Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 498 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 648NOMINAL INDEXRajesh Ranjan vs. Union Of India And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 498Amit Agrawal v. STATE OF NCT DELHI & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 499LAKSHMI MURDESHWAR PURI v. SAKET GOKHALE 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 500M/S Montage Enterprises Private Limited (Through Its Authorized Representative Sanjay Kumar Singh) & Ors. v. Central Goods...
Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 498 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 648
NOMINAL INDEX
Rajesh Ranjan vs. Union Of India And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 498
Amit Agrawal v. STATE OF NCT DELHI & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 499
LAKSHMI MURDESHWAR PURI v. SAKET GOKHALE 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 500
M/S Montage Enterprises Private Limited (Through Its Authorized Representative Sanjay Kumar Singh) & Ors. v. Central Goods And Services Tax Delhi North & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 501
Shri Sai Ram Enterprises v. Pr. ADG, DGGI, Gurugram & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 502
M/s Jai Opticals v. GNCTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 503
Mohit Kumar Goyal v. State of NCT of Delhi And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 504
N. DEEPIKA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 505
Pradeep Kumar v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 506
M/S Zine Davidoff SA v. Union Of India And Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 507
The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 v. Bharti Airtel Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 508
DEEPA JOSEPH & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 509
Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited v. Uber India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 510
LALIT SHARMA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 511
Varun Jindal v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 512
Sanjay Kumar Yadav v. Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 513
Abhin Narula v. The High Court Of Delhi Through Registrar General & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 514
SC Gupta v. Union of India & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 515
A R Rahman v. Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 516
Rajiv Sarin & Ors. v. Directorate Of Estates & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 517
SAISHA CHHILLAR MINOR REPRESENTED THROUGH HER MOTHER MS. JYOTI CHHILLAR v. THE DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 518
SUDHANSHU PATHAK v. CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 519
Gurudas Mallik Thakur v. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 520
Shristi Infrastructure Development vs Scorpio Engineering Private Limited and Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 521
Maharani Bagh Co-Operative House Building And Welfare Society Ltd., & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 522
TV Today v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 523
Coomi Kapoor v. Netflix Entertainment Services India LLP & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 524
LALIT SHARMA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 525
Ms. X v. State Of Nct Of Delhi And Others 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 526
Dilshad Hussain v. Pushpa Devi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 527
SMAS Auto Leasing India Private Limited v. Gensol Engineering Limited & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 528
BHAVREEN KANDHARI v. SHRI C. D. SINGH AND ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 529
Hamdard National Foundation India v. Patanjali Food Limited & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 530
Sandeep Garg v. Sales Tax Officer Class II Avato Ward 66 Zone 4 Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 531
Gurmeet Singh Sachdeva v. Skyways Air Services Pvt. Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 532
Neeraj Gupta & Anr. v. MCD & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 533
NEERAJ GUPTA v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 534
Arun Kumar Jindal v. CBI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 535
M/S Mahesh Fabrinox Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 536
Anjali Birla v. X Corp. and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 537
Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pvt Ltd. v. MMTC Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 538
Goethe-Institut E.V. v. Abhishek Yadav & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 539
Abros Sports International Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashish Bansal And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 540
Mukesh Kumar Garg v. UoI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 541
Praveen Kumar v. Pooja Arya 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 542
RAJESH KUMAR ALIAS RAJE v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 543
Crystal Crop Protection Limited v. Safex Chemicals India Limited & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 544
Sanser Pal Singh v. UOI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 545
Anand Mishra v. UOI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 546
M/S A. G. Overseas Pvt Ltd & Ors. v. Chetan Dass 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 547
Upendra Nath Dalai v. UOI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 548
AMIT SAHNI v. UNION OF INDIA (MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE) THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 549
Mr. Piruz Khambatta & Anr. v. Franchise India Brands Limited & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 550
Hindustan Construction Company Ltd v. Indian Strategic Petroleum Reserves Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 551
Romil Gupta Trading As Sohan Lal Gupta v. Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 552
ANSHUL v. STATE 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 553
LAKSHMI MURDESHWAR PURI v. SAKET GOKHALE 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 554
Shamikh Shahbaz Shaikh v. State Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 555
Dinesh Aneja v. State Through Government Of NCT Of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 556
Mankind Pharma Limited v. Zhejiang Yige Enterprise Management Group Co. Ltd. & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 557
Taiho Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd v. The Controller Of Patents 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 558
ADITI CHATTERJEE v. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY AND ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 559
ANUSHA GUPTA & ORS v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (THROUGH THE DIRECTOR) & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 560
RAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY v. STATE 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 561
MANIDEEP MAGO v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matter 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 562
A. S. ISMAIL v. NIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 563
DR. RANDHAWA ULTRASONOGRAPHY IMAGING AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE & Ors v. STATE OF NCT, DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 564
UNION OF INDIA Versus M/S GR-GAWA R(J.V.) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 565
SP v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 566
Khushi Sharma v. Union Of India And Others 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 567
M/S Rhine Power Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/S Ramprastha Promoters And Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 568
Eureka Forbes Limited (Formerly Forbes Enviro Solutions Limited) v. Nandan Sales And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 569
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus M/S NARAINDAS R ISRANI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 570
Western Digital Technologies Inc. & Anr. v. Hansraj Dugar 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 571
RINKOO AGGARWAL versus GAURAV SABHARWAL & ANR.
Citati 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 572
M.V. Omni Projects (India) Ltd. v. Union of India through Chief Engineer Northern Railways & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 573
FOUNDATION FOR INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM V/s AMITA SINGH and connected matter 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 574
JASMINE SHAH v. DIRECTOR (PLANNING) GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 575
UNION OF INDIA Versus AHLUWALIA CONTRACTS (INDIA) LTD. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 576
GNCTD v. LG 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 577
Akshat Baldwa & Anr. v. Maddock Films & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 578
DEEN DAYAL UPADHYAY HOSPITAL v. SANGEETA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 579
ANUSHA GUPTA & ORS v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (THROUGH THE DIRECTOR) & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 580
MDD Medical Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Delhi International Arbitration Centre and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 581
Tirupati Constwell Private Limited Versus Delhi States Employees Federation CGHS Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 582
IIFL HOME FINANCE LTD versus PUNKAJ BHAGCHAND CHHALLANI & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 583
Ajay Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 584
RAM KRISHAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. versus ASIAN HOTEL (NORTH) LTD. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 585
GREENS ZOOLOGICAL RESCUE AND REHABILITATION CENTRE SOCIETY & ANR v. HIMAL SOUTHASIAN & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 586
SK v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 587
JITENDER DIXIT v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 588
Maninder Sidhu v. The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 589
KS Bhandari v. M/S International Security Printers Pvt Ltd. (and batch) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 590
MDD MEDICAL SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. versus DELHI INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE AND ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 591
Aditya Singh Deshwal v. Delhi High Court through Registrar General 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 593
Vikas Gupta And Anr v. M/S Sahni Cosmetics 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 594
Harshvardhan Metals Ltd & Anr. Versus ISF Commodities (P) Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 595
PCL STICCO (JV) versus NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 596
ANJUMAN MOINIA FAKHRIA CHISHTIYA KHUDDAM KHWAJA SAHIB SYEDZADGAN (REGD.) DARGAH SHARIF, AJMER v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR and other connected matter 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 597
LALIT SHARMA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 598
M/s Supreme Infrastructure India Limited v Freyssinet Memard India Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 599
Christian Michel James v. ED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 600
MOHSIN KHAN v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 601
Chandan Rai v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 602
VASISHTA MANTENA NH04 JV & ORS. versus Mr. Ashish Kothari, Adv. BLACKLEAD INFRATECH PVT. LTD.2025 LiveLaw (Del) 603
KAL AIRWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED versus SPICEJET LIMITED & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 604
Carol Infrastructure Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 27, Delhi & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 605
The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -Central -1 v. Sneh Lata Sawhney (and batch) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 606
NITIN KUMAR AND ORS v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 607
VINEET GUPTA v. SMT. BHAWNA GUPTA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 608
Amit Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Pvt. Ltd And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 609
State v. Neeraj 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 610
ARPIT BHARGAVA v. DHARMENDRA AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 611
GUJARAT STATE ROLLER SKATING ASSOCIATION v. ROLLER SKATING FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 612
JAGTAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 613
M/S CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL Versus M/S MCM WORLDWIDE PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 614
NATIONAL RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION & ANR. versus M/S ARDEE HI-TECH PVT. LTD. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 615
Porto Emporios Shipping Inc v Indian Oil Corporation Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 616
DR. SHAHIN NOOREYEZDAN v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 617
SDMC v. Moon Steeland General Industries Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 618
SANJAY RATHORE v. STATE (GOVT OF NCT, DELHI) AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 619
Smt. Nirmala And Another v. The State And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 620
Pushkar Raj Thakur v. Google & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 621
BUREAU OF OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATIONS AND DD M/O INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING v. CANARA BANK 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 622
M/S KLA CONST TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD Versus M/S GULSHAN HOMZ PRIVATE LIMITED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 623
PRATIMA DEVI v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 624
MAHARANI BAGH CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING AND WELFARE SOCIETY LTD., & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA& ORS and other connected matter 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 625
GREAT EASTERN ENERGY CORPORATION LIMITED versus SOPAN PROJECTS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 626
Mukesh Kumar v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 627
ANKUR WARIKOO & ANR v. JOHN DOE & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 628
POOJA MEHTA & ORS v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 629
PHULMAI TAMANG @ NEHA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 630
RAM DEV RAI & ANR v. DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 631
FOX MANDAL AND ASSOCIATES AND ANR V/s SOMABRATA MANDAL AND ORS And SHUVABRATA MANDAL V/s SOMABRATA MANDAL& ORS. FAO (COMM)-133/2025 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 632
Rohan Basoya v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 633
Arjun Mohan & Ors v. Union of India & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 634
Nishant Gulati v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 635
Amarkant Singh Chouhan v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 636
Under Armour Inc v. Anish Agarwal & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 637
KRB Enterprises & Ors. v. M/S. KRBL Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 638
DIVYA MATTEY AND ORS v. L G GNCTD AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 639
Under Armour Inc v. Anish Agarwal & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 640
JAMMU & KASHMIR ECONOMIC RECONSTRUCTION AGENCY versus M/S SIMPLEX PROJECTS LIMITED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 641
ANI v. Mohak mangal & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 642
Sanoj Kumar Mishra v. State Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 643
SAMUEL KAMALESAN v. UNION OF INDIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 644
RAVI RANJAN SINGH v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 645
TANYA AND ORS v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THR REGISTRAR and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 646
SHRI LALU PRASAD YADAV v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 647
SH. KAMTU ANURAGI & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 648
Delhi High Court Dismisses Challenge To Provision On Limitation Under Contempt Of Courts Act
Case title: Rajesh Ranjan vs. Union Of India And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 498
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the vires of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, noting that the petitioner did not raise any substantial grounds to challenge the validity of the provision.
Title: Amit Agrawal v. STATE OF NCT DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 499
The Delhi High Court said that it is crucial for courts to recognise and be conscious of the right of an accused to speedy trial and to prevent the same from being defeated, rather than wake-up much too late and lament that such right has been defeated.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani granted bail to a man in a cheating case, observing that trial will take a long time to conclude.
Title: LAKSHMI MURDESHWAR PURI v. SAKET GOKHALE
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 500
The Delhi High Court rejected a plea filed by Trinamool Congress MP Saket Gokhale seeking recall of a ruling asking him to put an apology on social media and pay Rs. 50 lakh damages to Lakshmi Puri, former Indian Assistant Secretary-General to the United Nations, in a defamation case filed by her.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav also dismissed Gokhale's application for condonation of delay in seeking his relief.
Case title: M/S Montage Enterprises Private Limited (Through Its Authorized Representative Sanjay Kumar Singh) & Ors. v. Central Goods And Services Tax Delhi North & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 501
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a writ petition filed by a Noida based firm allegedly involved in GST fraud of over Rs. 550 crores.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta were unappreciative of the Petitioner's conduct in responding to the Department's proceedings.
Rule 86A CGST Rules | Credit Ledger Can't Be Blocked For More Than One Year : Delhi High Court
Case title: Shri Sai Ram Enterprises v. Pr. ADG, DGGI, Gurugram & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 502
The Delhi High Court has ordered unblocking of an enterprise's Electronic Credit Ledger following the lapse of one year since its initial blocking.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta cited Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 which lays down the conditions of use of amount available in electronic credit ledger. It prescribes that the credit ledger of an assessee cannot be blocked beyond the period of one year.
Case title: M/s Jai Opticals v. GNCTD
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 503
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Goods and Services Tax authorities are expected to empathetically consider an assessee's request for adjournment of personal hearing on medical grounds.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta said the Department should not proceed to pass adverse orders in such matters.
Title: Mohit Kumar Goyal v. State of NCT of Delhi And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 504
The Delhi High Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a preliminary enquiry over the allegations of extortion racket being run inside the Tihar jail.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela also directed Delhi Government's Principal Secretary (Home) to conduct a fact finding enquiry to find out the officials responsible for administrative lapses inside the jail.
Delhi High Court Orders Adequate Legal Representation To Three Indians On Death Row In Indonesia
Title: N. DEEPIKA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 505
The Delhi High Court has ordered that adequate legal representation be provided to three Indian nationals who are on death row in Indonesia.
Justice Sachin Datta directed the Indian Consulate in Indonesia to take requisite steps for ensuring that the convicted Indian nationals are afforded adequate legal representation and to render appropriate assistance to them for pursuing appellate remedies.
Case title: Pradeep Kumar v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 506
The Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of a CAPF personnel for failing to intimate the force about his absence from duty due to his health condition.
A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur was of the view that being in a disciplinary force, a high level of accountability was expected from the personnel and “it was incumbent upon him, post-surgery, to apprise the respondents of his medical condition and to seek leave from them.”
Case title: M/S Zine Davidoff SA v. Union Of India And Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 507
The Delhi High Court has come to the rescue of the Swiss company which owns luxury coffee brand Davidoff, whose trademark was removed from the register over alleged delay in seeking renewal of the mark.
Justice Amit Bansal noted that the Trade Marks Registry had admitted to not having any records indicating that form O3 notice was issued to the petitioner prior to the removal of the mark.
Case title: The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 v. Bharti Airtel Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 508
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal preferred by the Income Tax Department claiming that Bharti Airtel should have deducted TDS on payments made to overseas telecom service providers for bandwidth services.
Take Expeditious Steps To Enact Advocates Protection Bill: High Court To Delhi Government
Title: DEEPA JOSEPH & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 509
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to take expeditious steps for enacting the Advocates Protection Bill, 2024.
Justice Sachin Datta directed the Delhi Government to file a fresh status report in a plea claiming that there was an "alarming rise" in incidents of violence inside the court premises of different district courts in Delhi.
Title: Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited v. Uber India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 510
The Delhi High Court dismissed the interim injunction plea filed by IPL team Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) in its suit against Uber Moto over allegedly disparaging YouTube advertisement featuring Sunrisers Hyderabad's cricketer Travis Head.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee rejected the interim injunction application filed by RCB, observing that the impugned advertisement does not call for any interference at this stage.
Title: LALIT SHARMA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 511
The Delhi High Court directed the Delhi Police to take strict action against anyone, either lawyer or non-lawyer, who causes obstruction or disturbance in the conduct of Shahdara Bar Association elections which are scheduled to be held on May 09.
The order was passed by a full bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh, Justice Navin Chawla and Justice C Hari Shankar.
Case title: Varun Jindal v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 512
The Delhi High Court has asked the Railway Department to pay ₹8 lakh as compensation to a man who sustained grievous injuries that resulted in amputation of his left leg back in the year 2015, after falling from a moving train.
The incident was a result of a heavy jerk on the train due to which the Appellant lost his balance and fell out of the allegedly overcrowded general compartment.
Case title: Sanjay Kumar Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 513
The Delhi High Court has refused relief to an aspiring CRPF Sub-Inspector (Staff Nurse) who was denied marks as he failed to mention requisite work-experience mandatorily required in the application for recruitment.
Though the Petitioner had worked as Male Nurse Staff at a private hospital for more than five years, he was awarded 0 out of 5 marks earmarked in the selection criteria for prior experience.
Case title: Abhin Narula v. The High Court Of Delhi Through Registrar General & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 514
In a peculiar order, the Delhi High Court found force in a challenge to the 2023 Delhi Judicial Service Exam answer key but did not grant any relief to the aggrieved aspirant, citing a coordinate bench decision denying relief in a similar case.
A division bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul said it had to exercise 'judicial discipline'
Case title: SC Gupta v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 515
The Delhi High Court has held that though the provisions of CPC contained in Order II Rule 2 and Section 11 (pertaining to principle of Res Judicata) may not be strictly applicable to writ proceedings, however, the broad principles enshrined therein including the principle of Constructive Res Judicata will have application even to writ proceedings.
Title: A R Rahman v. Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 516
The Delhi High Court stayed an interim injunction order granted in favour of veteran Indian classical singer Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar in his suit alleging copyright infringement of his “Shiva Stuti” composition by music composer A.R. Rahman and other producers in Tamil film Ponniyan Selvan 2 song "Veera Raja Veera.”
Case title: Rajiv Sarin & Ors. v. Directorate Of Estates & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 517
The Delhi High Court has held that prolonged illegal occupation of private property by government authorities is unconstitutional and that State power cannot override property rights.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav emphasized, “Executive overreach beyond the four corners of the law must be met with constitutional censure, for when the protector of rights becomes the violator, the very fabric of the rule of law is imperiled. In a constitutional democracy governed by the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience, the preservation of legal rights such as that of proprietary must remain an unyielding commitment of the State.”
Title: SAISHA CHHILLAR MINOR REPRESENTED THROUGH HER MOTHER MS. JYOTI CHHILLAR v. THE DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 518
The Delhi High Court has observed that a school cannot deny transfer certificate to a child merely because the parents have ongoing matrimonial or guardianship dispute.
“…the school cannot deny the issuance of Transfer Certificate (TC) to the child who has sought admission in other school. In the event of delay in issuance of Transfer Certificate, even a disciplinary action can be taken against the Head-Master or In-Charge of the school. Needless to say that in a matrimonial or guardianship dispute, it is the interest of the child which is of paramount consideration,” Justice Vikas Mahajan said.
Case Title: SUDHANSHU PATHAK v. CONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 519
The Delhi High Court has directed the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs) to take a concrete decision so that no student giving Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) entrance examination is excluded due to language barrier.
Case title: Gurudas Mallik Thakur v. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 520
The Delhi High Court has held that the penalty for GST evasion contemplated under Section 122(1A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, can be imposed on 'any person'— whether taxable or non-taxable.
Case Title: Shristi Infrastructure Development vs Scorpio Engineering Private Limited and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 521
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that an ad-hoc arbitrator (appointed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996) is empowered to grant interest rate contemplated under Section 16 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, even if the reference was not made to the MSME Facilitation Council for resolving disputes.
Case title: Maharani Bagh Co-Operative House Building And Welfare Society Ltd., & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 522
The Delhi High Court has held that individuals who erect unauthorized structures and encroach upon public land cannot be permitted to assert their purported rights in priority of other citizens.
Title: TV Today v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 523
The Delhi High Court disposed of a petition filed by TV Today, which owns Aaj Tak and India Today news channels, highlighting the misuse of deepfake.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela asked TV Today to give its suggestions to the Committee of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITy), which is examining the issue of deepfakes.
Title: Coomi Kapoor v. Netflix Entertainment Services India LLP & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 524
The Delhi High Court referred to mediation a dispute between Coomi Kapoor- senior journalist and author of the book “The Emergency: A Personal History”, Manikarnika Films and Netflix over alleged breach of contract and damaging her reputation.
Delhi High Court Postpones Conduct Of Shahdara Bar Association Elections To May 24
Title: LALIT SHARMA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 525
The Delhi High Court postponed the conduct of Shahdara Bar Association elections to May 24. The polls were scheduled to be held on May 09.
The order was passed by a full bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh, Justice Navin Chawla and Justice C Hari Shankar.
Case title: Ms. X v. State Of Nct Of Delhi And Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 526
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that if part of a cognizable offence alleged, occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of a Police station, they must register a regular FIR and probe the offence rather than registering a 'Zero FIR' and transferring the case to another police station.
Case title: Dilshad Hussain v. Pushpa Devi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 527
The Delhi High Court has elucidated the difference 'intermediate' and 'interlocutory' orders in relation to Section 379 CrPC, which bars revision of interlocutory orders.
Case Title: SMAS Auto Leasing India Private Limited v. Gensol Engineering Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 528
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jyoti Singh has granted interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to the the petitioner who is the owner of electric vehicles (EVs) leased under Master Lease Agreements upon apprehensions of financial distress, default in lease payments by the respondents and a risk of dissipation or deterioration of assets pending arbitration. The Court restrained the respondents from transferring or encumbering the EVs.
Title: BHAVREEN KANDHARI v. SHRI C. D. SINGH AND ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 529
The Delhi High Court ruled that the permission for felling of 50 or more trees in the national capital will be supervised by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) as per the order of the Supreme Court.
Justice Jasmeet Singh added that permission for felling of upto 50 trees shall continue till the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is implemented by the city authorities.
Delhi High Court Closes Hamdard's Suit After Ramdev Removes Videos Making 'Sharbat Jihad' Remark
Title: Hamdard National Foundation India v. Patanjali Food Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 530
The Delhi High Court closed the suit filed by Hamdard National Foundation India against Yoga Guru Ramdev over his “Sharbat Jihad” remark against former's Rooh Afza product.
Justice Amit Bansal decreed the suit after Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar informed Court that affidavits have been filed by Ramdev and Patanjali Foods Limited that the impugned videos and posts have been taken down.
Case title: Sandeep Garg v. Sales Tax Officer Class II Avato Ward 66 Zone 4 Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 531
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an assessee cannot claim he was not granted an opportunity of hearing before an adverse order is passed, if he fails to check the GST portal for show cause notice and respond to the same.
Case title: Gurmeet Singh Sachdeva v. Skyways Air Services Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 532
The Delhi High Court has held that the plaint filed for instituting a suit cannot be read in isolation and the documents annexed with it can be considered to determine whether the plaint discloses a 'cause of action' for proceeding in the matter.
Case title: Neeraj Gupta & Anr. v. MCD & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 533
The Delhi High Court refused to interfere with the demolition of tehbazari sites (kiosks) being carried out by the National Capital Region Transport Corporation (NCRTC) at Sarai Kale Khan, for development of a metro rail station as part of the Regional Rapid Transit System (RRTS) project.
Title: NEERAJ GUPTA v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 534
he Delhi High Court imposed Rs. 20,000 as costs after a Central Government standing counsel sought repeated adjournments in an IPR case.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee renotified the matter and granted adjournment, subject to payment of costs to be paid to the Army Central Welfare Fund by the Central Government within four weeks.
Case title: Arun Kumar Jindal v. CBI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 535
The Delhi High Court refused anticipatory bail to a Senior Section Engineer of the Railways, who was hauled up in a corruption case following trap proceedings conducted on co-accused.
Case title: M/S Mahesh Fabrinox Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 536
The Delhi High Court has criticized the “pattern” of persons, who either availed fraudulent Input Tax Credit or enabled the availment of fraudulent ITC, invoking Court's writ jurisdiction to challenge orders imposing penalty under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Act 2017, on technical grounds.
Title: Anjali Birla v. X Corp. and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 537
The Delhi High Court closed the defamation suit filed by IRPS Officer and Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla's daughter, Anjali Birla, against social media posts alleging that she cleared UPSC exam in her first attempt by indulging in corrupt practices and misusing her father's position.
Case Title – Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pvt Ltd. v. MMTC Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 538
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has observed that a judgment debtor is not entitled to move objections under Section 47, CPC in an application for execution of award under Section 36, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) as it would amount to effectively opening a second round for challenging the Award which would undermine the provision of section 34 i.e. challenge to Award on limited grounds and go against the intent of ACA.
Case title: Goethe-Institut E.V. v. Abhishek Yadav & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 539
Reaffirming the principle that rights of prior user are superior to that of a proprietor holding a registered trademark, the Delhi High Court granted interim injunction in favour of Goethe-Institut, a German society which runs six educational institutes in India in the name of 'Max Mueller Bhavan', offering German language courses.
Case title: Abros Sports International Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashish Bansal And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 540
The Delhi High Court has referred to a larger the following questions of law in relation to trademark infringement:
“(i) Whether a suit for infringement can lie against the proprietor of a registered trademark, with respect to the use of such trademark?
(ii) Whether, assuming such a suit can lie, the Court can pass any interlocutory order, injuncting the use, by the defendant, of the allegedly infringing registered trademark?
Case title: Mukesh Kumar Garg v. UoI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 541
The Delhi High Court has once again flagged concerns over rampant misuse of Section 16 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 by traders, for wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit.
Case title: Praveen Kumar v. Pooja Arya
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 542
The Delhi High Court has held that a wife cannot be denied maintenance merely because she is qualified and was employed, if she was compelled to quit to take care of the child.
Title: RAJESH KUMAR ALIAS RAJE v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 543
The Delhi High Court has ruled that conditional liberty must override the statutory restrictions on grant of bail under Section 21 of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).
Case title: Crystal Crop Protection Limited v. Safex Chemicals India Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 544
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the 'Complete Specification' of an invention is sacrosanct for determining infringement of its patent.
Title: Sanser Pal Singh v. UOI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 545
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation alleging that deaths were being caused in the national capital due to negligence in constructions here.
Title: Anand Mishra v. UOI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 546
The Delhi High Court rejected a public interest litigation highlighting the issue of overcrowding of Tihar jail in the national capital.
Case title: M/S A. G. Overseas Pvt Ltd & Ors. v. Chetan Dass
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 547
The Delhi High Court has held that the 120 days time-limit prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure for filing of written statement by a defendant does not apply to the party while filing reply to an amended plaint.
Title: Upendra Nath Dalai v. UOI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 548
The Delhi High Court rapped a litigant for filing a public interest litigation alleging that the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 which replaced the erstwhile Indian Penal Code of 1860, is a “criminal act” of the Government of India.
Title: AMIT SAHNI v. UNION OF INDIA (MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE) THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 549
The Delhi High Court closed a PIL seeking expeditious filling of the judicial vacancies in the Court by elevating eligible District Judges and Advocates from the Bar.
Case title: Mr. Piruz Khambatta & Anr. v. Franchise India Brands Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 550
The Delhi High Court issued an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Piruz Khambatta, Chairman of Rasna Group and Ambassador of the government's Make In India initiative, on his plea against Franchise India Brands Limited.
Case Title – Hindustan Construction Company Ltd v. Indian Strategic Petroleum Reserves Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 551
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh has observed that it is not open to the referral court in a petition filed under Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) to examine the issue whether the claim is barred by res judicata. Such an examination falls within the domain of the Arbitral Tribunal.
Timelines Under Rule 100 Of Trade Marks Rules 2017 Are Mandatory, Cannot Be Waived: Delhi High Court
Case title: Romil Gupta Trading As Sohan Lal Gupta v. Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 552
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the one-month notice period mentioned under Section 100 of the Trademarks Rules 2017 before the Registrar can initiate rectification of register, is mandatory and cannot be waived.
Title: ANSHUL v. STATE
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 553
While granting bail to a husband in a dowry death case, the Delhi High Court held that mere suspicion of extramarital affair or strained relations without more is not enough to invoke the charge of abetment of suicide.
Delhi High Court Directs Saket Gokhale To Publish Apology For Defaming Lakshmi Puri
Title: LAKSHMI MURDESHWAR PURI v. SAKET GOKHALE
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 554
The Delhi High Court has directed Trinamool Congress MP Saket Gokhale to publish the apology for defaming Lakshmi Puri, former Indian Assistant Secretary-General to the United Nations, as directed by a single judge last year.
Case title: Shamikh Shahbaz Shaikh v. State Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 555
The Delhi High Court denied anticipatory bail to an agent of fintech Rapipay, allegedly involved in duping a man of ₹17,95,000/- in an online part-time job scam.
Case title: Dinesh Aneja v. State Through Government Of NCT Of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 556
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with a Sessions Court order forfeiting the fixed deposit of a rape accused, as he failed to intimate on affidavit his itinerary for foreign travel which was allowed by the Sessions Court during pendency of trial.
Case title: Mankind Pharma Limited v. Zhejiang Yige Enterprise Management Group Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 557
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that registration of a trademark in other countries does not by itself entitle registration of the said mark in India.
Case title: Taiho Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd v. The Controller Of Patents
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 558
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Controller of Patents must clearly specify in the hearing notice the 'known substance' against which the claimed invention of an applicant is being assessed.
Title: ADITI CHATTERJEE v. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY AND ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 559
The Delhi High Court has set aside disciplinary proceedings against a resident student of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) initiated over protest on allegedly illegal raids conducted at the women's hostels in 2017.
JEE-Main: Delhi High Court Orders CFSL Probe In Plea Alleging Manipulation Of Score Cards
Title: ANUSHA GUPTA & ORS v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (THROUGH THE DIRECTOR) & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 560
The Delhi High Court has ordered investigation by Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), CBI, in a petition filed by two candidates alleging manipulation of their score cards in JEE (Main)-2025.
Title: RAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY v. STATE
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 561
The Delhi High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a lawyer accused of causing serious injuries to a man in a road rage case, emphasizing that all are equal in the eyes of law and none can be treated as more equal.
Title: MANIDEEP MAGO v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 562
The Delhi High Court has observed that Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, does not grants to a person immunity for offences committed under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Title: A. S. ISMAIL v. NIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 563
The Delhi High Court has denied interim bail to Popular Front of India (PFI) leader AS Ismail booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, observing that his medical condition has significantly improved.
Title: DR. RANDHAWA ULTRASONOGRAPHY IMAGING AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE & Ors v. STATE OF NCT, DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 564
The Delhi High Court has held that the offences under the Pre-Conception & Pre Natal Diagnostic Technique (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, are cognizable and registration of FIR and investigation by the Police under the enactment, per se, is not barred under law.
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA Versus M/S GR-GAWA R(J.V.)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 565
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has held that an initial filing made without the essential documents like attaching impugned award etc. required for adjudication is non est in law and has no legal existence. Such a filing, made merely to evade the limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) cannot be considered valid.
Case title: SP v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 566
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that medical standards to be met for appointment in an armed force are decided by the respective forces and there can be no question of parity among different forces.
Case title: Khushi Sharma v. Union Of India And Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 567
The Delhi High Court today expressed “serious consternation” and “regret” at the conduct of both the Delhi Police and the Uttar Pradesh Police in failing to register an FIR regarding the mysterious death of a 20-year-old Delhi resident in Greater Noida.
Case Title:M/S Rhine Power Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/S Ramprastha Promoters And Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 568
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anish Dayal has held that the contempt court is empowered to issue directions to reverse any benefits obtained in disobedience of an order passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) to ensure that parties are restrained from violating the court's orders.
Delhi High Court Awards Damages To Eureka Forbes Over Counterfeiting Of Aquaguard Spare Parts
Case title: Eureka Forbes Limited (Formerly Forbes Enviro Solutions Limited) v. Nandan Sales And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 569
The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of home appliance manufacturer Eureka Forbes, against counterfeiting of the spare parts and consumables of its famous Aquaguard.
Case Title: DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus M/S NARAINDAS R ISRANI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 570
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has held that different formulae may be applied depending on the circumstances, and the choice of method for computing damages falls within the arbitrator's discretion. Sections 55 and 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Contract Act) do not prescribe any specific formula for the calculation of damages. Therefore, the arbitrator's decision to apply any internationally recognized method, based on their expertise, cannot be faulted.
Case title: Western Digital Technologies Inc. & Anr. v. Hansraj Dugar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 571
“Any person in India has the right to legally import goods from abroad bearing the trademarks of an entity and sell the same in India,” the Delhi High Court has held.
Case Title: RINKOO AGGARWAL versus GAURAV SABHARWAL & ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 572
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jyoti Singh has held that the bar of limitation for filing an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) seeking the appointment of an arbitrator, cannot be circumvented merely on the ground that the demand-cum-arbitration invocation notice was issued by the petitioner's counsel without proper authorization. The court held that such a contention, if accepted, would render the limitation period for filing such applications meaningless and defeat the very purpose of prescribing a time frame.
Case Title – M.V. Omni Projects (India) Ltd. v. Union of India through Chief Engineer Northern Railways & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 573
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has observed that the party giving no-objection to the applicability of Section 12(5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) has to give such no-objection after the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal. The waiver to applicability has to be done after the arbitrators are appointed with the names and details. The Court also observed that any waiver before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal is no waiver in the eyes of law.
Case title : FOUNDATION FOR INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM V/s AMITA SINGH and connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 574
The Delhi High Court has rejected the pleas moved by Foundation of Independent Journalism, which runs the media platform 'The Wire', and its editor Ajoy Ashirwad Mahaprastha challenging an order summoning them on a criminal defamation case filed by former JNU professor Amita Singh.
AAP Leader Jasmine Shah Withdraws From Delhi High Court Plea Against Removal From DDCD Post
Title: JASMINE SHAH v. DIRECTOR (PLANNING) GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 575
Aam Aadmi Party leader Jasmine Shah withdrew from the Delhi High Court his petition filed against his removal from the post of Vice Chairperson of Dialogue and Development Commission of Delhi (DDCD) in 2022.
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA Versus AHLUWALIA CONTRACTS (INDIA) LTD.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 576
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia has held that unless it is demonstrated that the delay in payment for the completion of the work contract prevented the contractor from undertaking other profitable ventures, damages for loss of profits cannot be awarded.
Case Title: GNCTD v. LG
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 577
The Delhi High Court has allowed the withdrawal of a petition filed by then AAP-led Delhi Government against an order of the Lieutenant Governor, overturning the Cabinet's decision to appoint a panel of prosecutors of its choice to argue cases related to Farmers Protest and Delhi Riots.
Title: Akshat Baldwa & Anr. v. Maddock Films & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 578
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to expedite the process of issuance of guidelines on incorporating accessibility features in Over-The-Top (OTT) platforms for persons with disabilities (PwDs).
Once Worker Provides Testimony Under Oath, Burden Shifts On Employer To Disprove Claims: Delhi HC
Title: DEEN DAYAL UPADHYAY HOSPITAL v. SANGEETA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 579
Delhi High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Manoj Jain dismissed a petition that was filed by the Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital. The hospital was challenging a labour court award that awarded compensation to a sanitation worker. The court agreed with the Labour Court and ruled that the worker had been in continuous employment for over 240 days, and was improperly terminated. However, the court only awarded compensation instead of reinstatement.
Title: ANUSHA GUPTA & ORS v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (THROUGH THE DIRECTOR) & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 580
The Delhi High Court asked the Director of National Cyber Forensic Laboratory (NCFL) to expedite the investigation ordered in a petition filed by two candidates alleging manipulation of their score cards in JEE (Main)-2025.
Case Title: MDD Medical Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Delhi International Arbitration Centre and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 581
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, while hearing a writ petition challenging the decision of Delhi International Arbitration Centre (Respondent No. 1) to revive arbitral proceeding after closing the proceedings due to non-filing of the State of Claim (SOC) observed that since the proceedings have been revived, the Arbitral Tribunal is the competent authority to adjudicate and rule upon.
Case Title: Tirupati Constwell Private Limited Versus Delhi States Employees Federation CGHS Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 582
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that if, after the issuance of a notice invoking arbitration, no bonafide negotiations take place between the parties, and the limitation period for filing an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) expires, the time allegedly spent in such negotiations cannot be excluded while computing the limitation period under Section 11.
Case Title: IIFL HOME FINANCE LTD versus PUNKAJ BHAGCHAND CHHALLANI & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 583
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that the intent of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) cannot be interpreted to confer jurisdiction on a court that is otherwise incompetent to entertain an application under this provision.
Case title: Ajay Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 584
The Delhi High Court observed that a greater degree of latitude has to be necessarily accorded to paramilitary and Armed Forces in cases relating to transfer of personnel.
Case Title: RAM KRISHAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. versus ASIAN HOTEL (NORTH) LTD.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 585
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that the appointment of an arbitrator as an observer in a matter unrelated to the arbitration dispute does not constitute de facto or de jure ineligibility under the Fifth or Seventh Schedules of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). Consequently, the arbitrator's mandate cannot be terminated on this ground under Section 14 of the Act. However, the court permitted the petitioner to raise this objection under Section 34 after the award is passed.
Title: GREENS ZOOLOGICAL RESCUE AND REHABILITATION CENTRE SOCIETY & ANR v. HIMAL SOUTHASIAN & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 586
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a contempt petition filed by Anant Ambani led Vantara, seeking deletion of an article published on online platform Himal Southasian alleging ill-treatment and transfer of elephants.
Section 377 IPC Can't Be Applied To Prosecute Husband In Marital Relationship: Delhi High Court
Title: SK v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 587
The Delhi High Court has ruled that in a marital relationship, Section 377 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, cannot be applied to criminalise non-penile-vaginal intercourse between a husband and wife.
“Such an interpretation would be in line with the reasoning and observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Navtej Singh Johar (supra),” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
Title: JITENDER DIXIT v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 588
Emphasizing that the right to speedy trial is not an illusory safeguard, the Delhi High Court has said that personal liberty cannot be whittled down merely because the case is under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA).
Case title: Maninder Sidhu v. The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 589
The Delhi High Court granted medical bail to a murder accused seeking to undergo laser surgery for Varicose Veins, subject to his marking attendance with the Investigating Officer on video calls.
Ordinarily, those on bail are required to visit the jurisdictional police station in person to mark their attendance with the IO.
Case title: KS Bhandari v. M/S International Security Printers Pvt Ltd. (and batch)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 590
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 is not confined to eviction of tenants for bona fide use by a man or a woman and it includes a tenant who is a juristic entity or any other entity such as a firm, company, etc.
Case Title: MDD MEDICAL SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. versus DELHI INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE AND ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 591
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has held that the mandate of the MSME Facilitation Council to refer a dispute to arbitration under Section 18(3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, following the failure of conciliation under Section 18(2), is not automatically terminated if the referral is not made within 90 days as prescribed under Section 18(5). Unlike Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) Section 18(5) of the MSMED Act does not specify any consequences for non-compliance with the 90-day timeline.
Case title: Vikas Gupta And Anr v. M/S Sahni Cosmetics
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 592
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that common Indian forenames like “NEHA” can constitute protected trademark, provided it acquires an 'inherent distinctiveness' by establishing a secondary meaning in trade.
Title: Aditya Singh Deshwal v. Delhi High Court through Registrar General
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 593
The Delhi High Court closed a public interest litigation to constitute special designated benches to adjudicate quashing petitions on the basis of a settlement.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice dk Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela asked the lawyer Aditya Singh Deshwal to give the suggestions on the administrative side.
Mere Inclusion Of A Mark In Trading Name Does Not By Itself Constitute 'Trademark': Delhi High Court
Case title: Vikas Gupta And Anr v. M/S Sahni Cosmetics
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 594
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that mere inclusion of a mark in a trading name does not, by itself, constitute a protected 'trademark'.
Single bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula though conceded that many brands derive their commercial identity through consistent and public-facing use of their trading name, it held that to give rise to protectable rights, such use must be of a kind that identifies the source of the goods and serves to distinguish them from those of others – a concept often referred to by Courts as “use in the trademark sense”.
Case Title: Harshvardhan Metals Ltd & Anr. Versus ISF Commodities (P) Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 595
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that Bye-laws may serve as operational guidelines, but they cannot impose conditions that conflict with statutory rights.
Case Title: PCL STICCO (JV) versus NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 596
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia has held that once the Judgment Debtor deposits the decretal amount with the court registry pursuant to a court order, and the Award Holder has notice of such deposit, interest on the deposited amount ceases to accrue. Consequently, interest can only be claimed on the remaining outstanding amount, not on the sum deposited with the court.
Delhi High Court Stays CAG Audit Of Accounts Of Ajmer Sharif Dargah
Title: ANJUMAN MOINIA FAKHRIA CHISHTIYA KHUDDAM KHWAJA SAHIB SYEDZADGAN (REGD.) DARGAH SHARIF, AJMER v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR and other connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 597
The Delhi High Court has stayed the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) audit of the accounts of Ajmer Sharif Dargah.
Justice Sachin Datta found credibility in the contention of Dargah's submission that the requirements under Section 20 of the CAG Act were not satisfied.
Title: LALIT SHARMA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 598
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a plea seeking implementation of biometric verification process of Advocates for elections to the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD).
Case Title – M/s Supreme Infrastructure India Limited v Freyssinet Memard India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 599
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jyoti Singh while setting aside an arbitral award has observed that unilateral appointment of arbitrator vitiates the award and if the opposite party fails to reply to the notice under Section 21, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”), then such inaction cannot lead to an inference as to implied consent or acquiescence of the party to appointment of the named Arbitrator. The Court held that in such a situation the only recourse available to the party is to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court for appointment of an arbitrator.
AgustaWestland Scam: Delhi High Court Modifies Christian Michel's Bail Conditions In ED Case
Case Title: Christian Michel James v. ED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 600
The Delhi High Court modified the bail condition imposed on British Arms Counsultant Christian James Michel in the FIR registered by Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the Agusta Westland chopper scam.
Title: MOHSIN KHAN v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 601
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to a man accused in an espionage case, observing that the nation rests peacefully because the armed forces remain vigilant.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma denied bail to Mohsin Khan, accused of transmitting sensitive information pertaining to the Indian Army to Pakistan High Commission.
Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Man Booked For Murder After His Father Hit Deceased With Knife
Case title: Chandan Rai v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 602
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a man booked for murder after his father hit the deceased with a knife, during a quarrel involving the three.
Case Title: VASISHTA MANTENA NH04 JV & ORS. versus Mr. Ashish Kothari, Adv. BLACKLEAD INFRATECH PVT. LTD.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 603
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul has held that the benefit of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act is available only when the petition is filed within the normal limitation period that is 90 days as prescribed under section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act and the court was closed on the last day of that period. It does not apply when the court was closed on the last day of the extendable period under proviso to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act.
Case Title: KAL AIRWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED versus SPICEJET LIMITED & ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 604
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices C. Harishankar and Ajay Digpaul observed that the conduct of the appellants in this case is deeply troubling to the court's conscience. They neither informed the respondents about the filing of the present appeals nor disclosed the same to the court, even though the respondents' appeals challenging the same arbitral award had been listed and heard multiple times. Under these circumstances, the delay in filing and refiling the appeals cannot be condoned due to the appellants' evident lack of bona fide.
Case title: Carol Infrastructure Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 27, Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 605
The Delhi High Court made it clear that Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 “does not contemplate a hiatus” between handing over and receipt of information or documents pertaining to a non-searched entity.
Case title: The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -Central -1 v. Sneh Lata Sawhney (and batch)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 606
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Clause (ix) of the Explanation to Section 153B of the Income Tax Act 1961 cannot be invoked to exclude the period of reference under the Indo-Swiss DTAA, if the reference itself is invalid.
Title: NITIN KUMAR AND ORS v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 607
While dealing with a case concerning Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Delhi High Court has said that false allegations in such cases have wide ranging consequences across the society as the same create cynicism and give rise to a suspicion even against genuine victims.
Title: SH. VINEET GUPTA v. SMT. BHAWNA GUPTA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 608
The Delhi High Court has ruled that maintenance m is not a favour but is a recognition of shared parental responsibility, and of the child's right to be supported.
Case title: Amit Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Pvt. Ltd And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 609
The Delhi High Court has held that where there is no evidence that a goods carriage/ tanker was carrying hazardous material, the mere absence of an endorsement under Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 cannot be construed as a breach of statutory conditions sufficient to grant recovery rights to the insurer.
Case title: State v. Neeraj
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 610
The Delhi High Court has held that when a Court comes to a conclusion that an accused person is suffering from mental retardation and decides to discharge him, it must consider whether it is safe to release such accused in the society.
Delhi Govt Implements SOP For Handling Bomb Threats In Schools, High Court Closes Contempt Plea
Title: ARPIT BHARGAVA v. DHARMENDRA AND ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 611
The Delhi High Court has closed a contempt petition after the Delhi Government's Director of Education implemented the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for handling bomb threats in schools in the national capital.
Title: GUJARAT STATE ROLLER SKATING ASSOCIATION v. ROLLER SKATING FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 612
The Delhi High Court has ordered that the elections of the Roller Skating Federation of India shall be conducted in terms of the National Sports Code and the constitution of the Indian Olympic Association.
Title: JAGTAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 613
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench consisting of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur allowed a writ petition filed by a retired BSF officer. The court directed the Union of India to provide lump sum compensation to the retired BSF officer, for a disability that he suffered in the line of duty. The Court held that he was entitled to compensation under Rule 9(3) of the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1972 (“CCS (EOP) Rules”), since his disability was attributable to his service. The Court also explained that any delay by the disabled in approaching the court is not a valid reason to deny disability compensation.
Case Title: M/S CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL Versus M/S MCM WORLDWIDE PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 614
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathanshankar has held that for a valid acknowledgment under section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 certain essential requirements must be met. Firstly, the acknowledgment must be made before the relevant period of limitation has expired. Secondly, it must pertain specifically to the liability concerning the right in question. Lastly, the acknowledgment must be in writing and signed by the party against whom such right is claimed.
Case Title: NATIONAL RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION & ANR. versus M/S ARDEE HI-TECH PVT. LTD.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 615
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that there is no prescribed format for a notice invoking arbitration. The legal requirement is that the party invoking arbitration must clearly outline the disputes between the parties and state that if these disputes remain unresolved, arbitration proceedings will be initiated. The intention to resolve the disputes through arbitration must be explicitly stated in the notice.
Case Title – Porto Emporios Shipping Inc v Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 616
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav while allowing an application under Section 8, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) has observed that the plea of waiver of arbitration clause is a plea concerning rights in personam and does not render the dispute to be manifestly non-arbitrable. Consequently, the determination of such a plea properly falls within the jurisdictional domain of the Arbitral Tribunal itself.
Title: DR. SHAHIN NOOREYEZDAN v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 617
The Delhi High Court closed a petition filed by a doctor against locking of his Facebook account on the ground that his profile picture contained symbols, glorification or support of dangerous people and organisations.
Case title: SDMC v. Moon Steeland General Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 618
The Delhi High Court has held that the scope of an 'Industrial Building' cannot be restricted merely to traditional notions of manufacturing involving tangible and physical goods.
Title: SANJAY RATHORE v. STATE (GOVT OF NCT, DELHI) AND ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 619
The Delhi High Court said that the act of threatening or intimidating a judge, especially through gender-specific abuse, is an assault on justice itself and must be met with firm accountability.
Case title: Smt. Nirmala And Another v. The State And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 620
The Delhi High Court has directed the District Legal Services Authority to apply their mind and give reasons while deciding the quantum of compensation to be granted under Section 357A(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Title: Pushkar Raj Thakur v. Google & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 621
The Delhi High Court ordered take down of allegedly defamatory YouTube videos against financial educator and entrepreneur Pushkar Raj Thakur.
Title: BUREAU OF OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATIONS AND DD M/O INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING v. CANARA BANK
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 622
A single judge bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja held that the gratuity that remains unreleased at the time of an employee's death, becomes part of his estate. The court confirmed that this can also be attached against decrees passed against their legal heirs. The court clarified that Section 60(g) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, only protects gratuity if it is received during the employee's lifetime, and not when it passes on as inheritance.
Case Title: M/S KLA CONST TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD Versus M/S GULSHAN HOMZ PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 623
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has held that when an exclusive jurisdiction clause is expressly made "subject to" the arbitration clause, and the arbitration clause designates a different territorial location as the seat of arbitration, the arbitration clause prevails. In case of conflict, the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the seat designated in the arbitration agreement which overrides the exclusive jurisdictional clause mentioned in the agreement.
Delhi High Court Asks Govt To Consider Formulating Policy For Rehabilitation Of Stray Dogs
Title: PRATIMA DEVI v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 624
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government and other authorities here to consider formulating a policy for rehabilitation of stray dogs in the national capital.
Title: MAHARANI BAGH CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING AND WELFARE SOCIETY LTD., & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA& ORS and other connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 625
The Delhi High Court has taken judicial note of a newspaper report stating that over 3,000 soldiers of the Rajputana Rifles have to pass through a filthy drain every morning while marching out of their barracks for heading towards the parade ground.
Case Title: GREAT EASTERN ENERGY CORPORATION LIMITED versus SOPAN PROJECTS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 626
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that arbitral proceedings cannot remain pending for eight years without the pronouncement of an award by the learned Sole Arbitrator. While a hearing was scheduled on 17.10.2023, no reasons were provided for convening the hearing or for the prolonged delay in delivering the award. Such undue and unexplained delay defeats the very purpose of arbitration and is contrary to the public policy of India. Accordingly, the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator was terminated under section 14 of the Arbitration Act.
Title: Mukesh Kumar v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 627
The Delhi High Court refused to grant interim protection from arrest at this stage to an Ahlmad of Rouse Avenue Courts booked in a corruption case by Anti Corruption Branch (ACB).
Title: ANKUR WARIKOO & ANR v. JOHN DOE & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 628
The Delhi High Court has passed a john doe order and restrained unauthorised publishing and circulation of deepfake videos of YouTuber and influencer Ankur Warikoo.
Title: POOJA MEHTA & ORS v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 629
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an eviction order shall be vitiated in absence of a show cause notice under Rule 22(3)(1)(iv)(v) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009.
Title: PHULMAI TAMANG @ NEHA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 630
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an applicant who seeks bail on the ground of delay in trial must place on record trial court order sheets to rule out the possibility that the case was being adjourned at his or her request.
Title: RAM DEV RAI & ANR v. DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 631
The Delhi High Court has observed that encroachers cannot claim a right to continue occupying public land pending the resolution of their rehabilitation claims under the applicable policy.
Case title: FOX MANDAL AND ASSOCIATES AND ANR V/s SOMABRATA MANDAL AND ORS And SHUVABRATA MANDAL V/s SOMABRATA MANDAL& ORS. FAO (COMM)-133/2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 632
The Delhi High Court set aside a commercial court's interim order restraining Shuvabrata Mandal and Shouryabrata Mandal who run Fox Mandal and Associates from offering legal services under 'FoxMandal' trademark, which is stated to be owned by their brother Som Mandal who runs the Fox Mandal & Co.'
Absolutely Divisive': Delhi High Court Rejects PIL To Constitute 'Gujjar Regiment' In Indian Army
Title: Rohan Basoya v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 633
The Delhi High Court rejected a public interest litigation seeking a direction on the Union Government to constitute a “Gujjar regiment” in the Indian Army.
Title: Arjun Mohan & Ors v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 634
The Delhi High Court called for a standing operating procedure (SOP) to be adopted by the Centre and Delhi Governments to implement the facilities for online processes and proceedings in various forums under the labour laws.
Title: Nishant Gulati v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 635
The Delhi High Court directed that the online applications for 'no entry permits' issued to transport vehicles plying in no entry time must be scrutinised and the documents enclosed with such applications must be verified properly.
Title: Amarkant Singh Chouhan v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 636
Amarkant Singh Chouhan, a journalist and Bhind Bureau Chief of Swaraj Express news channel, moved the Delhi High Court seeking protection from the alleged threats to his life from Madhya Pradesh police officials.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja directed the Delhi Police to grant protection to Chouhan for two months, and asked the journalist to approach the concerned High Court in the meantime for availing further legal remedies.
Case title: Under Armour Inc v. Anish Agarwal & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 637
The Delhi High Court has held that even a momentary confusion between two competing trademarks in the mind of a consumer is sufficient to constitute trademark infringement.
Case title: KRB Enterprises & Ors. v. M/S. KRBL Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 638
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that it is not necessary that a trademark must be used in a physical form in relation to the goods.
Title: DIVYA MATTEY AND ORS v. L G GNCTD AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 639
The Delhi High Court has directed that students of Delhi Public School (DPS) Dwarka, whose names were struck down from the school rolls, shall be allowed to continue their studies, subject to the parents depositing 50% of the hiked school fee for the academic years 2024-25 onwards.
Case title: Under Armour Inc v. Anish Agarwal & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 640
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that even though similarity in two competing trademarks cannot be ascertained by dissecting and comparing their parts, the “dominant parts” of the trademarks can be compared.
Case Title: JAMMU & KASHMIR ECONOMIC RECONSTRUCTION AGENCY versus M/S SIMPLEX PROJECTS LIMITED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 641
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has held that the law mandates proof of actual loss despite the presence of an Liquidated Damages (LD) clause and does not allow automatic recovery of the entire LD amount upon breach. Therefore, the Petitioner's unilateral adjustment without adjudication was unlawful. The AT rightly held that such unilateral recovery does not obviate the need for proper adjudication of the LD claim.
Title: ANI v. Mohak mangal & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 642
The Delhi High Court on directed YouTuber Mohak Mangal to take down specific portions of his video on ANI, while hearing the news agency's defamation suit alleging that his recent video is disparaging and defamatory towards the agency.
Delhi High Court Holds Special Evening Sitting, Grants Bail To Film Director Falsely Accused Of Rape
Case title: Sanoj Kumar Mishra v. State Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 643
The Delhi High Court ordered release of film director Sanoj Mishra, falsely accused of rape by a woman with whom he had a consensual relationship.
Justice Girish Kathpalia held a special evening sitting after a Full Court reference on the occasion of superannuation of Justice Dharmesh Sharma, “keeping in mind the issue of liberty of the accused”.
Title: SAMUEL KAMALESAN v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 644
The Delhi High Court has upheld the termination of a Commanding Officer in Indian Army who refused to participate in regimental weekly religious parades on the ground that he belonged to Christian faith, despite multiple opportunities and counselling sessions at various levels by the superiors.
Title: RAVI RANJAN SINGH v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 645
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking a direction on Delhi Development Authority (DDA) not to disturb or demolish the Pakistani-Hindu refugee camp at city's Majnu Ka Tila till some alternative piece of land is allotted to the residents.
'Will Consider': Supreme Court Registrar In Pleas For Reservations In Junior Court Assistant Post
Title: TANYA AND ORS v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THR REGISTRAR and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 646
The Supreme Court administration told the Delhi High Court that it will decide pleas concerning the recruitment for the post of Junior Cost Assistant in the Supreme Court in various reserved categories.
Title: SHRI LALU PRASAD YADAV v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 647
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea moved by RJD Chief Lalu Prasad Yadav seeking to stay the trial court proceedings in the corruption case related to the alleged land for jobs scam case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Title: SH. KAMTU ANURAGI & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 648
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that absence of train journey ticket on the deceased person after the fatal incident cannot, by itself, negate the legitimacy of the claim for compensation.