Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 649 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 719NOMINAL INDEXSADHGURU JAGADISH VASUDEV & ANR v. IGOR ISAKOV & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 649MINOR S (THR. MOTHER M) v. STATE & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 650The Ritz Hotel Limited & Ors. v. MS Hotel Ritz & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 651Star India Pvt Ltd v. IPTV Smarter Pro & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 652M/S Ambience...
Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 649 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 719
NOMINAL INDEX
SADHGURU JAGADISH VASUDEV & ANR v. IGOR ISAKOV & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 649
MINOR S (THR. MOTHER M) v. STATE & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 650
The Ritz Hotel Limited & Ors. v. MS Hotel Ritz & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 651
Star India Pvt Ltd v. IPTV Smarter Pro & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 652
M/S Ambience Metcorp Private Limited Through Its Director Sh Sandeep Agarwal v. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs Through Its Chairman & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 653
AKSHITA SEHRAWAT (MINOR) REPRESENT BY HER FATHER SH. DEEPAK KUMAR v. DELHI TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY (DTU) & ORS and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 654
U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd v. Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle.8, & Ors. (and batch) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 655
ANIL v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 656
ZIHAD AHMED v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 657
LALIT SHARMA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 658
X v. Y 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 659
PRASHANT PAREEK v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 660
INDIAMART INTERMESH LTD v. PUMA SE 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 661
MS SADHANA YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 662
Sunaina Rao Kommineni v. Abhiram Balusu 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 663
Karan Kumar v. State & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 664
Delhi Public School Dwarka vs. National Commission For Protection Of Child Rights And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 665
IMRAN ALI @ SAMIR v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 666
ISHRAT JAHAN v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 667
Anam Khan v. Consortium of National Law Universities and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 668
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION v. PREMA EVELYN D CRUZ AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 669
Sanjay @ Sanju v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 670
Amanatullah Khan v. DDA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 671
Oswaal Books And Learnings Private Limited v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 672
Vikram Yadav v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 673
Shabir Ahmad Shah v NIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 674
Vikram Yadav v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 675
RSPL Health Pvt. Ltd. v. Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 676
Reliance Eminent Trading And Commercial Private Limited v. DDA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 677
State Of Madhya Pradesh v. KM Shukla & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 678
M/S. Jaiprakash Hyundai Consortium v. M/S. SJVN Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 679
Newgen IT Technologies Limited v. Newgen Software Technologies Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 680
HINDUSTAN HYDRAULICS PVT. LTD versus UNION OF INDIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 681
Manoj Saw v. Ramneek Sabarwal & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 682
INDRAPRASTHA GAS LIMITED versus M/S CHINTAMANI FOOD AND SNACKS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 683
Shakila v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 684
NKJ v. State NCT of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 685
Lovee Narula v. ED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 686
Barun Bhanot v. M/S Annie Impexpo Marketing Pvt Ltd & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 687
R. SANTOSH versus ONE97 COMMUNICATIONS LTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 688
Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd v. Dinesh Kumar Singh & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 689
Vineet Gupta v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 690
M/S Best Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. M/S R.D. Sales 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 691
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. JSIW Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 692
BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LIMITED versus SG ENTERPRISES & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 693
M/S Lala Shivnath Rai Sumerchand Confectioner Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner, Cgst Delhi-West, New Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 694
Union of India v. M/s Rajiv Aggarwal (Engineers and Contractors) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 695
LATA YADAV versus SHIVAKRITI AGRO PVT. LTD & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 696
Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. A.H. Multisoft Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 697
Jasleeniqbal Sidhu & Ors. v. Union of India& Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 698
HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED v/s RSPL LIMITED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 699
SH. RAJPAL NAURANG YADAV & ANR v. M/S. MURLI PROJECTS PVT. LTD & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 700
SHAILENDRA BHATNAGAR v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 701
Dominos IP Holder LLC & Anr. v. M/S. Domnics Pizza & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 702
Sanjay Kaul v. The Income Tax Officer Ward 24 (4), New Delhi & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 703
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. M/S K.R. Pulp And Papers Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 704
T.V. TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. GOOGLE LLC & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 705
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v. Shri Ganesh Motor Body Repairs & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 706
Varun Tyagi v. Daffodil Software Private Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 707
Dazn DAZN Limited v. Buffsports. Me & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 708
BHAVREEN KANDHARI v. SHRI C. D. SINGH AND ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 709
Suraj Kanojia v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 710
Sandeep Garg v. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii Avato Ward 66 Zone 4 Delhi2025 LiveLaw (Del) 711
Minor Victim Through Neetu Chadha v. Meta Platforms Inc & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 712
SS Enterprises Vs Office of the Commissioner, Central Tax Delhi West & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 713
Kushi v. State NCT of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 714
DIN DAYAL AGRAWAL HUF versus CAPRISO FINANCE LTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 715
M/s MAHAVIR PRASAD GUPTA AND SONS versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 716
Pret Study by Janak Fashions Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner, CGST 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 717
JIOSTAR INDIA PVT. LTD. FORMERLY KNOWN AS STAR INDIA PVT. LTD v. HTTPS//CRICLK.COM & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 718
GAMESKRAFT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR v. JOHN DOE AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 719
Title: SADHGURU JAGADISH VASUDEV & ANR v. IGOR ISAKOV & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 649
The Delhi High Court has passed a john doe order protecting the personality rights of Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, founder of Isha Foundation, and has restrained various rogue websites and unknown entities from misusing his personality traits through the use of Artificial Intelligence in any platform or medium.
Title: MINOR S (THR. MOTHER M) v. STATE & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 650
The Delhi High Court has ruled that hospitals cannot insist on identification proof of minor rape victims for diagnostic purposes or ultrasound in medical termination of pregnancy (MTP) cases ordered by the Courts.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that hospitals and medical institutions must be sensitised that cases involving victims of sexual assault, especially minor girls, require a more responsive and sensitive approach.
Case title: The Ritz Hotel Limited & Ors. v. MS Hotel Ritz & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 651
The Delhi High Court has declared that 'Ritz' and 'Ritz Carlton' run by the Paris based Ritz Hotel Limited are “well-known” trademarks in India.
“The long duration for which the RITZ and RITZ-CARLTON marks have been in use by the plaintiffs, wide geographical area of their use, their knowledge among the general public and their goodwill and reputation due to the extensive promotion, publicity and extensive revenue generated by the plaintiffs, in India as well as other countries, the RITZ and RITZ CARLTON marks have achieved the status of well-known trademarks,” Justice Amit Bansal observed.
Case title: Star India Pvt Ltd v. IPTV Smarter Pro & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 652
In a first-of-its-kind order, the Delhi High Court has granted a limited-duration superlative injunction— an enhanced form of dynamic+ injunction— to tackle the unauthorised streaming of IPL, India's England Tour by rogue apps and websites.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee restrained the defendants from infringing Star India's exclusive streaming rights and ordered real-time relief against rogue websites and rogue mobile applications which may be discovered during the course.
Case title: M/S Ambience Metcorp Private Limited Through Its Director Sh Sandeep Agarwal v. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs Through Its Chairman & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 653
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an order in rectification proceedings must be reasoned, passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the party.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta made the observation while dealing with a petition against rejection of Petitioner's application seeking rectification of impugned demand order.
Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Open School Students Left Out Of JEE Mains Counselling
Title: AKSHITA SEHRAWAT (MINOR) REPRESENT BY HER FATHER SH. DEEPAK KUMAR v. DELHI TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY (DTU) & ORS and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 654
The Delhi High Court has granted relief to various students who got registered with National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) and were left out of JEE-Mains 2025 counselling process as their result for class XII examination was not declared.
Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that students put hard labour for two to four years, or may be more, while preparing for JEE (Mains) and they should not get ousted from consideration in the counselling despite having attained good percentile and rank only on the ground that result of class XII has not been timely declared by the concerned education Board.
Case title: U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd v. Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle.8, & Ors. (and batch)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 655
A larger bench of the Delhi High Court will decide whether Section 149(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961, inserted vide a 2012 amendment to provide an extended period of reassessment for cases involving foreign assets, applies retrospectively.
Section 149(1)(c) prescribes that reassessment notice in respect of any income in relation to any asset located outside India, which had escaped assessment, is not proscribed for a period of 16 years from the end of the assessment year in which such income was chargeable to tax.
Title: ANIL v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 656
While dismissing a plea alleging illegal construction at a property with Rs. 50,000 costs, the Delhi High Court has deprecated filing of frivolous petitions with no direct interest in the matter.
Justice Mini Pushkarna observed that the litigant had no connection with the property, was living 10 kms away from it and the only ground for filing the petition was that he had the same street while coming and going to the office.
Title: ZIHAD AHMED v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 657
While quashing a POCSO case, the Delhi High Court has directed the accused to do community service for a month at Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital while also asking him to pay Rs. 50,000 costs to be deposited towards “Army Welfare Fund Battle Casualties.”
Title: LALIT SHARMA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 658
As elections to the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) and all bar associations in the national capital have been successfully concluded, the Delhi High Court has closed a petition on the issue.
A full bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh, Justice Navin Chawla and Justice C Hari Shankar disposed of a plea plea in which directions were issued from time to time regarding conduct of elections to the Delhi High Court Bar Association as also the various Bar Associations in the District Courts.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 659
The Delhi High Court has observed that personal loans or EMIs are voluntary obligations which cannot override the obligation of an earning spouse to maintain the other spouse or the child.
A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar said that deductions such as house rent, electricity charges, repayment of personal loans, premiums towards life insurance, or EMIs for voluntary borrowings do not qualify as legitimate deductions for the purpose of maintenance.
Title: PRASHANT PAREEK v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 660
The Delhi High Court has quashed the FIR registered against a man accused of causing discomfort to a fellow flight passenger by constantly staring at her.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja noted that a settlement was reached between the parties and the prosecution also had no objection to the same.
Title: INDIAMART INTERMESH LTD v. PUMA SE
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 661
The Delhi High Court has set aside a single judge ruling to the extent of restraining Indiamart from providing registered trademark “PUMA” in respect of the goods as search options in its drop down menu presented to prospective sellers at the time of their registration on the e-commerce platform.
Title: MS SADHANA YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 662
The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea filed by a candidate who was unable to give Common University Entrance Test (UG) Exam conducted by National Testing Agency (NTA) as she reached the examination centre beyond the gate closing timings, as prescribed in the admit card.
A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that in the conduct of such a large-scale examination, leniency would lead to chaos and the discipline of the examination ought to be maintained.
Case title: Sunaina Rao Kommineni v. Abhiram Balusu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 663
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that when a minor child is forcefully shifted by one of the parents warring for the child's custody, such shift would not grant territorial jurisdiction for granting guardianship to such parent.
Case title: Karan Kumar v. State & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 664
The Delhi High Court granted relief to a POCSO convict, noting that the prosecution failed to establish beyond doubt that the survivor was a minor at the time of alleged offence.
Justice Amit Sharma observed that the survivor's date of birth mentioned in her school register was not on the basis of any proof of birth document issued by any Corporation or a Municipal Authority or a Panchayat. Rather, the entry was made based on what was conveyed by her parents.
Case title: Delhi Public School Dwarka vs. National Commission For Protection Of Child Rights And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 665
Calling it a reprehensible practice, the Delhi High Court expressed its dismay at the conduct of Delhi Public School (DPS) Dwarka engaging “bouncers” to physically block entry of students over the issue of fee hike.
Justice Sachin Datta made the observation while disposing of an application filed by parents of various students who were expelled by the school for non payment of fees.
Delhi High Court Suggests Use Of Technology While Probing NDPS Cases, Says It Assures 'Fairness'
Title: IMRAN ALI @ SAMIR v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 666
The Delhi High Court has mooted the use of technology while investigating cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja said that the use of technology in such cases enhances the efficacy and transparency of the police investigation and assures fairness.
Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Widow, Orders Status Quo On Batla House Property Facing Demolition
Title: ISHRAT JAHAN v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 667
The Delhi High Court has granted relief to a widow and ordered status quo on her property in city's Batla House area facing demolition.
Vacation judge, Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, listed the matter on July 10 while asking the authorities to maintain status quo on her property.
CLAT PG : Delhi High Court Finds Errors In Two Questions; Asks NLU Consortium To Revise Marks
Title: Anam Khan v. Consortium of National Law Universities and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 668
The Delhi High Court asked the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs) to take steps to avoid “excessive” fee charged for raising objections to questions for future examinations.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela disposed of the pleas challenging the results of Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) PG, 2025 held on December 01 last year.
Title: CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION v. PREMA EVELYN D CRUZ AND ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 669
The Delhi High Court has observed that the record of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) cannot be at variance with the passport as it would create doubt in the mind of anyone regarding an individual's employment or immigration.
A division bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said that the citizen of the Country is entitled to a true and correct narration of all necessary and relevant particulars in the public documents that pertain to them.
Case title: Sanjay @ Sanju v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 670
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed upon a 24 years old boy for committing rape upon a 60 years old woman.
In doing so, Justice Sanjeev Narula rejected the youth's plea that in the absence of the “Electropherogram” report, the DNA evidence was insufficient to corroborate the Prosecutrix's version.
Batla House Demolitions : Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan's PIL
Title: Amanatullah Khan v. DDA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 671
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain Aam Aadmi Party MLA Amanatullah Khan's PIL against DDA's proposed demolition action in the city's Batla House area.
A division bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia and Justice Tejas Karia expressed that only individual residents can claim that their property does not fall within specified area of proposed demolition site.
It thus permitted Khan to withdraw the plea with liberty to inform the residents of their right to move the appropriate forum, in 3 working days.
Can Commonly Used Slogans Like “One For All” Be Trademarked? Delhi High Court Answers
Case title: Oswaal Books And Learnings Private Limited v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 672
The Delhi High Court has held that slogans, particularly those which are descriptive or commonly used phrases, face a significantly high threshold for registration of trademark— unless they have acquired a secondary meaning.
Justice Mini Pushkarna held thus while denying relief to Oswaal Books, which publishes books for CBSE, ISC, ICSE Karnataka Board, JEE – Mains & Advanced, NEET, CAT and CLAT, in its appeal against rejection of Trade Mark Application for “ONE FOR ALL” mark.
Case title: Vikram Yadav v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 673
Citing Kautilya's Arthshastra which makes references to the element of reformatory policy of sentencing, the Delhi High Court directed the government to consider afresh the application for premature release of a life convict who had jumped parole.
Justice Girish Kathpali also made reference to the Vth pillar edict of Delhi Topra which refers to a statement of the emperor Asoka that he had let off prisoners 25 times during a span of 26 years.
Case Title: Shabir Ahmad Shah v NIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 674
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal moved by Kashmiri Separatist Leader Shabir Ahmed Shah challenging an NIA court's order denying bail in an alleged case of terror funding.
NIA has alleged that various accused persons conspired for raising and collecting funds for causing disruption in the Kashmir valley and to wage war against the government of India. Shah was arrested in June 2019 and he was arrayed as an accused in the second supplementary chargesheet filed by NIA on October 04, 2019.
The allegations against him are that he played a key role in building a separatist movement in Jammu and Kashmir, paying tribute to family of slain terrorists, receiving money through hawala transactions and raising funds through LOC trade used to “fule subversive and militant activities.”
Case title: Vikram Yadav v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 675
The Delhi High Court took exception to the practice of members of Sentence Review Board (SRB), appointed in their official capacity, not personally attending SRB meetings and rather sending their representatives.
Justice Girish Kathpali was dealing with the case of a life convict, whose successive applications for premature release were rejected by the SRB
Case title: RSPL Health Pvt. Ltd. v. Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 676
The Delhi High Court has rejected an appeal preferred by RSPL Health Private Limited, alleging that Sun Pharma had adopted a trademark for its medicinal products, which is deceptively similar to RSPL's menstrual product line.
Rejecting the appeal against denial of interim injunction by a single judge, the division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur observed,
“there is no dispute that the appellant is using its Subject Mark for goods like sanitary napkins, sanitary towels, pads etc., while the respondents are using their Impugned Mark for medicine claimed to be giving relief against constipation. The two goods are neither allied nor cognate…the nature of goods, their trade channel, their purpose, and the intended consumers are distinct, and there is no likelihood of confusion being caused by the use of the marks for such goods.”
Case title: Reliance Eminent Trading And Commercial Private Limited v. DDA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 677
The Delhi High Court refused to pass a summary judgment in a suit moved by Reliance Eminent Trading And Commercial Private Limited against DDA, seeking a money decree of ₹4,59,73,61,098/- along with pendente lite and future interest over an auction property.
Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that since land acquisition proceedings qua the said property were declared 'lapsed' by a judicial order, the company ought to have first shown that the rightful owner is already in possession of the property, to claim refund of consideration amount paid by it.
Case title: State Of Madhya Pradesh v. KM Shukla & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 678
The Delhi High Court expressed shock at the conduct of Madhya Pradesh government in “victimising” a deceased IAS cadre officer by withholding his retiral benefits of almost 7 years.
A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar observed that the officer was first victimized back in the year 2000, when he was misallocated Chhattisgarh cadre upon reorganization of MP.
Case Title: M/S. Jaiprakash Hyundai Consortium v. M/S. SJVN Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 679
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia has held that the recommendations of the Dispute Review Board (DRB) rendered under a contract constitute an arbitral award which is enforceable as a decree under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court further held that the limitation for enforcement begins from the date of the award, not from the date of the judgment declaring it as an 'award'.
Case title: Newgen IT Technologies Limited v. Newgen Software Technologies Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 680
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an entity cannot seek to set aside an interim injunction passed against it in a trademark infringement suit, merely because its business or IPO launch is jeopardized due to such injunction.
Case Title: HINDUSTAN HYDRAULICS PVT. LTD versus UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 681
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Kunar Ohri has held that the petitioner cannot take advantage of apparent inconsequential errors and fumbles to challenge the award. Inconsequential errors in the award cannot be a ground to challenge otherwise judicious and reasoned award.
Case title: Manoj Saw v. Ramneek Sabarwal & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 682
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a pedestrian in an accident cannot be held responsible for contributory negligence merely because he was crossing the road from a place other than the Zebra crossing.
In doing so, Justice Amit Mahajan relied on Gaytri Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2024) where a coordinate bench held that “even if there was no Zebra Crossing, there can be no presumption of negligence on the part of the pedestrian…The driver of the vehicle has to recognise the first right of the pedestrian and to avoid any person who may be crossing the road.”
Case Title: INDRAPRASTHA GAS LIMITED versus M/S CHINTAMANI FOOD AND SNACKS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 683
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that contentions regarding the applicability and relevance of an arbitration agreement are to be dealt with by the arbitrator and cannot be gone into at the stage of section 11 petition. Once the existence of arbitration agreement is not disputed, any dispute related to the applicability of the agreement has to be dealt by the arbitrator.
Case title: Shakila v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 684
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that siblings, married or unmarried or the children of such siblings, are not ipso facto disentitled from claiming compensation under the Delhi Victims Compensation Scheme, 2018 (DVCS).
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that though the definition of “Dependent” under Clause 2(b) of the DVCS does not include “siblings” however, given the inclusive terminology employed in the definition, non-inclusion of the term “sibling”, cannot ipso facto exclude them from the benefits of the Scheme.
Case title: NKJ v. State NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 685
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant bail to a man booked for compelling and swapping his wife with his friends for sexual activities.
Stating that the case does not reflect “stereotyped matrimonial dispute allegations”, Justice Girish Kathpalia denied the relief in a 2024 FIR lodged under Sections 498A (Cruelty), 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust), 376 (Rape), 328 (Causing hurt by stupefying),354A (sexual harassment) and 376D (Gang rape) and under Section 6 POCSO Act.
Case title: Lovee Narula v. ED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 686
The Delhi High Court granted interim bail to an accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 to attend to his critically ill mother and to make necessary arrangements for her continued medical treatment.
Though the Enforcement Directorate submitted that the ground of illness of a family member of the accused is not available under Section 45 of PMLA, Justice Tejas Karia granted the relief on humanitarian grounds.
Case title: Barun Bhanot v. M/S Annie Impexpo Marketing Pvt Ltd & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 687
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the legal notice sent to a cheque drawer over dishonor of the instrument, must specifically demand the payment of 'cheque amount'.
In the absence of such demand, the preconditions to institute proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 do not stand fulfilled.
Case Title: R. SANTOSH versus ONE97 COMMUNICATIONS LTD
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 688
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Shalinder Kaur and Navin Chawla has held that once the right to file a written statement is closed, an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking reference to arbitration is not maintainable.
Case title: Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd v. Dinesh Kumar Singh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 689
The Delhi High Court has held that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal must deduct the income tax and other statutory obligations from the income of the deceased, for determining the compensation payable to the kin.
Justice Amit Mahajan relied on Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.: (2009) where the Sypreme Court held that for calculating compensation, the income of the victim less the income tax should be treated as the actual income.
Case title: Vineet Gupta v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 690
The Delhi High Court permitted two persons, allegedly involved in Rs.1626.74 crore bank fraud, to visit their children in the USA.
In doing so, Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar not only cited the fundamental right to travel under Article 21 of the Constitution but also noted that the LOC against them stood suspended.
Moreover, though the Supreme Court had directed the Punjab & Haryana High Court to reconsider its order setting aside the declaration of Fraud, the HC order was not stayed and as such, the declaration of fraud remains set aside.
Case title: M/S Best Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. M/S R.D. Sales
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 691
The Delhi High Court granted relief to an entity being prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, for dishonor of a cheque issued by it— due to subsequent freezing of its bank account.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed that under Section 138 of the NI Act, an offence is committed when a cheque is returned unpaid due to insufficient funds in the account “maintained by the drawer”.
Case Title: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. JSIW Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 692
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia has held that when the language of the contract is plain, clear and unambiguous, recourse to internal aids of interpretation or extraneous materials such as negotiations and correspondence is impermissible. “Ignoring an explicit clause of the contract or acting contrary to the terms of the contract amounts to patent illegality.”, the court held.
Case Title: BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LIMITED versus SG ENTERPRISES & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 693
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jyoti Singh has held that the clause in question indeed contemplates the appointment of an Arbitrator by mutual consent; however, in the event of failure, it vests the power of appointing a Sole Arbitrator with the Managing Director of Respondent No. 1.
It further held that the Company acting through its Managing Director will have interest in the outcome of the dispute and therefore, appointment of Sole Arbitrator will be directly hit by the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Party autonomy as also impartiality and independence of the Arbitrator appointed to adjudicate inter se disputes between the parties are the foundational pillars of arbitration.
Case title: M/S Lala Shivnath Rai Sumerchand Confectioner Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner, Cgst Delhi-West, New Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 694
The Delhi High Court has observed that demand raised against an assessee qua reversal of availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) and qua utilisation of ITC prima facie constitutes double demand.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta thus granted liberty to the Petitioner-assessee to approach the Appellate Authority against such demand, and waived predeposit qua demand of ineligible ITC.
Case Title: Union of India v. M/s Rajiv Aggarwal (Engineers and Contractors)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 695
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta has held that mere movement of file and change in counsel due to administrative issues does not constitute “sufficient cause” to condone inordinate delay in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court reiterated that for appeals under Section 37 that are governed by Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act or Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, a delay beyond 90 days, 30 days or 60 days, respectively, is to be condoned by way of exception and not by way of rule.
Case Title: LATA YADAV versus SHIVAKRITI AGRO PVT. LTD & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 696
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Amit Mahajan has held that the mere reference to certain assets in a provisional attachment order does not, by itself, oust the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. Similarly, the pendency of parallel investigations by the CBI or ED into allegations of fraud does not bar the arbitrator from adjudicating the dispute. Arbitration proceedings can continue independently, even when some aspects of the subject matter are under criminal investigation.
Case title: Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. A.H. Multisoft Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 697
The Delhi High Court rejected the appeal preferred by the Income Tax Department against an ITAT order allowing the valuation of a software company's unquoted equity shares by discounted cash flow [DCF] method.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia held that DCF method “is one of the methods that can be adopted by the Assessee under Rule 11UA(2)(b) of the [Income Tax] Rules for determining the FMV of unquoted equity shares in a company in which public are not substantially interested.”
Case title: Jasleeniqbal Sidhu & Ors. v. Union of India& Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 698
The Delhi High Court came to the rescue of an Australia-based couple, who were precluded from taking their adopted son back to the country for over 4 years, due to inaction of CARA (Central Adoption Resource Authority).
Justice Sachin Datta observed that the Adoption Deed was executed in 2020 and thus directed the Authority to forthwith issue a NOC enabling the Petitioner-couple to take the child with them.
Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of Phrases 'Derogatory' To Surf Excel From Ghadi Detergent's Ads
Case Title: HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED v/s RSPL LIMITED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 699
The Delhi High Court in an interim order has ordered removal of phrases which are “derogatory” to Surf Excel detergent from the advertisements issued by Ghadi detergent powder.
Vacation judge Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that though comparative advertising by itself could be healthy, remarks that are derogatory and defamatory, would not be permissible.
Title: SH. RAJPAL NAURANG YADAV & ANR v. M/S. MURLI PROJECTS PVT. LTD & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 700
The Delhi High Court alowed Bollywood actor Rajpal Naurang Yadav to travel abroad to Melbourne, Australia between June 27 to July 5 for attending promotional events of the film “Mera Kale Rang Da Yaar”.
Vacation judge Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta permitted Yadav to travel abroad from June 27 to July 05, subject to him furnishing an FDR of Rs. 1 lakh which shall be deposited with the Court's Registry.
Title: SHAILENDRA BHATNAGAR v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 701
The Delhi High Court has issued directions for laying down a new sewer line across AIIMS premises to control the waterlogging in Green Park Extension and surrounding areas in the national capital.
A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the new sewer line is required to be laid across AIIMS Residential complex, considering the required extent of land and the overarching public interest involved in the matter.
Case title: Dominos IP Holder LLC & Anr. v. M/S. Domnics Pizza & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 702
The Delhi High Court has restrained fifteen entities from infringing the trademark of famous pizza chain Domino's or its erstwhile trade name Dominick's Pizza, by using deceptively similar marks.
In doing so, Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that in disputes involving edible products, the threshold for establishing deceptive similarity is lower than that applied in other cases.
Case title: Sanjay Kaul v. The Income Tax Officer Ward 24 (4), New Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 703
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Income Tax Department cannot issue reassessment notice to an assessee based on general information shared by its Investigation Wing, until the Assessing Officer forms definite 'reason to believe' escapement of income.
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. M/S K.R. Pulp And Papers Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 704
The Delhi High Court rejected Revenue's appeal against deletion of additions made to the income of an assessee-company alleged to have evaded tax, observing that the AO had already scrutinised the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders and in the absence of any additional material coming to light, reassessment action could not have been initiated.
Title: T.V. TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. GOOGLE LLC & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 705
The Delhi High Court has ordered Google LLC to take down a “fake” YouTube channel using news clipping, videos and deepfake impersonations of Anjana Om Kashyap, anchor and Managing Editor (Special Projects) of Aaj Tak news channel.
Vacation judge Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that such fake YouTube pages or fake profiles being made using the goodwill of Kashyap and the news channel, including their, reputation and personality would be contrary to law.
Case title: Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v. Shri Ganesh Motor Body Repairs & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 706
The Delhi High Court issued an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining a bus manufacturer and two inter-city bus service providers, from infringing the 'grille slash' trademark of Sweden-based renowned Volvo buses.
Justice Amit Bansal noted that the Defendants deliberately and dishonestly created buses bearing lookalike of Volvo's trademark to encash upon the company's goodwill.
Case title: Varun Tyagi v. Daffodil Software Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 707
The Delhi High Court held that terms of an employment contract that imposes a restriction on right of the employee to get employed post-termination of the contract are 'void', for contrary to Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act.
Justice Tejas Karia held that after termination of employment, the non-compete clause can be invoked only to protect the confidential and proprietary information of the employer or to restrain the employee from soliciting the clients of the employer.
Case title: Dazn DAZN Limited v. Buffsports. Me & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 708
The Delhi High Court has granted Dynamic+ injunction in favour of British over-the-top sports streaming and entertainment platform Dazn Limited, restraining rogue websites from infringing its exclusive rights to air FIFA Club World Cup 2025, being played in the United States from June 14 to July 13, 2025.
A Dynamic+ injunction is granted not only in respect of content/work existing at the time of filing of suit, but also future works of the plaintiffs in which their copyright exists and is violated by rogue websites.
Title: BHAVREEN KANDHARI v. SHRI C. D. SINGH AND ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 709
The Delhi High Court issued various directions to ensure that the standard operating procedure (SOP) on felling or transplantation of trees in the national capital be "implemented in an effective manner to achieve the desired objective".
Issuing a slew of directions Justice Jasmeet Singh ordered that the DCF or Tree Officer shall be involved at the very stage of planning of a project which involves felling or transplantation of trees.
Case title:Suraj Kanojia v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 710
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an accused under the Arms Act, 1959 cannot seek default bail under Section 187(3) of the Bhartiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 merely on the ground that the chargesheet filed against him in terms of Section 193(3) BNSS, lacks the sanction to prosecute.
Sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act is mandatory to prosecute a person for offences under Sections 25/ 27.
Case title: Sandeep Garg v. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii Avato Ward 66 Zone 4 Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 711
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that if an assessee fails to respond to a show cause notice duly communicated to it on the GST portal, the Department cannot be blamed for passing an order raising demand, without hearing the assessee.
Delhi High Court Directs Meta To Pull Down Fake Instagram Accounts Posting Obscene Photos Of Minor
Case title: Minor Victim Through Neetu Chadha v. Meta Platforms Inc & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 712
Coming to the rescue of a 15-year-old minor girl, the Delhi High Court directed Meta, which owns social media platform Instagram, to take action against fake accounts posting her obscene photos.
Justice Manoj Jain further directed the platform to disclose details of the persons behind the fake accounts.
Case title: SS Enterprises Vs Office of the Commissioner, Central Tax Delhi West & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 713
The Delhi High Court has held that the provision of maximum three adjournments that can be granted to a taxpayer during the course of adjudication proceedings, cannot be construed to mean that the taxpayer must be given a minimum of three hearings.
Delhi High Court Grants 90 Days Interim Bail To Woman Booked Under POCSO Act To Care For Her Newborn
Case title: Kushi v. State NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 714
The Delhi High Court has ordered an interim release of a woman, languishing in jail for about six months in connection with a POCSO case, to enable her to take care of her new born child.
The woman was arrested on December 12 last year. She was expecting at the time and delivered a boy child in custody, on May 12.
Meanwhile, chargesheet came to be filed against her alleging offences under Sections 363/366/370/376/354A IPC, Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act and Section 81 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
Case Title: DIN DAYAL AGRAWAL HUF versus CAPRISO FINANCE LTD
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 715
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja has held that if a proper application is filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court must refer the parties to arbitration and may reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) as barred by law. However, if no such application is filed and no prayer is made for reference to arbitration, the mere existence of an arbitration clause is not sufficient to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Case Title: M/s MAHAVIR PRASAD GUPTA AND SONS versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 716
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Tejas Karia and Justice Vibhu Bakhru has held that a party that unilaterally appoints an arbitrator is not prohibited from challenging the award on the ground that it violates Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration Act. Mere exercise of the power to make such an appointment does not constitute an express written waiver as required under the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act.
Case title: Pret Study by Janak Fashions Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner, CGST
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 717
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with a demand order passed by the GST Department without hearing the assessee, after noting that the assessee itself was not diligent in responding to the show cause notice or attending the personal hearing despite notice.
Title: JIOSTAR INDIA PVT. LTD. FORMERLY KNOWN AS STAR INDIA PVT. LTD v. HTTPS//CRICLK.COM & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 718
The Delhi High Court has passed a dynamic+ injunction in favour of JioStar India Private Limited and restrained the illegal and unauthorised streaming of India Tour of England 2025.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee passed the dynamic+ injunction order to protect the copyrighted works of JioStar, as soon as they are infringed or created.
Title: GAMESKRAFT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR v. JOHN DOE AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 719
Ruling in favour of Gameskraft Technologies, the Delhi High Court has restrained various rogue websites, mobile applications and domain entities from using the registered trademarks “Playship”, “Plego”, “Ludo Select”, “Pocket 52”, “Rummy”, “Rummy Culture”, “Gameskraft” and “Culture of Champions.”
Justice Amit Bansal further restrained the defendant entities from infringing on the copyright vested with Gameskraft in the unique content of its websites- www.rummyculture.com, www.gamezy.com, www.playship.com, www.rummyprime.com, and www.pocket52.com or the apps hosted by it under the names “Rummy Culture”, “Gamezy Poker”, “Playship Rummy”, “Rummy Prime” and “Pocket52”.