Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 650 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 668NOMINAL INDEXMINOR S (THR. MOTHER M) v. STATE & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 650 The Ritz Hotel Limited & Ors. v. MS Hotel Ritz & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 651 Star India Pvt Ltd v. IPTV Smarter Pro & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 652 M/S Ambience Metcorp Private Limited Through Its Director Sh Sandeep Agarwal v. Central Board...
Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 650 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 668
NOMINAL INDEX
MINOR S (THR. MOTHER M) v. STATE & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 650
The Ritz Hotel Limited & Ors. v. MS Hotel Ritz & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 651
Star India Pvt Ltd v. IPTV Smarter Pro & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 652
M/S Ambience Metcorp Private Limited Through Its Director Sh Sandeep Agarwal v. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs Through Its Chairman & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 653
AKSHITA SEHRAWAT (MINOR) REPRESENT BY HER FATHER SH. DEEPAK KUMAR v. DELHI TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY (DTU) & ORS and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 654
U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd v. Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle.8, & Ors. (and batch) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 655
ANIL v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 656
ZIHAD AHMED v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 657
LALIT SHARMA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 658
X v. Y 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 659
PRASHANT PAREEK v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 660
INDIAMART INTERMESH LTD v. PUMA SE 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 661
MS SADHANA YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 662
Sunaina Rao Kommineni v. Abhiram Balusu 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 663
Karan Kumar v. State & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 664
Delhi Public School Dwarka vs. National Commission For Protection Of Child Rights And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 665
IMRAN ALI @ SAMIR v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 666
ISHRAT JAHAN v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 667
Anam Khan v. Consortium of National Law Universities and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 668
Title: MINOR S (THR. MOTHER M) v. STATE & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 650
The Delhi High Court has ruled that hospitals cannot insist on identification proof of minor rape victims for diagnostic purposes or ultrasound in medical termination of pregnancy (MTP) cases ordered by the Courts.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that hospitals and medical institutions must be sensitised that cases involving victims of sexual assault, especially minor girls, require a more responsive and sensitive approach.
Case title: The Ritz Hotel Limited & Ors. v. MS Hotel Ritz & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 651
The Delhi High Court has declared that 'Ritz' and 'Ritz Carlton' run by the Paris based Ritz Hotel Limited are “well-known” trademarks in India.
“The long duration for which the RITZ and RITZ-CARLTON marks have been in use by the plaintiffs, wide geographical area of their use, their knowledge among the general public and their goodwill and reputation due to the extensive promotion, publicity and extensive revenue generated by the plaintiffs, in India as well as other countries, the RITZ and RITZ CARLTON marks have achieved the status of well-known trademarks,” Justice Amit Bansal observed.
Case title: Star India Pvt Ltd v. IPTV Smarter Pro & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 652
In a first-of-its-kind order, the Delhi High Court has granted a limited-duration superlative injunction— an enhanced form of dynamic+ injunction— to tackle the unauthorised streaming of IPL, India's England Tour by rogue apps and websites.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee restrained the defendants from infringing Star India's exclusive streaming rights and ordered real-time relief against rogue websites and rogue mobile applications which may be discovered during the course.
Case title: M/S Ambience Metcorp Private Limited Through Its Director Sh Sandeep Agarwal v. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs Through Its Chairman & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 653
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an order in rectification proceedings must be reasoned, passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the party.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta made the observation while dealing with a petition against rejection of Petitioner's application seeking rectification of impugned demand order.
Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Open School Students Left Out Of JEE Mains Counselling
Title: AKSHITA SEHRAWAT (MINOR) REPRESENT BY HER FATHER SH. DEEPAK KUMAR v. DELHI TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY (DTU) & ORS and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 654
The Delhi High Court has granted relief to various students who got registered with National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) and were left out of JEE-Mains 2025 counselling process as their result for class XII examination was not declared.
Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that students put hard labour for two to four years, or may be more, while preparing for JEE (Mains) and they should not get ousted from consideration in the counselling despite having attained good percentile and rank only on the ground that result of class XII has not been timely declared by the concerned education Board.
Case title: U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd v. Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle.8, & Ors. (and batch)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 655
A larger bench of the Delhi High Court will decide whether Section 149(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961, inserted vide a 2012 amendment to provide an extended period of reassessment for cases involving foreign assets, applies retrospectively.
Section 149(1)(c) prescribes that reassessment notice in respect of any income in relation to any asset located outside India, which had escaped assessment, is not proscribed for a period of 16 years from the end of the assessment year in which such income was chargeable to tax.
Title: ANIL v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 656
While dismissing a plea alleging illegal construction at a property with Rs. 50,000 costs, the Delhi High Court has deprecated filing of frivolous petitions with no direct interest in the matter.
Justice Mini Pushkarna observed that the litigant had no connection with the property, was living 10 kms away from it and the only ground for filing the petition was that he had the same street while coming and going to the office.
Title: ZIHAD AHMED v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 657
While quashing a POCSO case, the Delhi High Court has directed the accused to do community service for a month at Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital while also asking him to pay Rs. 50,000 costs to be deposited towards “Army Welfare Fund Battle Casualties.”
Title: LALIT SHARMA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 658
As elections to the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) and all bar associations in the national capital have been successfully concluded, the Delhi High Court has closed a petition on the issue.
A full bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh, Justice Navin Chawla and Justice C Hari Shankar disposed of a plea plea in which directions were issued from time to time regarding conduct of elections to the Delhi High Court Bar Association as also the various Bar Associations in the District Courts.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 659
The Delhi High Court has observed that personal loans or EMIs are voluntary obligations which cannot override the obligation of an earning spouse to maintain the other spouse or the child.
A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar said that deductions such as house rent, electricity charges, repayment of personal loans, premiums towards life insurance, or EMIs for voluntary borrowings do not qualify as legitimate deductions for the purpose of maintenance.
Title: PRASHANT PAREEK v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 660
The Delhi High Court has quashed the FIR registered against a man accused of causing discomfort to a fellow flight passenger by constantly staring at her.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja noted that a settlement was reached between the parties and the prosecution also had no objection to the same.
Title: INDIAMART INTERMESH LTD v. PUMA SE
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 661
The Delhi High Court has set aside a single judge ruling to the extent of restraining Indiamart from providing registered trademark “PUMA” in respect of the goods as search options in its drop down menu presented to prospective sellers at the time of their registration on the e-commerce platform.
Title: MS SADHANA YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 662
The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea filed by a candidate who was unable to give Common University Entrance Test (UG) Exam conducted by National Testing Agency (NTA) as she reached the examination centre beyond the gate closing timings, as prescribed in the admit card.
A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that in the conduct of such a large-scale examination, leniency would lead to chaos and the discipline of the examination ought to be maintained.
Case title: Sunaina Rao Kommineni v. Abhiram Balusu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 663
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that when a minor child is forcefully shifted by one of the parents warring for the child's custody, such shift would not grant territorial jurisdiction for granting guardianship to such parent.
Case title: Karan Kumar v. State & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 664
The Delhi High Court granted relief to a POCSO convict, noting that the prosecution failed to establish beyond doubt that the survivor was a minor at the time of alleged offence.
Justice Amit Sharma observed that the survivor's date of birth mentioned in her school register was not on the basis of any proof of birth document issued by any Corporation or a Municipal Authority or a Panchayat. Rather, the entry was made based on what was conveyed by her parents.
Case title: Delhi Public School Dwarka vs. National Commission For Protection Of Child Rights And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 665
Calling it a reprehensible practice, the Delhi High Court expressed its dismay at the conduct of Delhi Public School (DPS) Dwarka engaging “bouncers” to physically block entry of students over the issue of fee hike.
Justice Sachin Datta made the observation while disposing of an application filed by parents of various students who were expelled by the school for non payment of fees.
Delhi High Court Suggests Use Of Technology While Probing NDPS Cases, Says It Assures 'Fairness'
Title: IMRAN ALI @ SAMIR v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 666
The Delhi High Court has mooted the use of technology while investigating cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja said that the use of technology in such cases enhances the efficacy and transparency of the police investigation and assures fairness.
Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Widow, Orders Status Quo On Batla House Property Facing Demolition
Title: ISHRAT JAHAN v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 667
The Delhi High Court has granted relief to a widow and ordered status quo on her property in city's Batla House area facing demolition.
Vacation judge, Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, listed the matter on July 10 while asking the authorities to maintain status quo on her property.
CLAT PG : Delhi High Court Finds Errors In Two Questions; Asks NLU Consortium To Revise Marks
Title: Anam Khan v. Consortium of National Law Universities and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 668
The Delhi High Court asked the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs) to take steps to avoid “excessive” fee charged for raising objections to questions for future examinations.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela disposed of the pleas challenging the results of Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) PG, 2025 held on December 01 last year.