Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 718 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 759NOMINAL INDEXJIOSTAR INDIA PVT. LTD. FORMERLY KNOWN AS STAR INDIA PVT. LTD v. HTTPS//CRICLK.COM & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 718 GAMESKRAFT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR v. JOHN DOE AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 719 MINOR A THR HER MOTHER S v. STATE & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 720 SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE (GOVT. OF THE NCT)...
Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 718 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 759
NOMINAL INDEX
JIOSTAR INDIA PVT. LTD. FORMERLY KNOWN AS STAR INDIA PVT. LTD v. HTTPS//CRICLK.COM & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 718
GAMESKRAFT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR v. JOHN DOE AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 719
MINOR A THR HER MOTHER S v. STATE & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 720
SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE (GOVT. OF THE NCT) OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 721
Amazon Technologies Inc v. Lifestyle Equities 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 722
Rasiklal Mohanlal Gangani v. State & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 723
SHANKESH MUTHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 724
NK v. K 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 725
Neelam Azad v. State and other connected matter 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 726
MM DHONCHAK v. UNION OF INDIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 727
Anish Sharma v. DOE GNCTD & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 728
VIP Industries Ltd v. Carlton Shoes Ltd & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 729
RAJDEEP SARDESAI & ORS. V/s SHAZIA ILMI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 730
M/S Crocs Inc USA v. M/S Bata India & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 731
Jitendra Chouksey v. Union of India & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 732
Aditya Chauhan & Anr v. Union of India & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 733
X v. Y 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 734
M/S Products And Ideas (India) Pvt. Ltd v. Nilkamal Limited And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 735
AADRITI PATHAK THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL MOTHER MRS. SADHANA SHARMA v. GD GOENKA PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 736
Dabur India Limited v. Patanjali Ayurved 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 737
INSPECTOR MIN GAJENDRA KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 738
UNION OF INDIA & ORS v. COL. BALBIR SINGH (RETD.) and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 739
BELVEDERE RESOURCES DMCC v. OCL IRON AND STEEL LTD & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 740
VINOD v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 741
JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 742
AIIMS v. Minor A & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 743
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs AMAZON WEB SERVICES 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 744
Modi Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd v. Speciality Meditech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 745
Modi Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd v. Speciality Meditech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 746
PRANAV PANDEY v. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 747
Commissioner Of Service Tax Delhi v. Shyam Spectra Private Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 748
M/S Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assessing Officer, Circle 10(1) & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 749
M/S Shreehari Ananta Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner Of Customs Icd Patparganj 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 750
DAZN LIMITED & ANR vs BUFFSPORTS. ME & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 751
CONQUEROR INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR v. XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 752
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-7 v. M/S Thomson Press (India) Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 753
GNCTD v. Jyoti 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 754
M/S Viva Infraventure Pvt. Ltd. vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 755
Nand Lal Luhar And Ors v. Western Railway And Ors (and batch) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 756
Mrs Madhurbhashani & Ors v. Ranjit Singh (and connected matter) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 757
ROSHAN REAL ESTATES PVT LTD versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 758
Amrit Pal Singh v. ED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 759
Title: JIOSTAR INDIA PVT. LTD. FORMERLY KNOWN AS STAR INDIA PVT. LTD v. HTTPS//CRICLK.COM & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 718
The Delhi High Court has passed a dynamic+ injunction in favour of JioStar India Private Limited and restrained the illegal and unauthorised streaming of India Tour of England 2025.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee passed the dynamic+ injunction order to protect the copyrighted works of JioStar, as soon as they are infringed or created.
Title: GAMESKRAFT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR v. JOHN DOE AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 719
Ruling in favour of Gameskraft Technologies, the Delhi High Court has restrained various rogue websites, mobile applications and domain entities from using the registered trademarks “Playship”, “Plego”, “Ludo Select”, “Pocket 52”, “Rummy”, “Rummy Culture”, “Gameskraft” and “Culture of Champions.”
Justice Amit Bansal further restrained the defendant entities from infringing on the copyright vested with Gameskraft in the unique content of its websites- www.rummyculture.com, www.gamezy.com, www.playship.com, www.rummyprime.com, and www.pocket52.com or the apps hosted by it under the names “Rummy Culture”, “Gamezy Poker”, “Playship Rummy”, “Rummy Prime” and “Pocket52”.
Delhi High Court Allows Minor Rape Survivor To Terminate 27-Week Pregnancy
Title: MINOR A THR HER MOTHER S v. STATE & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 720
The Delhi High Court has allowed a minor rape survivor to terminate her pregnancy of approximately 27-weeks gestational period and directed the Medical Superintendent of AIIMS to make necessary arrangement for the same.
Vacation judge Justice Manoj Jain noted that the 16-year-old girl was a victim of sexual assault and was not interested in continuing with the pregnancy.
Title: SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE (GOVT. OF THE NCT) OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 721
The Delhi High Court set aside a decision of the Sentence Review Board (SRB) of Delhi Prisons denying the request for premature release made by Santosh Kumar Singh, convicted in the 1996 rape and murder case of law student Priyadarshini Mattoo in the national capital.
Singh is serving life imprisonment in the case.
Title: Amazon Technologies Inc v. Lifestyle Equities
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 722
The Delhi High Court stayed a single judge ruling asking Amazon Technologies Inc to pay Rs. 339.25 crore damages and costs for trademark infringement of the luxury lifestyle brand, Beverly Hills Polo Club.
“The considerations outlined herein above make out, in our considered opinion, an exceptional case, in which it would be a complete travesty of justice to require the Appellant Amazon Tech to deposit, or secure, any part of the amount decreed by the impugned judgment, in order to maintain its appeal,” the Bench said .
Trial Court Cannot Issue Summons To Accused Without Assigning Proper Reasons: Delhi High Court
Case title: Rasiklal Mohanlal Gangani v. State & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 723
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a trial court cannot issue a summons to an accused person without assigning proper reasons for the same.
Justice Amit Mahajan observed, “Merely taking note of the facts of the case and recording prima facie satisfaction, without giving any reasons for the same, is insufficient.”
Title: SHANKESH MUTHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 724
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC can be invoked by a 'fugitive criminal' facing proceedings under the Extradition Act, 1962.
Justice Sanjeev Narula held that an Indian citizen who apprehends arrest in India for an alleged offence committed abroad is not stripped of the protection guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Title: NK v. K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 725
Distinguishing between interim maintenance and ad-interim maintenance, the Delhi High Court has held that the latter can be granted without filing of a specific application by the concerned party and is payable from the date of the order passed by the Court and not from the date of filing of maintenance application or petition.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that Court can grant ad-interim maintenance to alleviate the hardship of the claimant, pending its decision on the grant of interim maintenance and determination of its quantum.
Case Title: Neelam Azad v. State and other connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 726
The Delhi High Court granted bail to Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat, accused in the Parliament security breach case which happened on December 13, 2023.
A division bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar granted bail to the two subject to them furnishing bail bond of Rs. 50,000 each and two sureties of like amount.
Title: MM DHONCHAK v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 727
The Delhi High Court upheld a single judge ruling upholding the extension of suspension of MM Dhonchak, a retired judicial officer and former Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Chandigarh.
A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar dismissed Dhonchak's appeal against the single judge order of March 03 dismissing his petition against the second order of extension of suspension.
Title: Anish Sharma v. DOE GNCTD & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 728
The Delhi High Court closed a PIL seeking special syllabus for children suffering from autism observing that it is a policy decision which has to be taken by the concerned authorities.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela asked the litigant, Anish Sharma, to file an appropriate representation to the authorities- Union Government, Delhi Government, CBSE, education boards and other relevant authority.
Case title: VIP Industries Ltd v. Carlton Shoes Ltd & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 729
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that goodwill, for the purposes of a passing off action, is to be shown in respect of a mark and not in respect of particular goods or a category of goods.
In stating so, a division bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul upheld a single judge order restraining luggage and travel accessories manufacturer VIP from making use of the mark 'CARLTON' with respect to any kind of bags.
Case title: RAJDEEP SARDESAI & ORS. V/s SHAZIA ILMI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 730
Journalist Rajdeep Sardesai withdrew his appeal from the Delhi High Court which was filed against a single judge ruling granting partial relief to BJP leader Shazia Ilmi in her defamation case over a video posted by Sardesai on 'X'— alleging that she abused a video journalist of India Today during a televised debate.
The single judge had confirmed an interim order passed in August last year, directing Sardesai to remove the video.
After a division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar showed reluctance to interfere in the matter, Sardesai withdrew the appeal.
Case title: M/S Crocs Inc USA v. M/S Bata India & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 731
The Delhi High Court has restored the suits filed by Crocs USA against Indian footwear brands Liberty, Bata, Relaxo, Aqualite and others for copying its distinctive clog design.
The suits were dismissed earlier by a single judge by holding that no passing off action can be found on a trade dress which is registered as a design under the Designs Act.
Title: Jitendra Chouksey v. Union of India & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 732
The Delhi High Court ordered intervention of the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) on a plea filed concerning the issue of approval of drug combinations sold in the market for weight loss treatment.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela directed the DCGI to consult experts and stakeholders, including the manufacturers of the drugs, on the issue.
Title: Aditya Chauhan & Anr v. Union of India & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 733
The Delhi High Court directed the competent authority of the Union Government to take measures and issue directions of frame Rules to ensure that the information under the Right to Information Act (2005) is provided in the mode sought by the information seeker, while also ensuring adequate safety measures.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela directed the competent authority of the Government of India to take a decision on the issue within three months.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 734
The Delhi High Court has observed that the dignity of a dependent wife and child is denied when the financial support is delayed by the husband, underscoring that even a day's lapse defeats the very purpose of maintenance.
“The very object of maintenance is defeated if its disbursal is left at the convenience of the earning spouse. Financial support delayed is dignity denied, and this Court is conscious of the fact that timely maintenance is integral to safeguarding not only subsistence but the basic dignity of those who are legally entitled to such support,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
Case title: M/S Products And Ideas (India) Pvt. Ltd v. Nilkamal Limited And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 735
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that when a trader imports and sells goods bearing the trademark of another company, such trader cannot sue another authorized dealer of the trademark holder for infringement.
Title: AADRITI PATHAK THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL MOTHER MRS. SADHANA SHARMA v. GD GOENKA PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 736
While granting relief to a child with “mild autism”, the Delhi High Court has observed that “inclusive education‟ is not merely about access to education but it is about belongingness.
“It is also about recognising that every child has a place in the classroom not because they are the same, but because they are different, and that difference enriches the learning environment for all,” Justice Vikas Mahajan observed.
Title: Dabur India Limited v. Patanjali Ayurved
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 737
he Delhi High Court restrained Patanjali Ayurved from running advertisements allegedly disparaging to Dabur's Chyavanprash product.
The Court noted that Patanjali's TVC portrayed that the existing Chyawanprash in the market are ordinary and consumers ought not to settle for ordinary products, which are not prepared in accordance with ayurvedic knowledge as they are not manufactured as per ancient ayurvedic texts and tradition.
Title: INSPECTOR MIN GAJENDRA KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 738
The Delhi High Court has upheld a rule placing restriction on the retention of General Pool Residential Accommodation (GPRA) by Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) personnel to a maximum of three years at the last place of posting, when a personnel is thereafter posted to a Non-Family Station.
Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS v. COL. BALBIR SINGH (RETD.) and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 739
The Delhi High Court has ruled that grant of disability pension to Indian Armed Forces personnel is "not an act of generosity" but a rightful "acknowledgement of their sacrifices which manifest in the form of disabilities or disorders" suffered during the course of their military service.
Title: BELVEDERE RESOURCES DMCC v. OCL IRON AND STEEL LTD & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 740
The Delhi High Court has ruled that communications between the parties through WhatsApp and emails can constitute a valid arbitration agreement.
Justice Jasmeet Singh perused Section 7(4)(b) of the Arbitration Act and said that it is not necessary for a concluded contract to be in existence for a valid arbitration agreement to be existing between the parties.
Title: VINOD v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 741
The Delhi High Court has ruled that it is unduly harsh of the prison authorities to reject the furlough applications of convicts on the ground of delay in surrender by a few says during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma said that courts and prison authorities must also remain mindful of the exceptional and unprecedented circumstances that prevailed during the pandemic.
Title: JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 742
The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea moved by Bollywood actress Jacqueline Fernandez seeking quashing of Rs. 200 crores money laundering case involving alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar.
Justice Anish Dayal said that her apprehension that any evidence would be self-incriminating cannot lead to quashing of the ECIR as statutory and constitutional protections are already provided and will have to be assessed in that rubric.
Title: AIIMS v. Minor A & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 743
A minor rape survivor, who had sought termination of her 27-week pregnancy, agreed before the Delhi High Court to carry the child after AIIMS's medical board opined that the pregnancy be prolonged to 34 weeks of gestational period for the best interest of the girl as well as the baby.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal modified a single judge's order which had earlier allowed the 16-year-old girl to terminate her pregnancy which was at 26 weeks and six days as on June 30.
Payments Made To AWS For Cloud Computing Services Not Taxable: Delhi High Court
Case Title:THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs AMAZON WEB SERVICES
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 744
The Delhi High Court has held that payments made to Amazon Web Services (AWS) for cloud computing services do not qualify as “royalty.”
The bench, comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia, upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT) decision which held that such payments are not taxable as royalties or fees for technical services (FTS).
Case title: Modi Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd v. Speciality Meditech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 745
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a registered trademark owner's claim against infringement cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the defendant could have sought removal of the mark from the trademark's register under Section 47 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 on grounds of 'non-use'.
Case title: Modi Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd v. Speciality Meditech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 746
The Delhi High Court has held that though the Trade Marks Act 1999 does not expressly recognise the concept of a 'family of marks' however, the same is judicially developed and can be invoked by a registered trademark owner to seek injunction against specific marks.
Title: PRANAV PANDEY v. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 747
Rejecting a plea challenging Paper I and Paper II of Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2023, the Delhi High Court has observed that it cannot suggest the manner in which questions are framed in a question paper, so long as there is no ambiguity in the question or the answers provided.
Case title: Commissioner Of Service Tax Delhi v. Shyam Spectra Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 748
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that an appeal from CESTAT under the Central Excise Act 1944 involving the issue of taxability will lie before the Supreme Court under Section 35L.
Case title: M/S Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assessing Officer, Circle 10(1) & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 749
The Delhi High Court set aside the reassessment action initiated against journalist Rajat Sharma's company, M/S Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd., which owns and runs the India TV channel, over alleged foreign remittances.
Case title: M/S Shreehari Ananta Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner Of Customs Icd Patparganj
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 750
Coming to the rescue of an importer, the Delhi High Court has set aside the security of ₹10 crore (approx) demanded by the Customs Department for provisional release of its perishable goods.
Calling the condition 'onerous', a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta ordered provisional release of Petitioner's imported Roasted Areca Nuts on furnishing bond of Rs.4.10 crore along with a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 50 lakh.
Delhi High Court Grants Exparte Injunction To Dazn india Against Websites Illegaly Streaming FIFA 25
Case Title: DAZN LIMITED & ANR vs BUFFSPORTS. ME & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 751
The Delhi High court has granted ex parte dynamic injunction to DAZN Ltd.the official broadcasters of the FIFA World Cup 2025 against illegal streaming rogue website.A single bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee has allowed immediate blocking of rogue websites following an ex-parte order
Title: CONQUEROR INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR v. XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 752
The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited in a patent infringement suit filed against its “find device” technology, which helps users to locate, lock or erase data from their lost or stolen devices.
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-7 v. M/S Thomson Press (India) Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 753
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal preferred by the Income Tax Department against Thomson Press (India) over the sale of a property in Noida back in 2013, allegedly at a price much lower than the prevailing circle rate.
Case title: GNCTD v. Jyoti
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 754
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that where the OBC certificate is issued to a person from a backward community only for applying to posts under the Central government, such a certificate cannot be used to claim reservation to posts notified by the Delhi government.
Case Title: M/S Viva Infraventure Pvt. Ltd. vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 755
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that an 'exclusive jurisdiction clause' in the arbitration agreement unequivocally denotes the 'seat' of arbitration. The court observed that any contrary determination made by the Arbitrator without the express written consent of the parties only relates to a 'venue' under Section 20(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court therefore dismissed the Section 29A(5) petition due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Case title: Nand Lal Luhar And Ors v. Western Railway And Ors (and batch)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 756
The Delhi High Court recently upheld the action of Railways in bifurcating the posts reserved for visually impaired candidates into two categories— one which could be held by both low vision (LV) and blind candidates and the other which could be held only by LV but not blind candidates.
Case title: Mrs Madhurbhashani & Ors v. Ranjit Singh (and connected matter)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 757
The Delhi High Court raised concerns over the trend of financially well-off tenants continuing to occupy the landlord's property for decades altogether, while parting with a very meagre rent.
Irked by mere ₹40 rent paid by the Respondent-tenants in Delhi's Sadar Bazar area, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani ordered their eviction.
Case Title: ROSHAN REAL ESTATES PVT LTD versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 758
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that if any person had any professional or supervisory relationship with the party to the Arbitration, such person cannot be appointed as an Arbitrator as per Entry 1 of the Seventh Schedule. It does not matter whether such a relationship existed over 17 years ago but the real test is whether such a relationship created a reasonable apprehension of bias. Accordingly, the mandate of the Arbitrator was terminated in the present case.
Case title: Amrit Pal Singh v. ED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 759
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that foreign recipients of proceeds of crime are not exempted from scrutiny under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, on a mere ground of 'contractual legitimacy' of transactions.