Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 696 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 717NOMINAL INDEXLATA YADAV versus SHIVAKRITI AGRO PVT. LTD & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 696 Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. A.H. Multisoft Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 697 Jasleeniqbal Sidhu & Ors. v. Union of India& Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 698 HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED v/s RSPL LIMITED 2025 LiveLaw (Del)...
Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 696 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 717
NOMINAL INDEX
LATA YADAV versus SHIVAKRITI AGRO PVT. LTD & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 696
Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. A.H. Multisoft Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 697
Jasleeniqbal Sidhu & Ors. v. Union of India& Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 698
HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED v/s RSPL LIMITED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 699
SH. RAJPAL NAURANG YADAV & ANR v. M/S. MURLI PROJECTS PVT. LTD & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 700
SHAILENDRA BHATNAGAR v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 701
Dominos IP Holder LLC & Anr. v. M/S. Domnics Pizza & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 702
Sanjay Kaul v. The Income Tax Officer Ward 24 (4), New Delhi & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 703
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. M/S K.R. Pulp And Papers Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 704
T.V. TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. GOOGLE LLC & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 705
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v. Shri Ganesh Motor Body Repairs & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 706
Varun Tyagi v. Daffodil Software Private Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 707
Dazn DAZN Limited v. Buffsports. Me & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 708
BHAVREEN KANDHARI v. SHRI C. D. SINGH AND ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 709
Suraj Kanojia v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 710
Sandeep Garg v. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii Avato Ward 66 Zone 4 Delhi2025 LiveLaw (Del) 711
Minor Victim Through Neetu Chadha v. Meta Platforms Inc & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 712
SS Enterprises Vs Office of the Commissioner, Central Tax Delhi West & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 713
Kushi v. State NCT of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 714
DIN DAYAL AGRAWAL HUF versus CAPRISO FINANCE LTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 715
M/s MAHAVIR PRASAD GUPTA AND SONS versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 716
Pret Study by Janak Fashions Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner, CGST 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 717
Case Title: LATA YADAV versus SHIVAKRITI AGRO PVT. LTD & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 696
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Amit Mahajan has held that the mere reference to certain assets in a provisional attachment order does not, by itself, oust the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. Similarly, the pendency of parallel investigations by the CBI or ED into allegations of fraud does not bar the arbitrator from adjudicating the dispute. Arbitration proceedings can continue independently, even when some aspects of the subject matter are under criminal investigation.
Case title: Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. A.H. Multisoft Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 697
The Delhi High Court rejected the appeal preferred by the Income Tax Department against an ITAT order allowing the valuation of a software company's unquoted equity shares by discounted cash flow [DCF] method.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia held that DCF method “is one of the methods that can be adopted by the Assessee under Rule 11UA(2)(b) of the [Income Tax] Rules for determining the FMV of unquoted equity shares in a company in which public are not substantially interested.”
Case title: Jasleeniqbal Sidhu & Ors. v. Union of India& Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 698
The Delhi High Court came to the rescue of an Australia-based couple, who were precluded from taking their adopted son back to the country for over 4 years, due to inaction of CARA (Central Adoption Resource Authority).
Justice Sachin Datta observed that the Adoption Deed was executed in 2020 and thus directed the Authority to forthwith issue a NOC enabling the Petitioner-couple to take the child with them.
Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of Phrases 'Derogatory' To Surf Excel From Ghadi Detergent's Ads
Case Title: HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED v/s RSPL LIMITED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 699
The Delhi High Court in an interim order has ordered removal of phrases which are “derogatory” to Surf Excel detergent from the advertisements issued by Ghadi detergent powder.
Vacation judge Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that though comparative advertising by itself could be healthy, remarks that are derogatory and defamatory, would not be permissible.
Title: SH. RAJPAL NAURANG YADAV & ANR v. M/S. MURLI PROJECTS PVT. LTD & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 700
The Delhi High Court alowed Bollywood actor Rajpal Naurang Yadav to travel abroad to Melbourne, Australia between June 27 to July 5 for attending promotional events of the film “Mera Kale Rang Da Yaar”.
Vacation judge Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta permitted Yadav to travel abroad from June 27 to July 05, subject to him furnishing an FDR of Rs. 1 lakh which shall be deposited with the Court's Registry.
Title: SHAILENDRA BHATNAGAR v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 701
The Delhi High Court has issued directions for laying down a new sewer line across AIIMS premises to control the waterlogging in Green Park Extension and surrounding areas in the national capital.
A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the new sewer line is required to be laid across AIIMS Residential complex, considering the required extent of land and the overarching public interest involved in the matter.
Case title: Dominos IP Holder LLC & Anr. v. M/S. Domnics Pizza & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 702
The Delhi High Court has restrained fifteen entities from infringing the trademark of famous pizza chain Domino's or its erstwhile trade name Dominick's Pizza, by using deceptively similar marks.
In doing so, Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that in disputes involving edible products, the threshold for establishing deceptive similarity is lower than that applied in other cases.
Case title: Sanjay Kaul v. The Income Tax Officer Ward 24 (4), New Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 703
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Income Tax Department cannot issue reassessment notice to an assessee based on general information shared by its Investigation Wing, until the Assessing Officer forms definite 'reason to believe' escapement of income.
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. M/S K.R. Pulp And Papers Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 704
The Delhi High Court rejected Revenue's appeal against deletion of additions made to the income of an assessee-company alleged to have evaded tax, observing that the AO had already scrutinised the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders and in the absence of any additional material coming to light, reassessment action could not have been initiated.
Title: T.V. TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. GOOGLE LLC & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 705
The Delhi High Court has ordered Google LLC to take down a “fake” YouTube channel using news clipping, videos and deepfake impersonations of Anjana Om Kashyap, anchor and Managing Editor (Special Projects) of Aaj Tak news channel.
Vacation judge Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that such fake YouTube pages or fake profiles being made using the goodwill of Kashyap and the news channel, including their, reputation and personality would be contrary to law.
Case title: Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v. Shri Ganesh Motor Body Repairs & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 706
The Delhi High Court issued an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining a bus manufacturer and two inter-city bus service providers, from infringing the 'grille slash' trademark of Sweden-based renowned Volvo buses.
Justice Amit Bansal noted that the Defendants deliberately and dishonestly created buses bearing lookalike of Volvo's trademark to encash upon the company's goodwill.
Case title: Varun Tyagi v. Daffodil Software Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 707
The Delhi High Court held that terms of an employment contract that imposes a restriction on right of the employee to get employed post-termination of the contract are 'void', for contrary to Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act.
Justice Tejas Karia held that after termination of employment, the non-compete clause can be invoked only to protect the confidential and proprietary information of the employer or to restrain the employee from soliciting the clients of the employer.
Case title: Dazn DAZN Limited v. Buffsports. Me & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 708
The Delhi High Court has granted Dynamic+ injunction in favour of British over-the-top sports streaming and entertainment platform Dazn Limited, restraining rogue websites from infringing its exclusive rights to air FIFA Club World Cup 2025, being played in the United States from June 14 to July 13, 2025.
A Dynamic+ injunction is granted not only in respect of content/work existing at the time of filing of suit, but also future works of the plaintiffs in which their copyright exists and is violated by rogue websites.
Title: BHAVREEN KANDHARI v. SHRI C. D. SINGH AND ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 709
The Delhi High Court issued various directions to ensure that the standard operating procedure (SOP) on felling or transplantation of trees in the national capital be "implemented in an effective manner to achieve the desired objective".
Issuing a slew of directions Justice Jasmeet Singh ordered that the DCF or Tree Officer shall be involved at the very stage of planning of a project which involves felling or transplantation of trees.
Case title:Suraj Kanojia v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 710
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an accused under the Arms Act, 1959 cannot seek default bail under Section 187(3) of the Bhartiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 merely on the ground that the chargesheet filed against him in terms of Section 193(3) BNSS, lacks the sanction to prosecute.
Sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act is mandatory to prosecute a person for offences under Sections 25/ 27.
Case title: Sandeep Garg v. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii Avato Ward 66 Zone 4 Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 711
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that if an assessee fails to respond to a show cause notice duly communicated to it on the GST portal, the Department cannot be blamed for passing an order raising demand, without hearing the assessee.
Delhi High Court Directs Meta To Pull Down Fake Instagram Accounts Posting Obscene Photos Of Minor
Case title: Minor Victim Through Neetu Chadha v. Meta Platforms Inc & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 712
Coming to the rescue of a 15-year-old minor girl, the Delhi High Court directed Meta, which owns social media platform Instagram, to take action against fake accounts posting her obscene photos.
Justice Manoj Jain further directed the platform to disclose details of the persons behind the fake accounts.
Case title: SS Enterprises Vs Office of the Commissioner, Central Tax Delhi West & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 713
The Delhi High Court has held that the provision of maximum three adjournments that can be granted to a taxpayer during the course of adjudication proceedings, cannot be construed to mean that the taxpayer must be given a minimum of three hearings.
Delhi High Court Grants 90 Days Interim Bail To Woman Booked Under POCSO Act To Care For Her Newborn
Case title: Kushi v. State NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 714
The Delhi High Court has ordered an interim release of a woman, languishing in jail for about six months in connection with a POCSO case, to enable her to take care of her new born child.
The woman was arrested on December 12 last year. She was expecting at the time and delivered a boy child in custody, on May 12.
Meanwhile, chargesheet came to be filed against her alleging offences under Sections 363/366/370/376/354A IPC, Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act and Section 81 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
Case Title: DIN DAYAL AGRAWAL HUF versus CAPRISO FINANCE LTD
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 715
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja has held that if a proper application is filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court must refer the parties to arbitration and may reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) as barred by law. However, if no such application is filed and no prayer is made for reference to arbitration, the mere existence of an arbitration clause is not sufficient to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Case Title: M/s MAHAVIR PRASAD GUPTA AND SONS versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 716
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Tejas Karia and Justice Vibhu Bakhru has held that a party that unilaterally appoints an arbitrator is not prohibited from challenging the award on the ground that it violates Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration Act. Mere exercise of the power to make such an appointment does not constitute an express written waiver as required under the proviso to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act.
Case title: Pret Study by Janak Fashions Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner, CGST
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 717
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with a demand order passed by the GST Department without hearing the assessee, after noting that the assessee itself was not diligent in responding to the show cause notice or attending the personal hearing despite notice.