Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 24 To March 30, 2025

Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 353 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 394

NOMINAL INDEX

FAITH CONSTRUCTIONS versus N.W.G.E.L CHURCH 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 353

F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE AG & ANR v. NATCO PHARMA LIMITED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 354

CREATIVELAND ADVERTISING PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. WINZO GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 355

SIDDHARTH SOOD versus MUNISH KUMAR AGGARWAL 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 356

Bridgestone Corporation vs. M/S Merlin Rubber 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 357

Jai Durga Rubberised Fabrics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 358

Sai Kiran Goud Tirupathi v. Commissioner Of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 359

AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 360

Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. Indian Broadcasting Foundation 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 361

ASHLOK v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matter 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 362

Paras Products v. Commissioner Central Gst, Delhi North (and batch) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 363

Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 364

Husky Injection Molding Systems Shanghai Ltd & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 365

Lavkush Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 366

SUNEHRI BAGH BUILDERS PVT LTD versus DELHI TOURISM AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 367

RADICO KHAITAN LIMITED versus HARISH CHOUHAN 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 368

APPLAUSE ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED v. WWW.9XMOVIES.COM.TW & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 369

Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Raj Belts & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 370

M/S GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD versus S.C WADHWA AND SONS (HUF) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 371

Ivy Entertainment Private Limited vs. HR Pictures 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 372

MS. RUCHI KALRA & Ors v. SLOWFORM MEDIA PVT. LTD & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 373

SH VIJAI PRATAP SINGH v. DELHI HIGH COURT, THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 374

RESILIENT INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/S BHARAT PAY AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 375

RAHUL SINGH versus BORDER SECURITY FORCE & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 376

Mohammad Arham v. Commissioner Of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 377

National Restaurant Association v. Union Of India & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 378

Ashow Swain v. Union of India & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 379

AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA versus DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 380

Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 381

Huawei Telecommunications India Company Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 2 & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 382

Mohd. Salim Khan v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 383

Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. DRI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 384

Avika Shahi And Anr vs. Medical Counselling Committee And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 385

HOSHIAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 386

SANOJ KUMAR MISHRA VS. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 387

VIKAS CHAWLA @ VICKY v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 388

M/s Dewan Chand v. Chairman cum Managing Director and Another 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 389

RAMCHANDER versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 390

The Commissioner Of Central Tax, CGST Delhi East v. M/S Simplex Infrastructure Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 391

Vedanta Limited v. CBIC 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 392

Backbone Overseas v. Assistant Commissioner Of Customs, Foreign Post Office , New Delhi And Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 393

Shiv Parkash Bansal v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-14 Delhi & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 394

Court's Jurisdiction U/S 11(6) Of A&C Act Is Decided Under CPC When No Seat Or Venue Is Specified In Arbitration Agreement: Delhi High Court

Case Title: FAITH CONSTRUCTIONS versus N.W.G.E.L CHURCH

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 353

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has held that in the absence of a specified seat or venue in the Arbitration Agreement, the court's jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) is determined by Sections 16 to 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). The relevant factors include where the respondent resides or conducts business and where the cause of action arose.

Availability Of Drug For Rare Diseases At Economical Prices Material Factor To Be Considered Before Restraining Via Interim Injunction: Delhi HC

Title: F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE AG & ANR v. NATCO PHARMA LIMITED

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 354

The Delhi High Court has observed that availability of a drug for treatment of rare diseases at economical and competitive prices is a material factor to be considered for grant of interim injunction in an intellectual property right (IPR) lawsuit.

Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitrator's Refusal Of Injunction Against Use Of Tagline "Jeeto Har DinZo" By Winzo Games

Case Title: CREATIVELAND ADVERTISING PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. WINZO GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 355

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has upheld the findings of the Arbitrator, who refused to grant an injunction restraining Winzo Games Private Limited (“Respondent”) from using the tagline “Jeeto Har DinZo” developed by Creativeland Advertising Private Limited (“Appellant”).

Execution Of Gift Deed After Arbitral Award Was Passed Indicates Attempt To Frustrate Rights Of Decree Holder, Not Bona Fide Conduct: Delhi HC

Case Title: SIDDHARTH SOOD versus MUNISH KUMAR AGGARWAL

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 356

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has held that the execution of the Gift Deed by the petitioner after an arbitral award is passed suggests an attempt to frustrate the rights of the decree-holder.

Delhi HC Awards ₹34.41 Lakh Damages To Japanese Automobile Tyres Manufacturer 'Bridgestone' Over Trademark Infringement By Indian Firm

Case title: Bridgestone Corporation vs. M/S Merlin Rubber

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 357

The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favour of the Japanese company, Bridgestone Corporation, against trademark infringement of its 'Bridgestone' mark by a similar business manufacturing tyres and tubes for automobiles under 'Brimestone' mark.

'Comedy Of Errors': Delhi HC On CESTAT Passing Contradictory Orders In Appeal Which Did Not Meet Its Pecuniary Jurisdiction

Case title: Jai Durga Rubberised Fabrics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 358

The Delhi High Court took a critical view of the Customs Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi for repeatedly passing contradictory orders in an appeal, which should have been dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.

Delhi High Court Orders Customs To Release 'Name Engraved' Gold Jewellery Of Indian Tourist

Case title: Sai Kiran Goud Tirupathi v. Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 359

The Delhi High Court has ordered the Customs Department to release the gold kada of an Indian tourist, which was seized upon his return to the country after a visit to the Republic of Mali.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Disturb Allotment Of Land To Political Parties Which Was Initially Allotted To Airport Authority Of India

Title: AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 360

The Delhi High Court has refused to disturb the allotment of a land measuring 2.0524 acres in city's Vasant Vihar area to three political parties, for construction of their party offices, which was earlier allotted to the Airports Authority of India (AAI) but was later cancelled in 2002 by the Union Government.

Application Of Funds By Indian Broadcasting Foundation In BARC Is Not For Profit, Exempted U/S 11 & 12 Of Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court

Case title: Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. Indian Broadcasting Foundation

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 361

In an order bringing relief to the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), which was incorporated to protect the interests of various stakeholders in the field of television broadcasting, the Delhi High Court allowed the body to claim exemption from payment of tax under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Requests By Victims Of Sexual Violence For Exemption To Appear Can't Be Treated At Par With Requests Of Hardened Criminals: Delhi HC

Title: ASHLOK v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 362

The Delhi High Court has observed that requests made by victims of sexual violence to exempt them from appearing in court cannot be treated at par with such requests of hardened criminals.

Vos Technologies Judgment On Time Bound Adjudication Of SCNs Applicable To Recovery Proceedings U/S 11A Of Central Excise Act: Delhi High Court

Case title: Paras Products v. Commissioner Central Gst, Delhi North (and batch)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 363

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 11A of the Central Excise Act 1944, which empowers taxing authorities to recover duties not levied/ short-levied or short-paid, is pari materia to corresponding provisions of the Customs Act, the Finance Act and the CGST Act.

Delhi High Court Allows MP Engineer Rashid To Attend Parliament 'In-Custody', Can't Use Phone Or Interact With Media

Title: Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 364

The Delhi High Court has allowed jailed Jammu and Kashmir MP Engineer Rashid to attend the second part of the Parliamentary session from March 26 to April 04 “in-custody”.

Determination Of Anti-Dumping Duties Is A Time-Bound Process By Competent Authority, Writ Courts Will Be Hesitant To Interfere: Delhi HC

Case title: Husky Injection Molding Systems Shanghai Ltd & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 365

The Delhi High Court has held that writ petitions challenging the determination of anti-dumping duties by Directorate General of Trade Remedies are maintainable however, since the determination is a time bound process, Courts will not readily interfere in the process.

Delhi High Court Rejects PIL Alleging Vulgarity In Honey Singh's Song 'Maniac', Asks Litigant To Avail Civil Or Criminal Remedies

Title: Lavkush Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 366

The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) against singer Honey Singh's latest song “Maniac”, alleging that it portrays women as “sexual objects” and uses vulgar words.

Court Cannot Interfere In Arbitration Proceedings At Final Stage, When Sufficient Opportunity Has Been Given To Claimant To Inspect Documents: Delhi HC

Case Title: SUNEHRI BAGH BUILDERS PVT LTD versus DELHI TOURISM AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 367

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Jain has upheld the order passed by the Arbitrator whereby an application seeking production of certain documents has been dismissed. The court held that sufficient opportunity had been given to the claimant, but he didn't avail that opportunity. Thus, the court cannot interfere with the order of the arbitrator at the final stage.

Acceptance Of Goods Delivered Under Tax Invoice Amounts To Accepting Terms Governing It, Including Arbitration Clause: Delhi High Court

Case Title: RADICO KHAITAN LIMITED versus HARISH CHOUHAN

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 368

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has held that the arbitration clause contained in the tax invoice itself is clear to the extent that acceptance of subject goods delivered under the invoice would amount to accepting the terms governing it, including the arbitration clause contained therein.

Delhi High Court Issues Dynamic Injunction, Permanently Restrains Rogue Websites Illegally Streaming 'Undekhi' Series

Title: APPLAUSE ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED v. WWW.9XMOVIES.COM.TW & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 369

The Delhi High Court has issued a dynamic injunction in favour of Applause Entertainment Private Limited and restrained various rogue websites illegally streaming and making available to public “Undekhi” series premiered on the digital platform 'SonyLIV'.

Delhi High Court Issues Permanent Injunction Against Shop Owners From Infringing Louis Vuitton Trademarks On Handbags, Belts

Case title: Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Raj Belts & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 370

The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favour of the French fashion brand Louis Vuitton Malletier, against trademark infringement by shop owners located in Karol Bagh.

Power To Issue Interim Orders U/S 9 Of A&C Act Not Confined Solely To Orders Which Can Be Passed Under O.39 R.1 & 2: Delhi HC

Case Title: M/S GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD versus S.C WADHWA AND SONS (HUF)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 371

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia held that the powers of the court to order interim measures of protection under Section 9 of the Act are wide and are not confined solely to orders that can be passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, the court would be guided by the principles underlying the Code. Clearly, such orders would also extend to granting the relief, if such relief is admissible on admitted facts.

Delhi High Court Stays Release Of Tamil Film 'Veera Deera Sooran' By 4 Weeks Over Alleged Breach Of Assignment Agreement

Case title: Ivy Entertainment Private Limited vs. HR Pictures

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 372

The Delhi High Court deferred the release of Tamil film starring Vikram, 'Veera Deera Sooran' by four weeks–slated to be released, over a breach of an assignment agreement by the film's producer.

After the Court granted ad-interim injunction, both the parties amicably settled the matter and filed the settlement agreement on the same day. In view of the settlement agreement, the ad-interim injunction granted on release of the film was discharged and the film was released in afternoon of 27.03.2025.

Hyperlinking Of Defamatory Article Can Attract Liability As Republication In Some Cases : Delhi High Court

Title: MS. RUCHI KALRA & Ors v. SLOWFORM MEDIA PVT. LTD & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 373

The Delhi High Court has passed a ruling adjudicating the question as to when will hyperlinking of a publication would amount to republication.

The Court said that the mode, manner and context of hyperlinking must reveal an element of independent expression, even if subtle, in addition to the mere act of hyperlinking, for it to constitute republication. “However, there can be no straight jacket formula to determine whether the hyperlink is just a reference or it is a republication. The same would have to be seen bearing in mind the facts and context of each case,” the Court said.

Delhi High Court Upholds Rule Prohibiting Retired Judges Of Other States From Applying For Senior Advocate Designation

Title: SH VIJAI PRATAP SINGH v. DELHI HIGH COURT, THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 374

The Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the rule prohibiting retired judges of other States to apply for senior advocate designation in Delhi.

Delhi High Court Grants Relief To BharatPe, Restrains Use Of 'Bharatpay' Mark And Website

Title: RESILIENT INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/S BHARAT PAY AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 375

The Delhi High Court has granted relief to fintech company “BharatPe” and restrained the use of “Bharatpay” mark as well as the domain name used for payment of utility bills, data recharge services, insurance and financial services.

Recovery Of Excess Amount Can't Be Permitted If Officer Is Not At Fault: Delhi High Court

Case Title: RAHUL SINGH versus BORDER SECURITY FORCE & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 376

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur observed that if an Officer was granted training allowance for the period he was not working as an Instructor, recovery for an excess amount at a later stage could not be permitted as it was undeniably not his fault. The Bench held that any amount recovered from the Petitioner should be refunded to him within a period of eight weeks.

S.110 Customs Act | SCN Cannot Be Issued After One Year, Detention Of Goods Impermissible: Delhi High Court

Case title: Mohammad Arham v. Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 377

The Delhi High Court has held that detention of goods by the Customs Department cannot continue beyond a period of one year, if a show cause notice was not issued to the assessee within such period.

Service Charge Is Voluntary Payment By Consumers, Can't Be Made Mandatory On Food Bills: Delhi High Court

Case Title: National Restaurant Association v. Union Of India & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 378

The Delhi High Court held that service charge and tips are voluntary payments by consumers and cannot be made compulsory or mandatory on food bills by restaurants or hotels.

Justice Prathiba M Singh thus rejected two petitions filed by Federation of Hotels and Restaurant Associations of India (FHRAI) and National Restaurant Association of India (NRAI), challenging CCPA guidelines of 2022 prohibiting hotels and restaurants from levying service charges “automatically or by default” on food bills.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Centre's Order Cancelling Academic Ashok Swain's OCI Card

Case Title: Ashow Swain v. Union of India & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 379

The Delhi High Court set aside an order issued by the Central Government cancelling the OCI card of academic and writer Ashok Swain.

However, the high court has granted liberty to the Central Government to issue fresh show cause notice to Swain.

Force Majeure Clause 'Eclipses' Contractual Terms, Existence And Duration Of Force Majeure Event To Be Determined By Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi HC

Case Title: AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA versus DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 380

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that while deciding a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, courts cannot adopt the approach of one-size-fit-for-all. Courts can interfere into the award only if it shocks the conscience of the court and is prone to adversely affect the administration of justice.

Delhi HC Asks MP Engineer Rashid To Deposit 50% Amount Demanded By Jail Authorities For Parliament Visit, ₹4 Lakh To Be Paid Within 3 Days

Title: Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 381

The Delhi High Court ordered jailed Jammu and Kashmir MP Engineer Rashid to deposit ₹4 lakh (approx) with the jail authorities, so as to attend the second part of the Parliamentary session which ends on April 04.

The figure is 50% of the total amount demanded by the jail authorities (₹8.74 lakhs) to enable his Parliament visit 'in-custody', which was ordered by the High Court on March 25.

Order Restraining Revenue From Taking Coercive Steps For Recovery Of Demand Can Interdict Adjustment Of Refunds: Delhi HC

Case title: Huawei Telecommunications India Company Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 2 & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 382

The Delhi High Court has held that when an appellate authority has asked the Income Tax Department to not take any coercive steps against an assessee for recovery of outstanding demands, the same can in some cases interdict the Department from adjusting the outstanding amount from refunds due to the assessee.

High Court Grants Interim Bail To Delhi Riots Accused To Arrange Funds For Daughter's Academic Fee

Title: Mohd. Salim Khan v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 383

The Delhi High Court granted interim bail to Mohd. Salim Khan, accused in the UAPA case alleging a larger conspiracy in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.

A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur ordered Khan's release on interim bail for 10 days in order to permit him to arrange funds for payment of academic fees of his daughter who is pursuing law from Jamia Hamdard University.

Customs Can Clone Data Of Seized Electronic Devices As Per Statutory Procedure, Need Not Retain Devices Throughout Prosecution: Delhi HC

Case title: Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. DRI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 384

The Delhi High Court has called upon the Customs Department to clone the required data from seized electronic devices of persons allegedly involved in smuggling and other violations under the Act, instead of retaining such devices throughout prosecutions.

NEET-UG | Delhi HC Rejects Plea Against MCC Withdrawing Conversion Of SC-Children/Women Seats To General Category Prior To Counselling

Case title: Avika Shahi And Anr vs. Medical Counselling Committee And Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 385

Refusing to grant relief to NEET-UG candidate who could not secure admission to MBBS course, the Delhi High Court observed that the correction of a legal error on reservation to align with constitutional principles before the commencement of the third round of counselling cannot be considered as a procedural breach or administrative fault on part of the authorities.

Terminating Services Of CAPF Personnel On Being Detected HIV Positive 'Discriminatory': Delhi High Court

Title: HOSHIAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 386

The Delhi High Court has held that termination of service of Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) personnel on the ground of them being detected as HIV positive is discriminatory and prohibited under the HIV Act.

Would Send Wrong Signals To Society: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Film Director Accused Of Rape, Clicking Obscene Pics

Case title: SANOJ KUMAR MISHRA VS. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 387

Refusing anticipatory bail to a rape accused, the Delhi High Court observed that granting anticipatory bail in a case where a film direction allegedly allured the victim on the pretext of making her a heroine and then sexually exploited her, would send wrong signals across the society.

Serving Grounds Of Arrest On Accused During Remand Not Valid, 'Contemporaneous Record' In Police Diary Necessary: Delhi High Court

Title: VIKAS CHAWLA @ VICKY v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 388

The Delhi High Court has observed that serving grounds of arrest to an arrestee as part of the remand application moved by the Police before the Magistrate is no compliance with the requirements of law.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that since grounds of arrest must exist before an arrest is made, there must be a contemporaneous record of the grounds of arrest in the police diary or other document.

Unconditional Withdrawal Of Prior Petition Filed U/S 11 Of A&C Act Bars Subsequent Petition On Same Cause Of Action: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Dewan Chand v. Chairman cum Managing Director and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 389

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has observed that if a petition for appointment of arbitrator is withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh petition, then by application of Order 23 Rule 1(4), CPC, a subsequent petition on the same cause of action would be barred.

Writ Petition Is Not An Appropriate Remedy To Seek Enforcement Of Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court

Case Title: RAMCHANDER versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 390

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jyoti Singh held that when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. The court found merit in the preliminary objection of the Railways that a writ is not the appropriate remedy for the petitioner to seek enforcement of the arbitral award.

Non-Payment Of Service Tax By Sub-Contractor Due To Uncertainity Not Wilful Misstatement Or Fraud: Delhi HC Upholds CESTAT Order

Case title: The Commissioner Of Central Tax, CGST Delhi East v. M/S Simplex Infrastructure Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 391

The Delhi High Court has upheld an order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal interdicting the GST Department from invoking extended period of limitation for recovery action against a sub-contractor who did not pay service tax amid confusion as to his liability to pay the same.

Delhi High Court Slams CBIC For Cryptic Order Denying Duty Drawbacks To Vedanta Despite Its Own Instructions Allowing Retrospective Benefit

Case title: Vedanta Limited v. CBIC

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 392

The Delhi High Court has asked the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to pass a “reasoned order” on Indian multinational mining company- Vedanata's plea claiming duty drawbacks on clean energy cess, paid between the year 2010-17.

“Completely Unacceptable”: Delhi High Court Pulls Up Customs For Prolonged Detention Of Export Goods Despite Dept's Circular

Case title: Backbone Overseas v. Assistant Commissioner Of Customs, Foreign Post Office , New Delhi And Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 393

The Delhi High Court has criticised the Customs Department for acting against its own Circular for expeditious clearance of goods, by detaining the export goods of a trader for over two months.

Relationship Between Searched And Non-Searched Entity Not Mandatory For Invocation Of Proceedings U/S 153C Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court

Case title: Shiv Parkash Bansal v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-14 Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 394

The Delhi High Court has held that the statutory scheme of Sections 153A and 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not envisage the discovery of a connection or interrelationship between the searched and the non-searched entity.