed before another Bench subject to orders of the Chief Justice.

Arbitral Award Not Signed By All Members Of Tribunal Can Be Set Aside If Reasons For Omission Of Missing Signature Are Not Stated: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Isc Projects Private Limited v. Steel Authority of India Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 249

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has observed that the signature of all members of the arbitral tribunal should be available on the award as the signing of an award is not a ministerial act but a substantive requirement. It was further observed that if the signature of any member of the tribunal is omitted, then the reasons should be stated as this requirement is referable to the need to ensure that all members of the tribunal have has an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process.

Plaintiff Can't File Documents As Per Its Whims And Fancies At Any Stage Of Commercial Suit: Delhi High Court In Zee v. Saregama

Title: ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LTD v. SAREGAMA INDIA LTD

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 250

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a plaintiff cannot be permitted to file documents as per its whims and fancies at any stage of a commercial suit.

“The whole purpose of expeditious disposal of commercial suits would be frustrated if the parties are permitted to file additional documents at any stage of the suit,” Justice Amit Bansal said.

Woman's Plea For Right To Shared Household Maintainable Even In Absence Of Domestic Violence: Delhi High Court

Case title: SQN LDR PRABHAKAR BHATT vs. MAJ. ANNU LAMBA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 251

The Delhi High Court has observed that a woman's claim seeking right to shared household under Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 is valid even in the absence of domestic violence.

S.153C Income Tax Act | Two-Tier Satisfaction Of Assessing Officers Of Both Searched & Non-Searched Entity Needed Even Prior To 2015 Amendment: Delhi HC

Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)- 3 v. M/S Ridgeview Construction Pvt. Ltd

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 252

The Delhi High Court has held that even though Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 did not in its original form prescribe two-tier satisfaction of Assessing Officers of both the searched and non-searched entity for initiating reassessment, the same cannot be deemed absent.

Women Face Harassment In Public Even After Decades Of Independence, Real Empowerment Begins With Right To Move Freely: Delhi HC

Title: ANUPENDER v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 253

The Delhi High Court has observed that even after decades of independence, women face harassment in public spaces and emphasised that real empowerment begins with the right to live and move freely without fear.

“The facts of the present case reflect a deeply concerning reality—that even after decades of independence, women continue to face harassment in public spaces, including public transport, where they should feel safe and secure. Despite the existence of stringent laws aimed at protecting women's dignity and personal autonomy, incidents like these highlight the audacity of offenders who dare to commit such acts, believing they can evade consequences,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

Long Term Consensual Physical Relationship Doesn't Mean Consent Was Purely Based On Promise To Marry: Delhi HC Sets Aside Rape Conviction

Title: SHIVAM PANDEY v. STATE

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 254

The Delhi High Court has said that if a consensual physical relationship continues for a long period, it cannot be said that the woman's consent was purely based on the promise to marry.

Complete Ban On Students Using Smartphones In Schools 'Undesirable': Delhi High Court Issues Guidelines For Regulated Use

Title: Y V v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 256

The Delhi High Court has observed that a “complete ban” on use of smartphones by students attending school is both an “undesirable and unworkable” approach.

Yamuna River Has Surpassed Threshold, Interference In Its Restoration Not Justified: Delhi HC Rejects Plea Against Uprooting Of Nurseries

Title: HARIT NURSERIES WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.) & ANR. v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 257

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Yamuna river in the national capital has surpassed the threshold and any interference in its restorative and rejuvenation is not justified.

Appellate Tribunal For Foreign Exchange Can't Pronounce Person 'Guilty' Of Offences Under FERA Act: Delhi High Court

Title: Y S CHOWDARY v. ED and other connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 258

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange cannot pronounce a person “guilty” of the offences under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Order Rejecting Challenge To JDU's Internal Elections Electing Nitish Kumar As President

Title: GOVIND YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 259

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Janata Dal United's (JDU) expelled member Govind Yadav against a single bench order, which dismissed his petition challenging the internal party elections held by JDU in 2016 electing Nitish Kumar as President of the political party.

Delhi High Court Issues Directions For Compliance Of Higher Courts' Orders To Conclude Trials Expeditiously

Title: VAIBHAV KUMAR v. STATE THROUGH SHO RAJOURI GARDEN

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 260

The Delhi High Court has issued directions to the trial courts in the national capital for compliance of higher courts' orders to conclude pending trials expeditiously in a time bound manner.

Delhi High Court Expresses Concern Over Delay In Disposal Of Matters Before National Faceless Appeal Centre

Case title: Suparshva Swabs (I) v. National Faceless Appeal Centre & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 261

The Delhi High Court has expressed grave concern over the pendency of over 5.4 Lakh appeals before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC).

Delhi High Court Rebukes DDA For Improper, Excess Demarcation Of Land For Hospital; Says Can't Demand Ground Rent On Ambiguous Boundaries

Case title: Flourish Hospitals Pvt. Ltd vs. Delhi Development Authority

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 262

The Delhi High Court has reprimanded the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for failing to properly demarcate a plot of land for constructing a hospital, leading to allotment of excess land to the lessee, non-execution of the lease deed and the demand for ground rent from the lessee before proper demarcation of the land.

Child In Conflict With Law Being Treated As Adult Can't Be Tried Jointly With Adult Offender: Delhi High Court

Title: CCL 'K' v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 263

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the trial proceedings of a child alleged to be in conflict with law and an adult offender cannot be held jointly after a preliminary assessment of Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) is done declaring the child in conflict with law to be psychologically and physically mature.

Delhi High Court Passes John Doe Order Against Extortion Threat Of Leaking Insurance Company's Confidential Customer Data

Case title: Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nicenic International Group Company Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 264

While granting temporary injunction in favour of Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company, the Delhi High Court restrained unknown entities from publishing, distributing or disclosing the company's confidential data pertaining to its customers, after the company received a ransomware threat.

UP Woman On Death Row In UAE For Infant's Murder Executed On February 15: Centre Informs Delhi High Court

Title: SHABBIR KHAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 265

The Union Government has informed the Delhi High Court that an Indian woman, resident of Uttar Pradesh, who was on death row in Abu Dhabi, UAE, for alleged murder of a four month old child, was executed on February 15.

Private Unaided Schools Are Subject To Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 If Service Conditions Are Governed By Statutory Provisions Like DSEAR, 1973 : Delhi HC

Case Name : Jayati Mozumdar v. Managing Committee Sri Sathya Sai Vidya Vihar & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 266

The Delhi High Court bench comprising of Justice Prateek Jalan held that a private unaided school is subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if its service conditions are governed by statutory provisions like the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 (DSEAR).

MACP Scheme Benefits Must Be Granted Along With Pension Benefits To Employees Who Got Deemed Extension Of Service Till 60 Years: Delhi HC

Case Name : Rajbir Singh Sihmar And Ors v. Union Of India And Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 267

A Division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Navin Chawla & Justice Shalinder Kaur held that MACP scheme benefits must be granted along with pension benefits to employees whose service is deemed to extend until 60 years.

Respondent Cannot File Cross-Objections To Appeal Before High Court U/S 260A Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court

Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. Nagar Dairy Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 268

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which pertains to appeals to High Courts, does not envisage the filing of cross-objections by the opposite party, unlike Order XLI Rule 22 CPC.

Jamia Protest: Delhi High Court Constitutes Committee To Calm Down Situation, Stays Suspension Of Students

Title: Saurabh Tripathi & Ors. v. Jamia Millia Islamia and other connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 269

The Delhi High Court has directed that a committee be constituted to “calm down” the situation amid recent students' protest in the Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI).

Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Wrestler Sushil Kumar In Sagar Dhankar Murder Case

Title: Sushil Kumar v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 270

The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to wrestler Sushil Kumar in relation to the case of murder of 27-year-old former junior national wrestling champion Sagar Dhankar in May 2021.

Delhi High Court Restrains Company Which Owns Mamagoto, Dhaba From Playing Phonographic Performance's Copyrighted Songs In Its Restaurants

Case title: Phonographic Performance Limited vs. Azure Hospitality Private Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 271

The Delhi High Court has granted a temporary injunction in favour of Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL), restraining Azure Hospitality Private Limited which runs several restaurants, from playing PPL's copyrighted songs at the premises of its restaurants.

Non Supply Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Either In Arrest Memo Or Separately To Accused Illegal: Delhi High Court In Abetment Of Suicide Case

Title: GAGAN v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 272

The Delhi High Court declared the arrest of a man as illegal, in an abetment of suicide case, after noting that neither “grounds of arrest” column was there in the arrest memo nor the grounds were separately served upon him at the time of his arrest.

Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Christian Michel Booked By ED In AgustaWestland Chopper Scam

Case Title: Christian Michel James v. ED

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 273

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to British Arms Counsultant Christian James Michel in the FIR registered by Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the Agusta Westland chopper scam.

Delhi High Court Allows Indigo Airlines' Plea, Holds Levy Of Additional IGST On Repaired & Re-Imported Aircraft Parts To Be Unconstitutional

Case title: Interglobe Aviation Ltd v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs Acc (Import) New Custom House New Delhi & Ors. and batch

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 274

In big relief to Indigo airlines, the Delhi High Court has held that an additional levy of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) and cess under Section 3(7) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 on re-import of aircraft parts that were repaired abroad, is unconstitutional.

Illegal Construction Threatens Ecologically Sensitive Yamuna Floodplains: Delhi HC Rejects Dhobi Ghat Slum Residents' Plea Against Demolition

Title: DHOBI GHAT JHUGGI ADHIKAR MANCH v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 275

The Delhi High Court has observed that Yamuna floodplains in the national capital is ecologically sensitive and any unlawful encroachment or construction in the area poses significant threat to it.

NDLS Stampede: Delhi High Court Refuses To Implead Persons Prevented From Boarding Train, Asks Them To Avail Remedy Separately

Case Title: Arth Vidhi v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 276

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain an application filed by various individuals seeking intervention in a pending public interest litigation filed over the recent stampede that occurred at New Delhi Railway Station on February 15.

Awarding Less Than Minimum Prescribed Sentence Under Wildlife Protection Act Would Frustrate Its Object, Set A Dangerous Precedent: Delhi HC

Title: CBI v. MD. YASEEN WANI & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 277

The Delhi High Court has held that it is impermissible to award a sentence which is less than the minimum prescribed term under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

No Liberalised Family Pension For Death During Casual Leave; Direct Causal Link With Official Duty Essential: Delhi HC

Title: Leelam v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 278

Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur held that death of a CRPF Sub-Inspector in a road accident during casual leave does not qualify for Liberalized Family Pension or Ex-Gratia Compensation. The court held that mere classification of leave as 'on duty' under service rules is not enough unless there exists a direct causal link between the death and the performance of official duties. It ruled that for Liberalized Family Pension or Ex-Gratia Compensation, the death must occur in circumstances related to the performance of official duties.

Time Spent Before 'Wrong' Court Excluded U/S 14 Of Limitation Act While Calculating Limitation Period U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: INCITE HOMECARE PRODUCTS PVT LTD versus R K SWAMY PVT LTD ERSTWHILE RK SWAMY BBDO PVT LTD

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 279

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma has held that during the calculation of the limitation period of three months for the application under Section 34(1) of the Act, the time during which the applicant was prosecuting such application before the wrong court is excluded. Court noted that the proceedings in the wrong court should be bona fide, with due diligence.

Delhi High Court Upholds Trial Court Order Allowing Accused's Plea To Preserve Call Detail Records, Location Data Of CBI Officers

Case title: CBI vs. Neeraj Kumar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 280

The Delhi High Court has observed that a Trial Court's order allowing the application of an accused for preservation of Call Detail Records and location data of CBI officers and independent witnesses is an 'interlocutory order' and thus a revision petition under Section 397 CrPC challenging the order is not applicable.

[Arbitration Act] Limitation Does Not Stop If Initial Filing Is Non Est, Date Of Filing Must Be Reckoned From Date Of Refiling: Delhi HC

Case Title: Sudesh Hans v. Gian Chand Hans and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 281

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has reiterated that the filing of the arbitral award under challenge along with application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not a mere procedural formality but an essential requirement and non-filing of the same would make the application non est in the eyes of law.

Delhi HC Grants Interim Relief U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act By Attaching TMT Steel Bars Worth ₹69.5 Crores Made Using Coal Whose Quality Was Disputed

Case Title: RESCOM MINERAL TRADING FZE versus RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED RINL AND ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 282

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has granted interim relief to a petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to the extent of 50% of the balance outstanding claimed i.e., Rs. 69.50 Crores by attaching TMT Steel bars (finished product) of the equivalent amount in a dispute over the quality of coal delivered, which was used to manufacture the steel bars.

Delhi HC Asks CESTAT To Decide If Tax On Services Purchased By Prepaid Mobile Subscribers From Existing Balance Would Amount To Double-Tax

Case title: Tata Teleservices Limited v. The Commissioner CGST Delhi East & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 283

The Delhi High Court has asked the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal to decide whether levy of tax on the services purchased by a prepaid subscriber of Tata Teleservices, using the existing mobile balance on which tax was already paid, would amount to double taxation.

Making Two Applications For One Recruitment Examination, Concealing One, Delhi High Court Dismisses Writ Petition

Case Title: PRAGYA SINGH versus DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 284

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices C.Hari Shankar and Anup Kumar Mendiratta dismissed a Petition whereby the Petitioner sought quashing of a notice by which her candidature was rejected. The Bench held that since the Petitioner had filed two application forms and had also concealed her educational qualifications before the Tribunal as well as the Court, she would not be entitled to any sort of relief.

CESTAT Can't Reject Appeal Merely Because Pre-Deposit Was Made In Wrong Account, Especially When Rules Were Unclear: Delhi High Court

Case title: M/S DD Interiors v. Commissioner Of Service Tax & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 285

The Delhi High Court has held that merely because a pre-deposit prescribed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for preferring an appeal is made in the wrong account, that too when the integrated portal might not have been fully functional, cannot result in rejection of appeal on the ground of defects.

'Ego Issue': Delhi HC Disapproves Of Tax Commissioner Seeking Declaration Against Appointments Committee Of Cabinet Over Delay In Promotion

Case title: Ramesh Chander v. The Chairman Central Board Of Direct Taxes, & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 286

The Delhi High Court rejected the petition filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, seeking a declaration against the Appointments Committee Of Cabinet (ACC) which promoted him to the post with purported delay.

Survey Report On Existence Of 'Permanent Establishment' In Tax Year Not Relevant For Previous/Future AYs: Delhi HC Grants Relief To Swiss Co

Case title: GE Grid (Switzerland) GMBH v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 287

The Delhi High Court has held that the existence of a foreign entity's Permanent Establishment (PE) in India is required to be determined in law for each year separately on the basis of the scope, extent, nature and duration of activities in each year.

'Extra Duty Deposit' Different From Customs Duty, Limitation For Seeking Refund U/S 27 Of Customs Act Is Inapplicable: Delhi High Court

Case title: Sentec India Company Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Customs, Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 288

The Delhi High Court has held that an Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) does not constitute a payment in the nature of customs duty under the scope of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and thus, the period of limitation for seeking a refund of customs duty under the provision would not apply qua EDD.

'Highly Undesirable Practice, Wastes Judicial Time': Delhi High Court Laments Frequent Non-Appearance Of Govt Counsel In Customs Matters

Case title: Rahul Vattamparambil Remesh v. Union Of India & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 289

The Delhi High Court has expressed its displeasure at the frequent non-appearance of government counsel in customs related matters.

[POCSO Act] Lying Very Close To Minor Victim Amounts To 'Outraging Modesty' But Not 'Aggravated Sexual Assault' If No Overt Sexual Intent: Delhi HC

Title: MRP (IDENTITY WITHHELD) v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 290

The Delhi High Court has held that pressing lips of a minor victim and lying very close to her may amount to offence of outraging her modesty under Indian Penal Code but the same may not amount to offence of aggravated sexual assault under POCSO Act if overt sexual intent is absent.

Family Court's Approach Can't Be Like Ordinary Civil Proceeding: Delhi HC Sets Aside Order Closing Wife's Right To File Reply In Divorce Plea

Title: MEENU AGRAWAL v. BHARAT GOEL

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 291

The Delhi High Court has said that while dealing with matrimonial matters, family courts must adopt an approach which is different from ordinary civil proceedings.

Delhi HC Grants Permanent Injunction In Favour Of Rishikesh Based Chotiwala Restaurant Over Trademark Infringement, Awards ₹3 Lakh Damages

Case title: Chotiwala Food And Hotels Private Limited vs. Chotiwala & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 292

The Delhi High Court has recently granted a permanent injunction in favour of Rishikesh-based restaurant Chotiwala Food And Hotels Private Limited, restraining three Delhi-based restaurants from using Chotiwala's name, trademark and artistic work.

Not Coherent: Delhi HC Uphold's Dismissal Of Woman's Complaint Claiming She Survived 25 Gunshots Using Ayurvedic Medicines, Without Surgery

Title: C SHARMA v. NAVDEEP SINGH & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 293

The Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of a woman's complaint who claimed that she survived about 25 gunshot wounds in her head and heart using ayurvedic medicines without surgery or going to the hospital.

S.67 Of CGST Act & S.110 Of Customs Act Are Pari Materia; GST Department Must Give Notice To Assessee Before Extending Seizure Period: Delhi HC

Case title: M/S Kashish Optics Ltd. v. The Commissioner, CGST Delhi West & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 294

The Delhi High Court has held that an assessee must be issued notice within six months of seizure of its goods under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, failing which the goods must be returned by the Department.

Shamshera Movie Copyright Case: Delhi High Court Stays Further Investigation In FIR Against Yash Raj Films, Aditya Chopra

Title: YASH RAJ FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 295

The Delhi High Court has stayed further investigation against Yash Raj Films Private Limited and director Aditya Chopra in the FIR registered against them in relation to the Shamshera movie copyright case.

Income Tax Department Cannot Attach Properties Indefinitely Without Pursuing Steps To Resolve Matter: Delhi High Court

Case title: Fasttrack Tieup Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 296

The Delhi High Court has held that the Income Tax Department cannot, suspecting escapement of tax on income by an assessee, indefinitely attach its properties without taking further steps to resolve the matter.

Relief To Quick Delivery Platform 'Zepto': Delhi High Court Directs Cancellation Of Trademark Registered By Individual In 2014

Case title: Kiranakart Technologies Private Limited vs. Mohammad Arshad & Anr (C.O.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 297

The Delhi High Court has directed the cancellation of 'Zepto' trademark registered in 2014 by an individual, in a rectification petition filed by consumer goods delivery services Kiranakart Technologies Private Limited which operates under the Zepto mark.

Transfer Pricing | Existence Of International Transaction Must Be Determined Before Benchmarking Analysis Is Commenced: Delhi HC

Case title: PCIT-1, New Delhi v. Beam Global Spirits & Wine (India) Pvt.Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 298

The Delhi High Court has held that before the Income Tax Department commences transfer pricing benchmarking analysis of an assessee's international transactions, the very existence of such 'international transaction' must be determined.

Case title: PCIT-1, New Delhi v. Beam Global Spirits & Wine (India) Pvt.Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 298

The Delhi High Court has held that before the Income Tax Department commences transfer pricing benchmarking analysis of an assessee's international transactions, the very existence of such 'international transaction' must be determined.

Case Title: Rattan India Power Ltd. v. BHEL

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 299

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has observed that the power to pass an award on admissions is wide, and evidentiary admissions (admissions contained outside pleadings) can also form the basis of an arbitral award.

Delhi High Court Issues Permanent Injunction Against Trademark & Copyright Infringement Of Acquaguard's Spare Parts, Imposes ₹2 Lakh Costs

Case title: Eureka Forbes Limited vs.Om Sai Enterprises & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 300

The Delhi High Court has granted permanent injunction in favour of Eureka Forbes Limited which owns 'Acquaguard', restraining a manufacturer of spare parts of water purification systems from infringing on its trademarks and copyrights.

Eureka Forbes Limited (plaintiff) manufactures and sells water purifiers and its spares and consumables under the 'AQUAGUARD' and formative trademarks.

Trademark Infringement: Delhi High Court Directs Manufacturer Of Counterfeit Products To Pay ₹11 Lakh To Puma

Case title: Puma SE vs. Mahesh Kumar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 301

The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favour of Puma, restraining a manufacturer of counterfeit products from selling products under Puma's trademarks and its logos.

Observing that the manufacturer engaged in a blatant act of counterfeiting, Justice Mini Pushkarna directed the manufacturer of counterfeit products to pay Rs. 11 lakh in damages and costs to Puma.

S.29 CGST Act | SCN Must Reflect Both Reasons And Intent Of Retrospective Cancellation Of Registration: Delhi High Court

Case title: JSD Traders LLP v. Additional Commissioner, GST

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 302

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an order cancelling GST registration of a trader with retrospective effect will not sustain unless the show cause notice preceding such decision reflects both the reasons and the authority's intent for retrospective cancellation.

Delhi High Court Issues Permanent Injunction Against Trademark Infringement Of Ramada International, Awards ₹10 Lakh Damages

Case title: Ramada International, Inc. vs. Clubramada Hotels And Resorts Private Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 303

The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of the American hotel chain Ramada International, against trademark infringement by a party using the 'Ramada' mark as its corporate name.

Ramada International (plaintiff) submitted that it adopted the trademark RAMADA in 1954 for its hotel in Arizona, USA. It stated that it franchises and manages over 900 hotels across more than 60 countries including India.

S.36 Income Tax Act | Deduction For Bad Debt Allowed Only If Assessee Lends In Ordinary Course Of Banking/Money Lending Business: Delhi HC

Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. WGF Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 304

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that allowance in respect of bad debts as an expense under Section 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is permissible only if:

(a) the debt was taken into account for computing the income of the assessee in the previous year in which the amount is written off or prior previous years; or

(b) represents money lent in the ordinary course of business of banking or money lending.

Suspension Of Wrestling Federation Of India Revoked: Centre Tells Delhi High Court

Title: WRESTLING FEDERATION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT MR. SANJAY SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 305

The Central Government informed the Delhi High Court that the suspension of Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) by the Union Sports Ministry on December 24, 2023, has been revoked.

An order to the said effect was passed by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports on March 10. Vide the said order, the Centre has restored the recognition of WFI as a national sports federation for wrestling.

Income Tax Rules | Centre's Power To Relax Conditions Under Rule 9C Exceptional & Discretionary, Not Ordinarily Subject To Judicial Review: Delhi HC

Case title: Cargill India Private Limited v. Central Board Of Direct Taxes.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 306

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the power of the Central government to relax conditions prescribed under Rule 9C of the Income Tax Rules 1962, read with Section 72A of the Income Tax Act, 1962, is exceptional, discretionary and cannot ordinarily be subject to judicial review.

Complainant Has No Right To Be Heard In Bail Proceedings Under Juvenile Justice Act: Delhi High Court

Title: MOHD. MUNIB v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 307

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a complainant has no right to be heard at every stage of bail proceedings under the Juvenile Justice Act.

“The involvement of the complainant remains a matter of judicial discretion rather than an enforceable entitlement, and the fundamental principle of juvenile justice i.e., "rehabilitation over retribution" must remain paramount in any such determination,” Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said.

S.28(4) Customs Act | Genuine Disagreement With Department Regarding Classification Of Goods Not 'Suppression Of Facts' By Trader: Delhi HC

Case title: M/S Ismartu India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India And Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 308

The Delhi High Court has held that merely because there is disagreement between the Customs department and a trader regarding the classification of the latter's goods for the purpose of levying duty, it does not mean that the trader has indulged in 'suppression of facts' from the Department.

Subsequent Notice U/S 28(4) Customs Act Cannot Be 'Supplementary' To Prior Notice U/S 28(1), Both Provisions Operate In Separate Fields: Delhi HC

Case title: M/S Ismartu India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India And Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 309

The Delhi High Court has held that notices under Section 28(1) and Section 28(4) of the Customs Act 1962 operate in different scenarios and even by an exaggerated stretch, cannot possibly be said to be interchangeably issued.

'Luxury Litigation': Delhi High Court Dismisses SBI's Plea To Expunge Magistrate's Remarks Suggesting Collusion In Loan Default Case

Case title: State Bank of India vs. M/S. P. P. Jewellers Private Limited (M/S. P. P. JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 310

Remarking that the State Bank of India (SBI) was pursuing a “luxury litigation”, the Delhi High Court dismissed the bank's petition which sought to expunge remarks made by a Magistrate which pointed to a lack of due diligence on the part of SBI in recovery of loan amount and further indicated collusion with the defaulter.

Counterfeit Medical Products Threat To Public Health: Delhi HC Awards ₹3.34 Crore Damages To Johnson & Johnson Over Trademark Infringement

Title: JOHNSON & JOHNSON v. PRITAMDAS ARORA T/A M/S MEDSERVE & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 311

The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favour of the American pharmaceutical company Johnson & Johnson, against trademark infringement and selling large quantities of counterfeit products by a party engaged in the sale of surgical devices using Johnson & Johnson's 'Surgicel', 'Ligaclip' and 'Ethicon' trademarks.

Delhi High Court Orders Take Down Of YouTuber Shyam Meera Singh's 'Defamatory' Video On Sadhguru, Isha Foundation

Title: ISHA FOUNDATION v. GOOGLE LLC & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 312

The Delhi High Court directed the take down of YouTuber Shyam Meera Singh's recent, allegedly defamatory YouTube video on Isha Foundation and its founder spiritual leader Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev.

The video titled “Sadhguru EXPOSED: What's happening in Jaggi Vasudev's Ashram” was uploaded by Singh on his YouTube channel on February 24 and he shared it on his 'X' page with allegations suggesting that minors were being exploited in the Ashram.

Veracity Of Allegations Against Settlement Agreement Cannot Be Looked Into By Court In Application U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s ARSS Infrastructure Projects Ltd. v. National Highway Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 313

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has reiterated that the scope of inquiry under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is limited to examining the prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement.

Contingent Liability vs Laid Out Expense: Delhi HC Allows Vodafone To Claim ₹5.1 Crore Depreciation Over Estimated Costs To Restore Mobile Tower Sites

Case title: Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 314

The Delhi High Court has allowed Vodafone Mobile, engaged in providing telecommunication services, to claim depreciation of ₹5.10 crores in respect of fixed assets over provisioned expenditure to discharge its contractual obligation of restoring mobile tower sites to their original condition at the end of the lease period.

UAPA: Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Accused Naval Kishore Kapoor, Says Terror Funding Wreaked Havoc In Kashmir

Title: NAVAL KISHORE KAPOOR v. NIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 315

The Delhi High Court denied bail to accused Naval Kishore Kapoor in a terror funding case registered by National Investigation Agency (NIA) under UAPA.

A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur dismissed Kapoor's appeal challenging a trial court order denying him bail on August 19, 2019.

'Cannot Be Forced To Repeatedly Approach Court': Delhi HC Orders Release Of Iran National's Jewellery Confiscated By Customs Almost 3 Yrs Ago

Case title: Amirhossein Alizadeh v. The Commissioner Of Customs & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 316

The Delhi High Court ordered the Customs Department to release the silver-coated gold chains of an Iranian national, which were confiscated on his arrival in India almost three years ago.

A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noted that the prescribed period of six months for issuance of a Show Cause Notice had already elapsed.

Writ Petition For Quashing Of FIR Can't Serve As Substitute For Availing Remedies Under BNSS: Delhi High Court

Title: VIJAY KUMAR @ CHAMPION v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 317

The Delhi High Court has observed that a writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking quashing of an FIR cannot serve as a substitute for availing remedies specifically provided under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for securing personal liberty.

Delhi High Court Grants Relief To India Today Group Against Dissemination Of Its E-Magazines By Illegal Telegram Channels

Case title: Living Media India Limited & Anr. vs. Telegram FZ LLC & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 318

The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of India Today Group, against copyright and trademark infringement by several Telegram channels/accounts uploading e-magazines owned by the India Today Group.

Courts Can't Interfere In Assessment By Reporting Officer In Absence Of Bias Or Prejudice Against Employee:Delhi High Court

Case Title: Aabi Binju versus Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 319

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices C.Hari Shankar and Anup Kumar Mendiratta partly allowed a writ petition seeking to set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal that upheld the gradings given to the Petitioner in the ACR's by Reporting and Reviewing Officers. The Bench observed that while the Courts are required to consider and give weightage to the reports and gradings given by Officers, it is also necessary to consider whether such remarks or gradings were assigned without any bias or prejudice.

Withdrawal Of MSMED Council Application Does Not Preclude Arbitration U/S 11, Even Without Council's Response: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Smartschool Education Private Limited Vs M/S Bada Business Pvt. Ltd And Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 320

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that withdrawal of an application before the MSMED Council does not bar a party from seeking the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even in the absence of any corresponding response from the MSMED Council.

Serious Allegations Of Fraud Constituting Criminal Offense Are Non-Arbitrable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Bentwood Seating System (P) Ltd. vs Airport Authority Of India & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 321

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the allegations of fraud which are extremely serious and potentially constitute a criminal offense are non-arbitrable. The court noted that the plea of fraud is of such a nature that it impacts the entire contract, including the arbitration agreement. Consequently, the court held that such a dispute is not arbitrable in nature.

Party Entering Settlement Agreement, Agreeing To Consent Award Cannot Later Object To Its Enforcement On Grounds Of Lack Of Knowledge: Delhi HC

Case Title: Mercedes Benz Group AG v. Minda Corporation Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 322

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anish Dayal has rejected an objection raised by the Award Debtor against the enforcement of an Award on the ground that it was contrary to public policy since it was not informed by the Award Holder about a previous settlement with the Judgment Debtor's subsidiary.

Accused Can't Be Denied Certified Copy Of Documents Forming Part Of Chargesheet After Commencement Of Trial: Delhi High Court

Title: GOPAL MISHRA & ANR v. STATE

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 323

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an accused cannot be denied the certified or attested copy of documents forming part of the chargesheet after commencement of trial.

“Even assuming that copy of the hard disk in question was supplied to the accused persons at the stage of Section 207 Cr. P.C. proceedings, still the right of the petitioner to ask for the certified copy of documents which form part of the chargesheet cannot be negated.”

Domino's Trademark Infringement: Delhi High Court Orders Delisting Of Dominic Pizza, Domindo Pizza From Zomato & Swiggy

Title: DOMINOS IP HOLDER LLC & ANR. v. M/S DOMINIC PIZZA & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 324

The Delhi High Court has restrained various restaurants from using the marks “Dominic Pizza” and “Domindo Pizza” while selling pizzas as well as in their packaging and menu cards in a trademark infringement suit filed by Domino's.

Error By Supplier In Mentioning GSTN Of Trader Can't Form Basis To Reject ITC On Purchases: Delhi High Court

Case title: M/S B Braun Medical India Pvt Ltd v. Union Of India & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 325

The Delhi High Court came to the rescue of a Company engaged in the sale of various pharmaceutical products and medical devices, holding that it could not be denied Input Tax Credit on purchases merely because its supplier had mentioned a wrong GST number on the invoices.

Delhi High Court Orders Customs Department To Release Arab Minor's Jewellery Which She Wore Since Childhood

Case title: Gopika Vennankot Govind v. Union Of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 326

The Delhi High Court has ordered the Customs Department to release the personal jewellery of a minor from UAE who had come to India to attend a relative's wedding.

Delhi High Court Discharges Lawyer Booked For Criminal Contempt Over Misbehaviour With Judge, Asks Him To Render Pro Bono Services

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. SHIVASHISH GUNWAL ADVOCATE

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 327

While discharging a lawyer in a criminal contempt case, the Delhi High Court has asked him to render pro bono services in at least two matters before Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO).

Ensure Parity In Participation Of Male, Female Athletes In Sporting Events Organized By National Sports Federations: Delhi High Court To Centre

Title: RAHUL KUMAR VERMA v. BADMINTON ASSOCIATION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 328

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports to make efforts to ensure that parity is maintained in the participation of male and female athletes in sporting events organized by the National Sports Federations (NSFs).

Order Passed U/S 23(3) Of Arbitration Act Is Procedural & Not An Interim Award, Cannot Be Challenged U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: NTPC LIMITED versus STARCON INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 329

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that an order dismissing an application under Section 23(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act is only a procedural order and does not qualify as an 'interim award' amenable to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act

Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains Infringement Of Himalaya's 'Liv.52' Trademark, Imposes ₹30.91 Lakh In Costs & Damages

Case title: Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. & Anr vs. Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 330

The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favour of the personal care and herbal health company Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd against trademark infringement of its 'Liv.52' products used for liver care by manufacturers and sellers of infringing 'Liv-333' goods.

Customs Dept Repeatedly Told To Serve Notices, Orders On Assessee Via Email: Delhi High Court Seeks Compliance

Case title: Muhammad Nazim v. Commissioner Of Customs & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 331

The Delhi High Court has asked the Customs Department to scrupulously comply with its “repeated” direction to serve notices, orders on an assessee under the Customs Act, 1962 via email.

Application U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act Not Maintainable If Not Filed With Copy Of Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ircon International Limited vs M/S Pnc-Jain Construction Co (Jv)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 332

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan has held that an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is non-maintainable if it is not accompanied by a copy of the impugned award. The court held that the filing of the award is not a mere procedural requirement but a mandatory prerequisite for invoking the court's jurisdiction under Section 34.

Arbitral Tribunal Is Sole Judge Of Evidence, Court Not Required To Re-Evaluate Evidence U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DIRECT NEWS PVT. LTD versus DTS TRAVELS PVT. LTD

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 333

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia held that the arbitrator is the ultimate master of the quantity and quality of evidence to be relied upon when he delivers his arbitral award. An award would not be held invalid merely because the award is based on little evidence or on evidence which does not meet the quality of a trained legal mind.

Delhi High Court Asks Centre To Comply With Supreme Court Order Directing It To Decide Representation Seeking To Rename India As 'Bharat'

Title: NAMAHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 334

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to expeditiously comply with an order passed by the Supreme Court in 2020 directing that a petition seeking direction to change the name of the country as "Bharat" from "India" be treated as a representation.

S.450 BNSS | Court Of Chief Judicial Magistrate Can't Transfer A Case Either Suo Moto Or On Any Application: Delhi High Court

Title: SUDESH CHHIKARA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 335

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot transfer a case from one Court or another either suo moto or upon an application being moved to that effect.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Trial Of BJP Leader Kapil Mishra In 2020 FIR For Alleged Communal Tweets

Title: Kapil Mishra v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 336

The Delhi High Court refused to stay trial court proceedings against BJP Minister Kapil Mishra in relation to an FIR filed against him in 2020 over his tweets that the AAP and Congress parties had created a “mini Pakistan” at Shaheen Bagh and that the then Assembly polls would be a contest between “India and Pakistan”.

Delhi HC Flags CBI's Contradictory Approach, Highlights Difference Between Notice To Witness U/S 160 CrPC And Notice To Accused U/S 41A CrPC

Case title: KUNDAN KUMAR @ GORE vs. CBI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 337

While granting anticipatory bail to an individual accused of cheating and cyber fraud, the Delhi High Court observed that if the arrest of a person accused of a cognisable offence punishable for less than seven years is not required, the investigating agency has to issue a notice under Section 41A CrPC before the proceedings with the arrest.

Delhi High Court Slams Directorate General Of Foreign Trade For Cancelling Trader's DEPB License 15 Yrs After SCN Was Issued

Case title: M/S Saha Traders Zonal Joint Director General Of Foreign Trade(Cla)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 338

The Delhi High Court quashed a Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) communication cancelling the license issued to a trader involved in import and export of goods, citing almost fifteen years delay in culminating the show cause notice.

Delhi High Court Refuses Interim Bail To PFI Leader Shahid Nasir In UAPA Case, Asks Him To Move Special NIA Court

Title: SHAHID NASIR v. NIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 339

The Delhi High Court has refused to grant interim bail to Popular Front of India (PFI) leader Shahid Nasir in a case registered by NIA under UAPA.

Delhi High Court Declares 'Taj' As Well Known Trademark For Services In Hotel And Hospitality Industry

Title: THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LIMITED v. GAURAV ROY BHATT & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 340

The Delhi High Court has declared “Taj” a well known trademark in respect of hotels and other related services in the hospitality industry.

Transfer Pricing | 'Resale Price Method' Most Appropriate To Determine ALP Where Distributor Makes No Value Addition To Imported Products: Delhi HC

Case no.: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Delhi v. D Light Energy P. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 341

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that where the distributor of an imported product makes no value addition to it before sale, Resale Price Method is the most appropriate method to determine the arm's length price in relation to its business with an Associated Enterprise.

Cheque Dishonor | Conviction Alone Not Sufficient For Appellate Court To Seek 20% Deposit, Must Consider Attending Circumstances: Delhi HC

Case title: Anuj Ahuja vs. Sumitra Mittal

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 342

The Delhi High Court has observed that a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of cheque cannot itself qualify as a reason for an Appellate Court to direct the accused to deposit 20% of fine or compensation under Section 148 NI Act.

Delhi High Court Directs BCI To Enrol South Korean Citizen As Advocate Within Two Days

Title: BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v. DEAYOUNG JUNG AND ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 343

The Delhi High Court directed the Bar Council of India to enrol a South Korean citizen- Daeyoung Jung as an advocate within two days.

A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that withholding the enrolment would not be permissible since there was no stay of a single judge order which had quashed BCI's decision refusing to consider Jung as eligible for enrolment as an advocate.

'Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt' Is A Principle Of Criminal Law, Not Applicable To Tax Law: Delhi High Court

Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. M/S East Delhi Leasing Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 344

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the principle of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' cannot be made applicable to Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which enables an assessing officer to open an assessment if he has 'reason to believe' that an assessee's income escaped assessment.

NRI's Entitled To Benefits Provided To 'Eligible Passengers' Under 2016 Baggage Rules: Delhi High Court

Case title: Amal Krishna v. Union Of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 345

The Delhi High Court has held that a non-resident Indian is fully entitled to the benefit provided to an “eligible passenger” under the Baggage Rules, 2016 for the purposes of Customs on arrival to India.

Well-Educated Wife With Job Experience Must Not Remain Idle Solely To Gain Maintenance From Husband: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 346

The Delhi High Court has observed that a well educated wife with suitable job experience must not remain idle solely to gain maintenance from her husband.

Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause Prevails Over Seat Of Arbitration Clause If It Expressly Covers Proceedings Relating To Arbitration: Delhi HC

Case Title: Precitech Enclosures Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Rudrapur Precision Industries

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 347

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has observed that generally if an agreement contains both exclusive jurisdiction clause and seat of arbitration clause, then judicial proceedings relating to arbitration would lie only before the court having territorial jurisdiction over the arbitral seat/venue. However, as in the instant case, if the exclusive jurisdiction clause also covers proceedings relating to arbitration then it would prevail over the seat of arbitration clause.

Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains Local Dhabas From Using Registered Trademarks Of Popular Murthal Eatery 'Mannat Dhaba'

Title: MANNAT GROUP OF HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. M/S MANNAT DHABA & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 348

The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained various restaurants (local dhabas) situated on the Delhi-Dehradun highway from using the registered trademarks of popular Murthal based eatery “Mannat Dhaba.”

Can't Use S.482 CrPC To 'Short Circuit' Prosecution: Delhi HC Refuses To Quash FIRs Against Woman's Kin Accused Of Outraging Her Modesty

Case title: Greesh Verma Jairath vs. State NCT Of Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 349

While hearing petitions seeking quashing of FIRs filed by a relative of the accused, the Delhi High Court observed while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the high court would not normally determine whether evidence is reliable as that is the Trial Court's function.

S.45 PMLA | Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Unitech Founder Ramesh Chandra In Money Laundering Case On Account Of 'Age-Related Infirmities'

Title: RAMESH CHANDRA v. THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 350

The Delhi High Court granted bail to 86-year-old founder of Unitech Group Ramesh Chandra, in a money laundering case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

Participation In Arbitral Proceedings Does Not Imply Acceptance Of Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator Unless Objections Are Waived In Writing: Delhi HC

Case Title: SHAKTI PUMP INDIA LTD versus APEX BUILDSYS LTD and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 351

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that the mandate of the Arbitrator can be terminated under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) if the Arbitrator was appointed unilaterally, which is explicitly prohibited under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act unless the ineligibility is expressly waived through a written agreement.

Court Can Appoint Arbitrator U/S 11(6) Of Arbitration Act If MSME Council Fails To Initiate Mediation U/S 18 Of MSMED Act: Delhi HC

Case Title: M/S VALLABH CORPORATION versus SMS INDIA PVT LTD

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 352

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that When the Facilitation Council under the Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Development Act (MSMED Act) fails to initiate the mediation process under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, the court can appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).

Court's Jurisdiction U/S 11(6) Of A&C Act Is Decided Under CPC When No Seat Or Venue Is Specified In Arbitration Agreement: Delhi High Court

Case Title: FAITH CONSTRUCTIONS versus N.W.G.E.L CHURCH

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 353

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has held that in the absence of a specified seat or venue in the Arbitration Agreement, the court's jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) is determined by Sections 16 to 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). The relevant factors include where the respondent resides or conducts business and where the cause of action arose.

Availability Of Drug For Rare Diseases At Economical Prices Material Factor To Be Considered Before Restraining Via Interim Injunction: Delhi HC

Title: F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE AG & ANR v. NATCO PHARMA LIMITED

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 354

The Delhi High Court has observed that availability of a drug for treatment of rare diseases at economical and competitive prices is a material factor to be considered for grant of interim injunction in an intellectual property right (IPR) lawsuit.

Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitrator's Refusal Of Injunction Against Use Of Tagline "Jeeto Har DinZo" By Winzo Games

Case Title: CREATIVELAND ADVERTISING PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. WINZO GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 355

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has upheld the findings of the Arbitrator, who refused to grant an injunction restraining Winzo Games Private Limited (“Respondent”) from using the tagline “Jeeto Har DinZo” developed by Creativeland Advertising Private Limited (“Appellant”).

Execution Of Gift Deed After Arbitral Award Was Passed Indicates Attempt To Frustrate Rights Of Decree Holder, Not Bona Fide Conduct: Delhi HC

Case Title: SIDDHARTH SOOD versus MUNISH KUMAR AGGARWAL

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 356

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has held that the execution of the Gift Deed by the petitioner after an arbitral award is passed suggests an attempt to frustrate the rights of the decree-holder.

Delhi HC Awards ₹34.41 Lakh Damages To Japanese Automobile Tyres Manufacturer 'Bridgestone' Over Trademark Infringement By Indian Firm

Case title: Bridgestone Corporation vs. M/S Merlin Rubber

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 357

The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favour of the Japanese company, Bridgestone Corporation, against trademark infringement of its 'Bridgestone' mark by a similar business manufacturing tyres and tubes for automobiles under 'Brimestone' mark.

'Comedy Of Errors': Delhi HC On CESTAT Passing Contradictory Orders In Appeal Which Did Not Meet Its Pecuniary Jurisdiction

Case title: Jai Durga Rubberised Fabrics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 358

The Delhi High Court took a critical view of the Customs Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi for repeatedly passing contradictory orders in an appeal, which should have been dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.

Delhi High Court Orders Customs To Release 'Name Engraved' Gold Jewellery Of Indian Tourist

Case title: Sai Kiran Goud Tirupathi v. Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 359

The Delhi High Court has ordered the Customs Department to release the gold kada of an Indian tourist, which was seized upon his return to the country after a visit to the Republic of Mali.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Disturb Allotment Of Land To Political Parties Which Was Initially Allotted To Airport Authority Of India

Title: AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 360

The Delhi High Court has refused to disturb the allotment of a land measuring 2.0524 acres in city's Vasant Vihar area to three political parties, for construction of their party offices, which was earlier allotted to the Airports Authority of India (AAI) but was later cancelled in 2002 by the Union Government.

Application Of Funds By Indian Broadcasting Foundation In BARC Is Not For Profit, Exempted U/S 11 & 12 Of Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court

Case title: Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. Indian Broadcasting Foundation

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 361

In an order bringing relief to the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), which was incorporated to protect the interests of various stakeholders in the field of television broadcasting, the Delhi High Court allowed the body to claim exemption from payment of tax under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Requests By Victims Of Sexual Violence For Exemption To Appear Can't Be Treated At Par With Requests Of Hardened Criminals: Delhi HC

Title: ASHLOK v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 362

The Delhi High Court has observed that requests made by victims of sexual violence to exempt them from appearing in court cannot be treated at par with such requests of hardened criminals.

Vos Technologies Judgment On Time Bound Adjudication Of SCNs Applicable To Recovery Proceedings U/S 11A Of Central Excise Act: Delhi High Court

Case title: Paras Products v. Commissioner Central Gst, Delhi North (and batch)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 363

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 11A of the Central Excise Act 1944, which empowers taxing authorities to recover duties not levied/ short-levied or short-paid, is pari materia to corresponding provisions of the Customs Act, the Finance Act and the CGST Act.

Delhi High Court Allows MP Engineer Rashid To Attend Parliament 'In-Custody', Can't Use Phone Or Interact With Media

Title: Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 364

The Delhi High Court has allowed jailed Jammu and Kashmir MP Engineer Rashid to attend the second part of the Parliamentary session from March 26 to April 04 “in-custody”.

Determination Of Anti-Dumping Duties Is A Time-Bound Process By Competent Authority, Writ Courts Will Be Hesitant To Interfere: Delhi HC

Case title: Husky Injection Molding Systems Shanghai Ltd & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 365

The Delhi High Court has held that writ petitions challenging the determination of anti-dumping duties by Directorate General of Trade Remedies are maintainable however, since the determination is a time bound process, Courts will not readily interfere in the process.

Delhi High Court Rejects PIL Alleging Vulgarity In Honey Singh's Song 'Maniac', Asks Litigant To Avail Civil Or Criminal Remedies

Title: Lavkush Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 366

The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) against singer Honey Singh's latest song “Maniac”, alleging that it portrays women as “sexual objects” and uses vulgar words.

Court Cannot Interfere In Arbitration Proceedings At Final Stage, When Sufficient Opportunity Has Been Given To Claimant To Inspect Documents: Delhi HC

Case Title: SUNEHRI BAGH BUILDERS PVT LTD versus DELHI TOURISM AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 367

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Jain has upheld the order passed by the Arbitrator whereby an application seeking production of certain documents has been dismissed. The court held that sufficient opportunity had been given to the claimant, but he didn't avail that opportunity. Thus, the court cannot interfere with the order of the arbitrator at the final stage.

Acceptance Of Goods Delivered Under Tax Invoice Amounts To Accepting Terms Governing It, Including Arbitration Clause: Delhi High Court

Case Title: RADICO KHAITAN LIMITED versus HARISH CHOUHAN

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 368

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has held that the arbitration clause contained in the tax invoice itself is clear to the extent that acceptance of subject goods delivered under the invoice would amount to accepting the terms governing it, including the arbitration clause contained therein.

Delhi High Court Issues Dynamic Injunction, Permanently Restrains Rogue Websites Illegally Streaming 'Undekhi' Series

Title: APPLAUSE ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED v. WWW.9XMOVIES.COM.TW & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 369

The Delhi High Court has issued a dynamic injunction in favour of Applause Entertainment Private Limited and restrained various rogue websites illegally streaming and making available to public “Undekhi” series premiered on the digital platform 'SonyLIV'.

Delhi High Court Issues Permanent Injunction Against Shop Owners From Infringing Louis Vuitton Trademarks On Handbags, Belts

Case title: Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Raj Belts & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 370

The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favour of the French fashion brand Louis Vuitton Malletier, against trademark infringement by shop owners located in Karol Bagh.

Power To Issue Interim Orders U/S 9 Of A&C Act Not Confined Solely To Orders Which Can Be Passed Under O.39 R.1 & 2: Delhi HC

Case Title: M/S GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD versus S.C WADHWA AND SONS (HUF)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 371

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia held that the powers of the court to order interim measures of protection under Section 9 of the Act are wide and are not confined solely to orders that can be passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, the court would be guided by the principles underlying the Code. Clearly, such orders would also extend to granting the relief, if such relief is admissible on admitted facts.

Delhi High Court Stays Release Of Tamil Film 'Veera Deera Sooran' By 4 Weeks Over Alleged Breach Of Assignment Agreement

Case title: Ivy Entertainment Private Limited vs. HR Pictures

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 372

The Delhi High Court deferred the release of Tamil film starring Vikram, 'Veera Deera Sooran' by four weeks–slated to be released, over a breach of an assignment agreement by the film's producer.

After the Court granted ad-interim injunction, both the parties amicably settled the matter and filed the settlement agreement on the same day. In view of the settlement agreement, the ad-interim injunction granted on release of the film was discharged and the film was released in afternoon of 27.03.2025.

Hyperlinking Of Defamatory Article Can Attract Liability As Republication In Some Cases : Delhi High Court

Title: MS. RUCHI KALRA & Ors v. SLOWFORM MEDIA PVT. LTD & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 373

The Delhi High Court has passed a ruling adjudicating the question as to when will hyperlinking of a publication would amount to republication.

The Court said that the mode, manner and context of hyperlinking must reveal an element of independent expression, even if subtle, in addition to the mere act of hyperlinking, for it to constitute republication. “However, there can be no straight jacket formula to determine whether the hyperlink is just a reference or it is a republication. The same would have to be seen bearing in mind the facts and context of each case,” the Court said.

Delhi High Court Upholds Rule Prohibiting Retired Judges Of Other States From Applying For Senior Advocate Designation

Title: SH VIJAI PRATAP SINGH v. DELHI HIGH COURT, THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 374

The Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the rule prohibiting retired judges of other States to apply for senior advocate designation in Delhi.

Delhi High Court Grants Relief To BharatPe, Restrains Use Of 'Bharatpay' Mark And Website

Title: RESILIENT INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/S BHARAT PAY AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 375

The Delhi High Court has granted relief to fintech company “BharatPe” and restrained the use of “Bharatpay” mark as well as the domain name used for payment of utility bills, data recharge services, insurance and financial services.

Recovery Of Excess Amount Can't Be Permitted If Officer Is Not At Fault: Delhi High Court

Case Title: RAHUL SINGH versus BORDER SECURITY FORCE & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 376

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur observed that if an Officer was granted training allowance for the period he was not working as an Instructor, recovery for an excess amount at a later stage could not be permitted as it was undeniably not his fault. The Bench held that any amount recovered from the Petitioner should be refunded to him within a period of eight weeks.

S.110 Customs Act | SCN Cannot Be Issued After One Year, Detention Of Goods Impermissible: Delhi High Court

Case title: Mohammad Arham v. Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 377

The Delhi High Court has held that detention of goods by the Customs Department cannot continue beyond a period of one year, if a show cause notice was not issued to the assessee within such period.

Service Charge Is Voluntary Payment By Consumers, Can't Be Made Mandatory On Food Bills: Delhi High Court

Case Title: National Restaurant Association v. Union Of India & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 378

The Delhi High Court held that service charge and tips are voluntary payments by consumers and cannot be made compulsory or mandatory on food bills by restaurants or hotels.

Justice Prathiba M Singh thus rejected two petitions filed by Federation of Hotels and Restaurant Associations of India (FHRAI) and National Restaurant Association of India (NRAI), challenging CCPA guidelines of 2022 prohibiting hotels and restaurants from levying service charges “automatically or by default” on food bills.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Centre's Order Cancelling Academic Ashok Swain's OCI Card

Case Title: Ashow Swain v. Union of India & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 379

The Delhi High Court set aside an order issued by the Central Government cancelling the OCI card of academic and writer Ashok Swain.

However, the high court has granted liberty to the Central Government to issue fresh show cause notice to Swain.

Force Majeure Clause 'Eclipses' Contractual Terms, Existence And Duration Of Force Majeure Event To Be Determined By Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi HC

Case Title: AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA versus DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 380

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that while deciding a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, courts cannot adopt the approach of one-size-fit-for-all. Courts can interfere into the award only if it shocks the conscience of the court and is prone to adversely affect the administration of justice.

Delhi HC Asks MP Engineer Rashid To Deposit 50% Amount Demanded By Jail Authorities For Parliament Visit, ₹4 Lakh To Be Paid Within 3 Days

Title: Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 381

The Delhi High Court ordered jailed Jammu and Kashmir MP Engineer Rashid to deposit ₹4 lakh (approx) with the jail authorities, so as to attend the second part of the Parliamentary session which ends on April 04.

The figure is 50% of the total amount demanded by the jail authorities (₹8.74 lakhs) to enable his Parliament visit 'in-custody', which was ordered by the High Court on March 25.

Order Restraining Revenue From Taking Coercive Steps For Recovery Of Demand Can Interdict Adjustment Of Refunds: Delhi HC

Case title: Huawei Telecommunications India Company Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 2 & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 382

The Delhi High Court has held that when an appellate authority has asked the Income Tax Department to not take any coercive steps against an assessee for recovery of outstanding demands, the same can in some cases interdict the Department from adjusting the outstanding amount from refunds due to the assessee.

High Court Grants Interim Bail To Delhi Riots Accused To Arrange Funds For Daughter's Academic Fee

Title: Mohd. Salim Khan v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 383

The Delhi High Court granted interim bail to Mohd. Salim Khan, accused in the UAPA case alleging a larger conspiracy in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.

A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur ordered Khan's release on interim bail for 10 days in order to permit him to arrange funds for payment of academic fees of his daughter who is pursuing law from Jamia Hamdard University.

Customs Can Clone Data Of Seized Electronic Devices As Per Statutory Procedure, Need Not Retain Devices Throughout Prosecution: Delhi HC

Case title: Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. DRI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 384

The Delhi High Court has called upon the Customs Department to clone the required data from seized electronic devices of persons allegedly involved in smuggling and other violations under the Act, instead of retaining such devices throughout prosecutions.

NEET-UG | Delhi HC Rejects Plea Against MCC Withdrawing Conversion Of SC-Children/Women Seats To General Category Prior To Counselling

Case title: Avika Shahi And Anr vs. Medical Counselling Committee And Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 385

Refusing to grant relief to NEET-UG candidate who could not secure admission to MBBS course, the Delhi High Court observed that the correction of a legal error on reservation to align with constitutional principles before the commencement of the third round of counselling cannot be considered as a procedural breach or administrative fault on part of the authorities.

Terminating Services Of CAPF Personnel On Being Detected HIV Positive 'Discriminatory': Delhi High Court

Title: HOSHIAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 386

The Delhi High Court has held that termination of service of Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) personnel on the ground of them being detected as HIV positive is discriminatory and prohibited under the HIV Act.

Would Send Wrong Signals To Society: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Film Director Accused Of Rape, Clicking Obscene Pics

Case title: SANOJ KUMAR MISHRA VS. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 387

Refusing anticipatory bail to a rape accused, the Delhi High Court observed that granting anticipatory bail in a case where a film direction allegedly allured the victim on the pretext of making her a heroine and then sexually exploited her, would send wrong signals across the society.

Serving Grounds Of Arrest On Accused During Remand Not Valid, 'Contemporaneous Record' In Police Diary Necessary: Delhi High Court

Title: VIKAS CHAWLA @ VICKY v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 388

The Delhi High Court has observed that serving grounds of arrest to an arrestee as part of the remand application moved by the Police before the Magistrate is no compliance with the requirements of law.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that since grounds of arrest must exist before an arrest is made, there must be a contemporaneous record of the grounds of arrest in the police diary or other document.

Unconditional Withdrawal Of Prior Petition Filed U/S 11 Of A&C Act Bars Subsequent Petition On Same Cause Of Action: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Dewan Chand v. Chairman cum Managing Director and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 389

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has observed that if a petition for appointment of arbitrator is withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh petition, then by application of Order 23 Rule 1(4), CPC, a subsequent petition on the same cause of action would be barred.

Writ Petition Is Not An Appropriate Remedy To Seek Enforcement Of Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court

Case Title: RAMCHANDER versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 390

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jyoti Singh held that when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. The court found merit in the preliminary objection of the Railways that a writ is not the appropriate remedy for the petitioner to seek enforcement of the arbitral award.

Non-Payment Of Service Tax By Sub-Contractor Due To Uncertainity Not Wilful Misstatement Or Fraud: Delhi HC Upholds CESTAT Order

Case title: The Commissioner Of Central Tax, CGST Delhi East v. M/S Simplex Infrastructure Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 391

The Delhi High Court has upheld an order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal interdicting the GST Department from invoking extended period of limitation for recovery action against a sub-contractor who did not pay service tax amid confusion as to his liability to pay the same.

Delhi High Court Slams CBIC For Cryptic Order Denying Duty Drawbacks To Vedanta Despite Its Own Instructions Allowing Retrospective Benefit

Case title: Vedanta Limited v. CBIC

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 392

The Delhi High Court has asked the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to pass a “reasoned order” on Indian multinational mining company- Vedanata's plea claiming duty drawbacks on clean energy cess, paid between the year 2010-17.

“Completely Unacceptable”: Delhi High Court Pulls Up Customs For Prolonged Detention Of Export Goods Despite Dept's Circular

Case title: Backbone Overseas v. Assistant Commissioner Of Customs, Foreign Post Office , New Delhi And Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 393

The Delhi High Court has criticised the Customs Department for acting against its own Circular for expeditious clearance of goods, by detaining the export goods of a trader for over two months.

Relationship Between Searched And Non-Searched Entity Not Mandatory For Invocation Of Proceedings U/S 153C Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court

Case title: Shiv Parkash Bansal v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-14 Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 394

The Delhi High Court has held that the statutory scheme of Sections 153A and 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not envisage the discovery of a connection or interrelationship between the searched and the non-searched entity.