Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 946 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 980NOMINAL INDEXMAHUA MOITRA v. NISHIKANT DUBEY & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 946 Mohit Kumar Goyal v. State of NCT of Delhi And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 947 Bodhisattva Charitable Trust And Ors. v. Mayo Foundation For Medical Education And Research 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 948 Surender Kumar Sharma And Ors v. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi...
Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 946 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 980
NOMINAL INDEX
MAHUA MOITRA v. NISHIKANT DUBEY & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 946
Mohit Kumar Goyal v. State of NCT of Delhi And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 947
Bodhisattva Charitable Trust And Ors. v. Mayo Foundation For Medical Education And Research 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 948
Surender Kumar Sharma And Ors v. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 949
Sarfraz Ahmad v. Vice Chancellor, JMI And Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 950
Court On Its Own Motion v. Union Of India & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 951
Meena v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 952
SYED AHMAD SHAKEEL v. NIA and other connected matter 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 953
SUKHBIR SINGH v. STATE NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 954
Raj Kumar Kedia v. Income Tax Office 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 955
Ganpati Polymers Through It Proprietor Prop. Ankur Jain v. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax And Another 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 956
SOHAIL MALIK v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 957
PEC Ltd v. Ms Badri Singh Vinimay Pvt Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 958
Azam v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 959
Court On Its Own Motion v. Dhanraj & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 960
M/S Exclusive Capital Limited v. Clover Media Private Limited & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 961
ADVOCATE MANISH KUMAR V/s UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 962
Aditya Rai Gupta v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 963
AMAN SINGH V/s MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI THORUGH ITS COMMISSIONER & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 964
Narender v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 965
Satya Pal Singh v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 966
PRINCE TYAGI AND ANR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 967
CCS Computers Pvt Ltd v. NDMC 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 968
MOHAMMAD SHAHNOOR MANSOORI v. STATE OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 969
Sachindra Priyadarshi v. State Of NCT Of Delhi Through The Chief Secretary 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 970
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) v. GAURANG KADYAN 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 971
The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 v. Xiocom (Nz) Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 972
Aadya Antya v. High Court Of Delhi Through Registrar General 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 973
Lakshay Vij v. ED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 974
GAINDA LAL v. STATE & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 975
DRAGON BOAT INDIA AND TRADITIONAL SPORTS FEDERATION v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 976
Neosky India Limited & Anr. v. Mr. Nagendran Kandasamy & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 977
RAJASTHAN EQUESTRAIN ASSOCIATION v. EQUESTRIAN FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 978
Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited v. Sauss Home Products Private Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 979
ANEJA CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) versus DOOSAN POWER SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 980
Tile: MAHUA MOITRA v. NISHIKANT DUBEY & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 946
Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Mahua Moitra moved the Delhi High Court against the alleged media leak of the news of CBI submitting its report to Lokpal of India in relation to the alleged cash-for-query scam.
Justice Sachin Datta directed that confidentiality shall be “strictly maintained by all the concerned.”
Delhi High Court Asks CBI To Probe Alleged 'Extortion Racket' Inside Tihar Jail
Title: Mohit Kumar Goyal v. State of NCT of Delhi And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 947
The Delhi High Court told the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register an FIR over the allegations of extortion racket being run inside the Tihar jail involving its officials and inmates.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela perused the status report as well as the preliminary enquiry report of Delhi Government's Principal Secretary (Home).
Case title: Bodhisattva Charitable Trust And Ors. v. Mayo Foundation For Medical Education And Research
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 948
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that priority of user is not a defence to an action for infringement of trademark unless the use of such mark by the defendant predates both the user as well as the registration of the asserted mark of the plaintiff.
Case title: Surender Kumar Sharma And Ors v. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 949
The Delhi High Court told the Municipal Corporation of Delhi that merely because it is unable to control unauthorised street vendors and prevent encroachment of public pathways is not grounds to discontinue the weekly market approved by the Town Vending Committee (TVC).
The bench was dealing with a plea moved by holders of the Certificate of Vending (CoV), seeking directions to MCD not to restrain them from holding the weekly market in the city's Shalimar Bagh area. TVC had approved around 300 vendors for the same.
Case title: Sarfraz Ahmad v. Vice Chancellor, JMI And Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 950
The Delhi High Court has set aside the order of Jamia Millia Islamia University terminating the services of an Assistant Professor for unauthorised absence, who claimed to have discontinued taking classes for a period of time over alleged victimisation by certain other Professors of the varsity.
In doing so, Justice Prateek Jalan noted there was “inadequate compliance with the principles of natural justice” in as much as the inquiry report, on the basis of which the Executive Council passed its resolutions terminating the Petitioner, was never served upon him.
Case title: Court On Its Own Motion v. Union Of India & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 951
Stating that appointment of nursing and para-medical staff is “absolutely crucial for the health management in hospitals in Delhi”, the High Court has ordered the government to undertake the process of recruitment without any impediment.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora ordered, “as and when the results are declared, after completing the necessary formalities, the appointment shall be done on a post-to-post basis without waiting for the recruitment in the other post.”
Case title: Meena v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 952
The Delhi High Court has held that when contraband is recovered from multiple accused persons separately, the same cannot be collectively attributed to one of the accused to deny him bail.
UAPA: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To One, Denies Bail To Other In J&K Terror Funding Case
Title: SYED AHMAD SHAKEEL v. NIA and other connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 953
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to one Syed Ahmad Shakeel and has denied bail to one Shahid Yusuf in relation to an alleged case of terror funding and secessionist activities in Jammu and Kashmir.
A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur observed that Shakeel had already suffered prolonged incarceration of around 6 years and 11 months, without any certainty of the trial concluding within a reasonable time.
Title: SUKHBIR SINGH v. STATE NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 954
While dismissing an accused's plea in a MCOCA case, the Delhi High Court has observed that the State must avoid delays in “critical processes” such as appointment of an SPP where it cites seriousness and gravity of alleged offence to oppose a plea.
Case title: Raj Kumar Kedia v. Income Tax Office
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 955
The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea for quashing a criminal complaint lodged under Income Tax Act 1961 for alleged tax evasion, moved on the ground that reassessment action was pending and hence the complaint was premature.
Case title: Ganpati Polymers Through It Proprietor Prop. Ankur Jain v. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax And Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 956
The Delhi High Court refused to interfere with a GST demand raised against a trader, who failed to either appear for personal hearing or even file a reply.
Title: SOHAIL MALIK v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 957
The Delhi High Court ruled that the privacy concern of a complainant cannot come in the way of an accused seeking preservation of Call Detail Records which is claimed to be exculpatory evidence.
“Preservation of exculpatory evidence is of the utmost sanctity for purposes of ensuring a fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India; and a narrow construction or interpretation of section 91 Cr.P.C. must not stand in the way of preservation of such evidence, whilst of course leaving it to the trial court to subsequently decide whether such evidence is relevant and admissible,” Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said.
Case Title – PEC Ltd v. Ms Badri Singh Vinimay Pvt Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 958
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar while upholding an arbitral award has observed that if the parties had agreed to transact goods on 'as is where is' basis in the tender document but agreed in the acceptance letter that the goods would be transacted on 'sound condition' basis, then the earlier agreement will stand substituted by the latter understanding between the parties and the goods will be transacted on 'sound condition' basis.
Case title: Azam v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 959
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that dimension or type of knife used to threaten a person of injury is irrelevant for the purpose of attracting the offence of Section 397 IPC.
The provision states that if, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.
Case title: Court On Its Own Motion v. Dhanraj & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 960
The Delhi High Court found flaws in the investigation and subsequent trial conducted into the killings of three Sikh men in Delhi NCR region, following assasination of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
Case title: M/S Exclusive Capital Limited v. Clover Media Private Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 961
The Delhi High Court has held that the expression “contemplates urgent interim relief” under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act 2015 though not defined under the statute, demands a rigorous scrutiny of commercial suits bypassing mandatory mediation to ensure that the benefit of exemption under the provision is not misused by unscrupulous litigants.
Case title: ADVOCATE MANISH KUMAR V/s UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 962
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a plea questioning the vires of extension of SC/ST reservation benefits to those who have converted from Hinduism to Buddhism, after noting that the document in question which allegedly provides such benefits was not placed before it.
Case title: Aditya Rai Gupta v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 963
The Delhi High Court slammed a Magistrate Court for conducting a “sham” trial within two days, where the accused was neither aware of the charges, nor given an opportunity to defend himself and not even supplied a copy of the Judgment.
Case title: AMAN SINGH V/s MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI THORUGH ITS COMMISSIONER & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 964
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a PIL claiming "illegal establishments" were being run on certain land, after noting that the petitioner had filed the plea within 10 days of filing his representation with the MCD on July 23 without waiting for a response.
Case title: Narender v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 965
The Delhi High Court denied anticipatory bail to a man accused of using a child for transporting 450 quarters of illicit liquor.
In doing so, Justice Girish Kathpalia said,
“Over a period of time, it is being observed that criminals use children to commit wide ranging crimes, involving not just liquor and drugs peddling but also arms/ammunitions and even acts of extreme violence, which is leading the society to consider re-fixing the age of juvenility.”
Case title: Satya Pal Singh v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 966
The Delhi High Court has reinstated an Air Force Accounts Auditor who was compulsorily retired from service following his conviction for dowry harassment under Section 498A of IPC.
Title: PRINCE TYAGI AND ANR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 967
The Delhi High Court has ruled that family disapproval cannot curtail the autonomy of two consenting adults to choose life partners.
“The right of two consenting adults to choose each other as life partners and to live together in peace is a facet of their personal liberty, privacy, and dignity protected under Article 21. Family disapproval cannot curtail that autonomy,” Justice Sanjeev Narula said.
Case title: CCS Computers Pvt Ltd v. NDMC
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 968
The Delhi High Court has held that a company can be blacklisted from future tenders if its employee, authorised to submit the bid forges the documents submitted, irrespective of the company management's knowledge regarding such forgery.
Title: MOHAMMAD SHAHNOOR MANSOORI v. STATE OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 969
The Delhi High Court has observed that the choice to marry across lines of faith is the autonomy of the individual and is immune from external veto.
Case title: Sachindra Priyadarshi v. State Of NCT Of Delhi Through The Chief Secretary
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 970
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that where a rape survivor has given detailed accounts of the alleged sexual assaults by the accused, here mere refusal to undergo internal medical examination doesn't materially affect prosecution case at the stage of framing charges.
Title: STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) v. GAURANG KADYAN
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 971
The Delhi High Court has observed that continuing physical relations with a woman knowing that the marriage is impossible, based on a false promise to marry from the inception, would constitute the offence of rape.
Case title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 v. Xiocom (Nz) Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 972
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that consideration paid by an Indian entity to a foreign company for the resale/ use of their computer software is not 'royalty'.
Case title: Aadya Antya v. High Court Of Delhi Through Registrar General
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 973
The Delhi High Court has held that in terms of the Delhi Judicial Services Rules 1970, if all the vacancies of judicial officers are initially filled and subsequently, an appointed judge resigns, then such vacancies are treated as fresh vacancies which cannot be filled by a candidate next-in-line in the waitlist.
Title: Lakshay Vij v. ED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 974
The Delhi High Court has observed that special court cannot take cognizance of the complaint filed by Enforcement Directorate (ED) without giving opportunity of hearing to the accused.
Title: GAINDA LAL v. STATE & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 975
While upholding discharge of a husband and his family members in a dowry death and cruelty case, the Delhi High Court has observed merely because the deceased was seen crying cannot per se make out any case of dowry harassment.
Title: DRAGON BOAT INDIA AND TRADITIONAL SPORTS FEDERATION v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 976
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to ask the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir to include “Dragon Boat Racing” as a competitive sport in the Khelo India Water Sports Festival, scheduled to be held from August 21-23 at Dal Lake, Srinagar.
Case Title: Neosky India Limited & Anr. v. Mr. Nagendran Kandasamy & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 977
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that post-service restrictive covenants in employment contracts, which operate after cessation of employment, are void and are not enforceable under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (“Contract Act”) and violate Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The court vacated the injunction granted in an application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), which restrained the Respondents from engaging in a competing business post-termination of their employment agreements.
Title: RAJASTHAN EQUESTRAIN ASSOCIATION v. EQUESTRIAN FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 978
The Delhi High Court has restrained the Equestrian Federation of India (EFI) from holding Extra-Ordinary General Meeting (EOGM) on Sunday, citing “serious disputes” in the overall functioning of the Federation.
“It is evident that there are serious disputes about virtually every facet of the functioning and current state of affairs of the EFI,” Justice Sachin Datta said in an order passed on August 13.
Case title: Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited v. Sauss Home Products Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 979
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that delay by a registered trademark holder in prosecuting alleged infringement is not a defence available to the Defendant, where it is evident that Defendant's use of impugned trademark was dishonest/ fraudulent.
Case Title: ANEJA CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) versus DOOSAN POWER SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 980
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has held that the timeline prescribed under Indian Council of Arbitration Rules, 2024 for filing a Statement of Defence by the respondent is directory in nature and can be extended by the Arbitral Tribunal if a sufficient cause is established.