Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 395 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 418NOMINAL INDEXBHARAT BHUSHAN SHARMA v. GOVT.NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 395 Lufthansa Cargo AG v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 396 M/s Brij Lal & Sons v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 397 TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. VS. MALLA RAJIV 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 398 LOREAL...
Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 395 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 418
NOMINAL INDEX
BHARAT BHUSHAN SHARMA v. GOVT.NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 395
Lufthansa Cargo AG v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 396
M/s Brij Lal & Sons v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 397
TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. VS. MALLA RAJIV 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 398
LOREAL S.A. v. ASHOK KUMAR AND & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 399
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited vs. Viraj Harjai & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 400
Qamar Jahan v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 401
Wikimedia Foundation v. ANI & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 402
NHAI v. Ssyangyong Engineering Construction Co. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 403
Peak XV Partners Advisors India LLP & Anr. vs. John Doe & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 404
Ramdiya Verma v. Commissioner Of Customs New Delhi & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 405
NA v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 406
Moirangthem Anand Singh vs. NIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 407
NARESH KUMAR JAIN v. STATE & Other Connected Matter 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 408
MANISH KUMAR v. STATE 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 410
NATHU v. STATE 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 411
Mankind Pharma Limited vs. Preet Kamal Grewal And Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 412
Indian Hotels Company Limited vs. Ankit Sethi & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 413
Nand Kishor vs. State & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 414
SHAZIA ILMI v. RAJDEEP SARDESAI & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 415
Mukesh Kumar vs. National Power Training Institute & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 416
MASTER G THROUGH LEGAL GUARDIAN & ANR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI), HOME DEPARTMENT & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 417
M/s Pavan Metal Refiners v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 418
Title: BHARAT BHUSHAN SHARMA v. GOVT.NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 395
Observing that adequate preparation is a must for expansion of live streaming of court proceedings, the Delhi High Court has said that issuing omnibus directions in this regard can potentially undermine the quality, confidentiality and security of judicial processes.
Justice Sachin Datta noted a coordinate bench ruling wherein it was noted that the Delhi High Court, on the administrative side, has been actively engaged in addressing the logistical and infrastructural challenges associated with the initiative to introduce or expand live streaming of Court proceedings.
Case title: Lufthansa Cargo AG v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 396
In a relief to German cargo airline Lufthansa, the Delhi High Court set aside the Revenue's order denying nil TDS certificate to the company for the financial year 2024-25.
Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deals with the deduction of TDS (Tax Deducted at Source) on payments made to non-resident Indians (NRIs). However, 'nil' withholding tax certificates can be issued under Section 195(3), subject to prescribed conditions.
Case Title: M/s Brij Lal & Sons v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 397
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma while dismissing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has observed that delay in publication of award does not invalidate the award unless it is shown that the award has materially affected the rights of the parties.
Case title: TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. VS. MALLA RAJIV
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 398
The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favour of Tata Sons Private Limited, against trademark and copyright infringement of its packaged mineral water 'Tata Copper+ Water' by a seller of packaged drinking water under the name 'JK Copper+ Water'.
Title: LOREAL S.A. v. ASHOK KUMAR AND & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 399
The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of the French brand L'Oreal SA against trademark infringement by a rogue website run by unknown defendant using its 'L'Oreal' mark and misrepresenting themselves are the representative of the company.
Delhi High Court Directs Removal Of 'Purplle Tree' From Trademark Register On Plea By E-Commerce Platform 'Purplle'
Case title: Manash Lifestyle Private Limited vs. Viraj Harjai & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 400
The Delhi High Court has directed the removal of 'Purplle Tree' mark from the Register of Trade Marks in a rectification petition filed by Manash Lifestyle Private Limited, which owns the online beauty and wellness store 'Purplle'.
Case title: Qamar Jahan v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 401
Following successive judgments of the Delhi High Court criticising the Customs for detaining personal jewellery of air travellers and failure to comply with mandatory statutory procedure for detention, the Department has undertaken various steps to prevent harassment of genuine travellers.
Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of Allegedly Defamatory Description Of ANI On Its Wikipedia Page
Title: Wikimedia Foundation v. ANI & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 402
The Delhi High Court ordered take down or removal of allegedly defamatory content and description of news agency ANI Media Private Limited on its Wikipedia page.
Justice Subramonium Prasad directed Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts Wikipedia platform, to remove allegedly defamatory statements published against ANI on its Wikipedia page titled “Asian News International.”
Case Title: NHAI v. Ssyangyong Engineering Construction Co. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 403
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has observed that in an international commercial arbitration in terms of Section 2(1)(f)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the IVth Schedule pertaining to fees of the arbitrator will not apply mandatorily in view of Explanation to Section 11(14) of the Act.
Case title: Peak XV Partners Advisors India LLP & Anr. vs. John Doe & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 404
The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favour of the venture capital and investment advisory firm, Peak XV Partners Advisors India LLP, against passing off of its trademark 'Peak XV Partners' by unknown persons through fraudulent website, apps, WhatsApp and Telegram groups.
Case title: Ramdiya Verma v. Commissioner Of Customs New Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 405
The Delhi High Court has directed the Customs Department to ensure that relevant CCTV footage is preserved whenever it receives a complaint from any traveller coming to India from abroad, regarding illegal detention of his foreign currency by its officials.
Title: NA v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 406
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that Courts have bounden duty to stand by minor victims of sexual assault and uphold their voice when their own parents fail to do so.
“The legal system recognizes the rights of every child, and even in situations where their own parents fail to stand by them or support them, the Court has a bounden duty to uphold their voice, protect their rights, and ensure that justice is served in accordance with the law,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
Case title: Moirangthem Anand Singh vs. NIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 407
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to an accused under the UAPA in connection with the Manipur conflict between the Meitei and Kuki communities, for allegedly looting weapons from the State armoury.
The accused/appellant, Moirangthem Anand Singh, is alleged to be an active member of People Liberation Army (PLA), a declared terrorist organisation under the UAPA. As per the prosecution's case, the appellant was apprehended wearing camouflaged clothing, posing as a police officer and in possession of weapons looted from the State Armoury.
Delhi High Court Upholds Charges Against Club Owners Accused Of Serving Hookah, Liquor To Minors
Title: NARESH KUMAR JAIN v. STATE & Other Connected Matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 408
The Delhi High Court has upheld framing of charges against two men, an owner and partner of two clubs, accused of serving hookah and liquor to minor children to boost their earnings.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that prima facie, in an attempt to conceal their illegal activities, the two men deliberately deleted the CCTV recordings to prevent the Delhi Police from uncovering their alleged illegal activities.
Title: MANISH KUMAR v. STATE
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 410
The Delhi High Court has observed that driving in “high speed” does not automatically leads to a conclusion that the driver acted in “rash and negligent” manner.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee discharged a man accused of driving his car in high speed and hitting two pedestrians who later died in the accident.
Title: NATHU v. STATE
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 411
The Delhi High Court has observed that a DNA report merely proves paternity and cannot establish absence of consent of a woman in a rape case.
Discharging a man in a rape case, Justice Amit Mahajan said:
“….the DNA report merely proves paternity—it does not and cannot, by itself, establish the absence of consent. It is trite law that the offence under Section 376 of the IPC hinges on the absence of consent. Mere proof of sexual relations, even if resulting in pregnancy, is insufficient to prove rape unless it is also shown that the act was non-consensual.”
Case title: Mankind Pharma Limited vs. Preet Kamal Grewal And Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 412
The Delhi High Court has directed the removal of 'Kindpan' trademark, in a petition filed by Mankind Pharma Limited against a proprietorship firm which was granted registration of the mark in the medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations category.
Case title: Indian Hotels Company Limited vs. Ankit Sethi & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 413
The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of the Tata Group's Indian Hotels Company Limited, which owns the Ginger chain of hotels, against trademark and copyright infringement by fake websites.
Case title: Nand Kishor vs. State & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 414
While allowing an application for DNA testing in a decade-old murder case at the stage of final arguments, the Delhi High Court remarked that in the interests of justice, independent evidence must not be refused on the grounds of delay, particularly in serious offences like murder.
Title: SHAZIA ILMI v. RAJDEEP SARDESAI & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 415
The Delhi High Court granted partial relief to BJP leader Shazia Ilmi in her defamation case against journalist Rajdeep Sardesai over a video posted by him on 'X' alleging that she abused a video journalist of India Today during a televised debate.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora however imposed Rs. 25,000 costs on Ilmi for willfully suppressing two tweets made by her, forming part of the same conversation thread of which Sardesai's tweet was part of.
Case title: Mukesh Kumar vs. National Power Training Institute & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 416
The Delhi High Court has observed that a recommendation or interim recommendation of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD) under Section 76 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 is binding on the concerned authority, unless such recommendation cannot be acted upon by the authority due a valid reason such as administrative exigencies.
Title: MASTER G THROUGH LEGAL GUARDIAN & ANR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI), HOME DEPARTMENT & ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 417
The Delhi High Court has issued guidelines to be followed by Courts for considering the applications for guardianship and for protection of the properties of children.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the case of children who are helpless victims of circumstances must be dealt with compassion and a sympathetic attitude and approach must be adopted by the Courts.
Case Title – M/s Pavan Metal Refiners v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 418
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has observed that at the stage of appointment of arbitrator under Section 11, A&C, the referral court should limit its inquiry to whether the petition itself is within the limitation period of three years and should leave the question of whether the claims are deadwood to the arbitral tribunal.