Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 760 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 783NOMINAL INDEXM/S LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED. Versus RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 760 CELEBI AIRPORT SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v/s UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 761 Raheja Developers Limited v. Ahluwalia Contractors India Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 762 STATE v. YOGESH @ GOLU & ANR 2025 LiveLaw...
Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 760 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 783
NOMINAL INDEX
M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED. Versus RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 760
CELEBI AIRPORT SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v/s UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 761
Raheja Developers Limited v. Ahluwalia Contractors India Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 762
STATE v. YOGESH @ GOLU & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 763
RAM KAWAR GARG versus BAJAJ CAPITAL INVESTOR SERVICES LIMITED NOW NEW NAME IS JUST TRADE SECURITIES LIMITED AND ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 764
BIRKENSTOCK IP GMBH v. ASHOK KUMAR(S)/JOHN DOE(S) & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 765
AAKASH DEEP CHOUHAN v. CBI & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 766
GNCTD v. Nisha 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 767
Saurav Das & Ors v. CIC 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 768
Rahnuma & Ors. v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 769
UPENDRA NATH DALAI v. UNION OF INDIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 770
Gulshan Babbar Advocate v. GNCTD (and batch) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 771
SURENDRA KUMAR v. CBI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 772
Mubina v. Commissioner of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 773
Dr Aastha Raj v. National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 774
SAGIR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 775
MAULANA ARSHAD MADANI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 776
SHIV SHANKAR v. STATE & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 777
Asociacion De Productores De Pisco A.G v. Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 778
DIVYANSHI KHANNA (MINOR) THROUGH HER LEGAL GUARDIAN & ORS v. HOCKEY INDIA & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 779
RUSHANT MALHOTRA & ORS v. THE GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 780
SHANKAR v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 781
AXIS MAX LIFE INSURANCE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 782
RAJAB ALI KHAN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 783
Case Title: M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED. Versus RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 760
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has held that clauses of the contract giving an advantage to the employer over the contractor in claiming damages, if not questioned before the Arbitral Tribunal or at the time of formation or execution of the contract, cannot be questioned under section 34 of the Arbitration Act as the parties are deemed to have knowingly incorporated such clauses in the contract.
Case title: CELEBI AIRPORT SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v/s UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 761
The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea by Turkey based company Celebi Airport Services Private Limited challenging the decision of Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) revoking its security clearance in the "interest of national security".
Case Name: Raheja Developers Limited v. Ahluwalia Contractors India Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 762
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri while hearing amendment petition filed u/s 34 of the A&C Act observed that the omission to plead a ground of challenge in the original Section 34 petition pertaining to non-adherence to the mandatory procedure of Section 29A would not oust the jurisdiction of the Section 34 Court to scrutinize the same. The Court held that the amendments sought in the present application fall within the exceptions carved out by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction.
Title: STATE v. YOGESH @ GOLU & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 763
The Delhi High Court has observed that State's delay in filing appeals in serious criminal offences prejudices the victim's right to fair adjudication of allegations, especially where the victim comes from marginalized or economically weaker sections of society.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that Courts must remain sensitive to the said factor while adjudicating applications for condonation of delay in criminal cases involving serious offences.
Case Title: RAM KAWAR GARG versus BAJAJ CAPITAL INVESTOR SERVICES LIMITED NOW NEW NAME IS JUST TRADE SECURITIES LIMITED AND ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 764
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that although the National Stock Exchange (NSE) Bye Laws do not provide for the automatic termination of the Arbitrator's mandate after the expiry of the time period stipulated under Bye Law 7(b) of the NSE Bye Laws, the mandate of the Arbitrator can be terminated by the Relevant Authority if the Arbitrator fails to pass the award within time thereby indirectly limiting the arbitrator's mandate. This shows that the intent and spirit of both the NSE Bye-Laws and the Arbitration Act is the same as both prescribe for the termination of the arbitrator's mandate if timely award is not passed.
Title: BIRKENSTOCK IP GMBH v. ASHOK KUMAR(S)/JOHN DOE(S) & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 765
While passing a john doe order in favour of footwear brand Birkenstock, the Delhi High Court has ordered inspection by local commissioners on the premises of infringer entities.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee restrained the defendants or distributors or sellers or importers or exporters or franchises from selling or marketing or dealing in the products bearing “Birkenstock” trademark or its trade dress.
Title: AAKASH DEEP CHOUHAN v. CBI & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 766
The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea filed by an accused against interception of calls and messages by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), saying that corruption has a pervasive impact on a nation's economy.
Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed the plea moved by one Aakash Deep Chouhan, challenging a trial court order framing charges against him under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He further sought directions for expunging or destruction of telephonic messages and calls allegedly unlawfully intercepted by CBI.
Case title: GNCTD v. Nisha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 767
The Delhi High Court upheld a direction to Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board not to treat the OBC certificate granted by the Delhi government to an aspirant as 'migrant', merely because it was based on her father's caste certificate issued by the UP government.
A division bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul observed,
“The certificate has to be read as it is. It does not purport to have been issued to the respondent merely because she is a migrant. It clearly states that “Nisha, Resident of (address redacted) Delhi belongs to the community JAT which is recognized as Other Backward Class...The mere fact that it has been issued on the basis of the OBC certificate issued to the respondent's father in UP does not deviate from the earlier recitals in the Certificate.”
Title: Saurav Das & Ors v. CIC
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 768
The Delhi High Court disposed of a public interest litigation seeking a direction on the Central Information Commission (CIC) to allow members of the general public as well as journalists to attend the proceedings physically as well as virtually.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal remarked the issue is not as simple as the petitioners want to portray and that the matter requires huge infrastructural investment.
Case title: Rahnuma & Ors. v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 769
The Delhi High Court has ordered the Railway Claims Tribunal to grant compensation to the heirs of a man who passed away after falling from his train.
While doing so, Justice Manoj Jain observed that it “really does not matter” that the deceased had boarded the train from the wrong side, when it was proved that he had successfully boarded the train and had fallen thereafter.
Delhi High Court Rejects PIL To Abolish Offences Of 'Waging War', 'Unlawful Assembly' From BNS 2023
Title: UPENDRA NATH DALAI v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 770
The Delhi High Court dismissed a public interest litigation seeking abolition of offences of waging war against the State and unlawful assembly from the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal remarked that it cannot direct the Parliament to abolish the provisions as that will be amounting to legislation, which is not the realm of Courts.
Case title: Gulshan Babbar Advocate v. GNCTD (and batch)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 771
The Delhi High Court dismissed with costs a batch of writ petitions seeking court-monitored ED probe into real estate company M/s IREO Residences for allegedly duping homebuyers and siphoning of funds worth over ₹4,000 crore.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora noted that the Petitioner was neither a homebuyer nor was otherwise directly or indirectly affected by the alleged acts of the company.
Delhi High Court Grants Relief To 90-Year-Old Booked In 1984 For Demanding ₹15K Bribe
Title: SURENDRA KUMAR v. CBI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 772
In a 41-year-old corruption case, the Delhi High Court has granted relief to a 90-year-old man, who remained in custody for only one day and remained on bail during pendency of trial and appeal, by commuting his sentence to the period already undergone.
Surendra Kumar, who was working in Chief Marketing Manager of the State Trading Corporation of India (STCI), was arrested in the case in 1984 over the allegations of demanding Rs. 15,000 bribe from a firm partner. Kumar was released on bail shortly after his arrest but was convicted in the case after 19 years- in 2002.
Case title: Mubina v. Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 773
The Delhi High Court has ordered the Customs Department to release the gold jewellery which was seized from a Muslim woman while she was returning from a religious pilgrimage to Mecca.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that it is normal practice in our country for women to wear basic jewellery and the same cannot be seized by the Customs Department only on the ground that it is of 24 carat purity.
Case title: Dr Aastha Raj v. National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 774
The Delhi High Court came to the rescue of a doctor, whose candidature was rejected by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences and was barred from appearing in the exam for two years, over unsubstantiated allegations of using 'unfair means' during the exam.
Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that the stigma of indulging in unfair means can adversely affect the career of a candidate and thus, the Exam authority must afford a meaningful opportunity of defence to the candidate by providing all the documents relied upon by them, including CCTV footage, if any.
Title: SAGIR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 775
The Delhi High Court has granted relief to a man, convicted for life in 2003 rape and murder case of an 8 year old, whose plea for premature release was rejected by the Sentence Review Board (SRB).
Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that while the crime committed by the convict was gruesome, but he was awarded life imprisonment for the same and had already spent 24 years in jail.
Title: MAULANA ARSHAD MADANI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 776
The Delhi High Court stayed the release of the controversial movie "Udaipur Files : Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder", allowing Islamic clerics body Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind and other petitioners to approach the Central Government in revision against the certification granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for the movie.
Till the Central Government took a decision on the interim relief on the petitioner's revision application, the High Court stayed the release of the film.
The film, said to be based on the 2022 murder of Udaipur-based tailor Kanhaiya Lal, was due for release tomorrow. Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, through its President Arshad Madani, approached the High Court against the film alleging that it was communally provocative and vilified the Muslim community at large.
Title: SHIV SHANKAR v. STATE & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 777
The Delhi High Court has upheld the acquittal of a wife and her family members in a case accusing them of abetting the suicide of the husband, citing lack of evidence and proof.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that it may be a case where the husband was unhappy and dejected with his marriage but no act of abetment was made out against the wife and her family members, either from the suicide note or from the testimony of the deceased's parents.
Case title: Asociacion De Productores De Pisco A.G v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 778
The Delhi High Court embarked upon the distinction of rights under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 and the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
While dealing with the GI claims of Peru and Chile-based organisations in South America over 'PISCO' for certain alcoholic beverages, Justice Mini Pushkarna observed,
“While the trademark is a private right of an individual or an entity, GI is collective right of producers in a region. The Trade Marks Act distinguishes the goods and services of one trader from others. On the other hand, GI indicates a product‟s origin from a specific geographical origin. While a trademark can be assigned, transferred or licensed, a GI cannot be assigned or transferred. The trademark belongs to one person or entity, however, GI belongs to the community/region.”
Title: DIVYANSHI KHANNA (MINOR) THROUGH HER LEGAL GUARDIAN & ORS v. HOCKEY INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 779
Hockey India recently told the Delhi High Court that the schedule for the 15th Hockey India Sub Junior Women NationalChampionship 2025 will be modified or tailored for the Delhi Hockey Team.
This was after the participation of Delhi Hockey Team was cancelled in the championship due to the team being taken off the Hockey India online portal.
Appreciating the stand taken by Hockey India, the Court disposed of the plea filed by group of sub-junior hockey players of the Delhi Hockey Team,represented by their legal guardians.
Title: RUSHANT MALHOTRA & ORS v. THE GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 780
The Delhi High Court has issued notice on a plea seeking to enhance the monthly remuneration of its law researchers from Rs. 65,000 to Rs. 80,000 along with arrears.
A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Ranjeesh Kumar Gupta said that prima facie, the Delhi Government ought to consider the approved enhancement for the LRs by the Court and take a decision in an expedited manner.
Title: SHANKAR v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 781
The Delhi High Court has rapped the Delhi Police over non-appearance and unpreparedness of its investigating officers, calling it “scant regard for liberty” in their eyes.
While dealing with an anticipatory bail plea filed in a cheating case, Justice Girish Kathpalia expressed shocked over the fact that despite repeated directions, neither the IO nor the SHO had appeared.
Title: AXIS MAX LIFE INSURANCE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 782
The Delhi High Court has restrained disclosure or transmission of confidential personal information of Axis Max Life Insurance customers on online platforms and dark web.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee passed the interim order in the suit filed by Axis Max Life Insurance Limited against an unknown entity(s) threatening that the confidential and sensitive personal data of its 20 lakh customers will be published for sale on the dark web, if it did not deal and negotiate.
Title: RAJAB ALI KHAN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 783
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to a man accused of raping and murdering a minor girl in 2018, noting that the post-mortem report provided "clear medical evidence" which revealed that it was a case of "violent and repeated sexual abuse" of the victim.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that prima facie, the strength of the material, including forensic, electronic, medical, and documentary evidence, weighed heavily against the grant of bail to the accused.