Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 669 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 681NOMINAL INDEXCENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION v. PREMA EVELYN D CRUZ AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 669 Sanjay @ Sanju v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 670 Amanatullah Khan v. DDA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 671 Oswaal Books And Learnings Private Limited v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 672 Vikram Yadav v. State Govt of NCT...
Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 669 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 681
NOMINAL INDEX
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION v. PREMA EVELYN D CRUZ AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 669
Sanjay @ Sanju v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 670
Amanatullah Khan v. DDA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 671
Oswaal Books And Learnings Private Limited v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 672
Vikram Yadav v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 673
Shabir Ahmad Shah v NIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 674
Vikram Yadav v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 675
RSPL Health Pvt. Ltd. v. Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 676
Reliance Eminent Trading And Commercial Private Limited v. DDA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 677
State Of Madhya Pradesh v. KM Shukla & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 678
M/S. Jaiprakash Hyundai Consortium v. M/S. SJVN Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 679
Newgen IT Technologies Limited v. Newgen Software Technologies Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 680
HINDUSTAN HYDRAULICS PVT. LTD versus UNION OF INDIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 681
Title: CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION v. PREMA EVELYN D CRUZ AND ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 669
The Delhi High Court has observed that the record of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) cannot be at variance with the passport as it would create doubt in the mind of anyone regarding an individual's employment or immigration.
A division bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said that the citizen of the Country is entitled to a true and correct narration of all necessary and relevant particulars in the public documents that pertain to them.
Case title: Sanjay @ Sanju v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 670
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed upon a 24 years old boy for committing rape upon a 60 years old woman.
In doing so, Justice Sanjeev Narula rejected the youth's plea that in the absence of the “Electropherogram” report, the DNA evidence was insufficient to corroborate the Prosecutrix's version.
Batla House Demolitions : Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan's PIL
Title: Amanatullah Khan v. DDA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 671
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain Aam Aadmi Party MLA Amanatullah Khan's PIL against DDA's proposed demolition action in the city's Batla House area.
A division bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia and Justice Tejas Karia expressed that only individual residents can claim that their property does not fall within specified area of proposed demolition site.
It thus permitted Khan to withdraw the plea with liberty to inform the residents of their right to move the appropriate forum, in 3 working days.
Can Commonly Used Slogans Like “One For All” Be Trademarked? Delhi High Court Answers
Case title: Oswaal Books And Learnings Private Limited v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 672
The Delhi High Court has held that slogans, particularly those which are descriptive or commonly used phrases, face a significantly high threshold for registration of trademark— unless they have acquired a secondary meaning.
Justice Mini Pushkarna held thus while denying relief to Oswaal Books, which publishes books for CBSE, ISC, ICSE Karnataka Board, JEE – Mains & Advanced, NEET, CAT and CLAT, in its appeal against rejection of Trade Mark Application for “ONE FOR ALL” mark.
Case title: Vikram Yadav v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 673
Citing Kautilya's Arthshastra which makes references to the element of reformatory policy of sentencing, the Delhi High Court directed the government to consider afresh the application for premature release of a life convict who had jumped parole.
Justice Girish Kathpali also made reference to the Vth pillar edict of Delhi Topra which refers to a statement of the emperor Asoka that he had let off prisoners 25 times during a span of 26 years.
Case Title: Shabir Ahmad Shah v NIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 674
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal moved by Kashmiri Separatist Leader Shabir Ahmed Shah challenging an NIA court's order denying bail in an alleged case of terror funding.
NIA has alleged that various accused persons conspired for raising and collecting funds for causing disruption in the Kashmir valley and to wage war against the government of India. Shah was arrested in June 2019 and he was arrayed as an accused in the second supplementary chargesheet filed by NIA on October 04, 2019.
The allegations against him are that he played a key role in building a separatist movement in Jammu and Kashmir, paying tribute to family of slain terrorists, receiving money through hawala transactions and raising funds through LOC trade used to “fule subversive and militant activities.”
Case title: Vikram Yadav v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 675
The Delhi High Court took exception to the practice of members of Sentence Review Board (SRB), appointed in their official capacity, not personally attending SRB meetings and rather sending their representatives.
Justice Girish Kathpali was dealing with the case of a life convict, whose successive applications for premature release were rejected by the SRB
Case title: RSPL Health Pvt. Ltd. v. Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 676
The Delhi High Court has rejected an appeal preferred by RSPL Health Private Limited, alleging that Sun Pharma had adopted a trademark for its medicinal products, which is deceptively similar to RSPL's menstrual product line.
Rejecting the appeal against denial of interim injunction by a single judge, the division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur observed,
“there is no dispute that the appellant is using its Subject Mark for goods like sanitary napkins, sanitary towels, pads etc., while the respondents are using their Impugned Mark for medicine claimed to be giving relief against constipation. The two goods are neither allied nor cognate…the nature of goods, their trade channel, their purpose, and the intended consumers are distinct, and there is no likelihood of confusion being caused by the use of the marks for such goods.”
Case title: Reliance Eminent Trading And Commercial Private Limited v. DDA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 677
The Delhi High Court refused to pass a summary judgment in a suit moved by Reliance Eminent Trading And Commercial Private Limited against DDA, seeking a money decree of ₹4,59,73,61,098/- along with pendente lite and future interest over an auction property.
Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that since land acquisition proceedings qua the said property were declared 'lapsed' by a judicial order, the company ought to have first shown that the rightful owner is already in possession of the property, to claim refund of consideration amount paid by it.
Case title: State Of Madhya Pradesh v. KM Shukla & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 678
The Delhi High Court expressed shock at the conduct of Madhya Pradesh government in “victimising” a deceased IAS cadre officer by withholding his retiral benefits of almost 7 years.
A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar observed that the officer was first victimized back in the year 2000, when he was misallocated Chhattisgarh cadre upon reorganization of MP.
Case Title: M/S. Jaiprakash Hyundai Consortium v. M/S. SJVN Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 679
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia has held that the recommendations of the Dispute Review Board (DRB) rendered under a contract constitute an arbitral award which is enforceable as a decree under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court further held that the limitation for enforcement begins from the date of the award, not from the date of the judgment declaring it as an 'award'.
Case title: Newgen IT Technologies Limited v. Newgen Software Technologies Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 680
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an entity cannot seek to set aside an interim injunction passed against it in a trademark infringement suit, merely because its business or IPO launch is jeopardized due to such injunction.
Case Title: HINDUSTAN HYDRAULICS PVT. LTD versus UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 681
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Kunar Ohri has held that the petitioner cannot take advantage of apparent inconsequential errors and fumbles to challenge the award. Inconsequential errors in the award cannot be a ground to challenge otherwise judicious and reasoned award.