Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1327 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1365NOMINAL INDEXEarthz Urban Spaces Pvt. Ltd. v. Ravinder Munshi & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1327 RAHUL @ BHUPINDER VERMA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1328 X v. STATE OF NCT & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1329 NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA. versus HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1330 M/S H...
Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1327 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1365
NOMINAL INDEX
Earthz Urban Spaces Pvt. Ltd. v. Ravinder Munshi & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1327
RAHUL @ BHUPINDER VERMA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1328
X v. STATE OF NCT & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1329
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA. versus HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1330
M/S H P SPINNING MILLS PVT. LTD. versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1331
MAHESH SHRIVASTVA @ JEEVA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1332
WOW MOMO FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED v. WOW BURGER & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1333
NATIONAL HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD (NHIDCL) versus NSPR VKJ JV & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1334
GAURAV AGGARWAL versus RICHA GUPTA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1335
MARS INCORPORATED v. CADBURY (INDIA) LTD & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1336
MANORAMA SAKKERWAL v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1337
VARUN ARYA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1338
DEEPAK NANDA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1339
Mudit Gupta v. AAI & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1340
SUMIT SINGH v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1341
SHAHID NASIR v. NIA & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1342
ABUZAR @ ANTA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1343
NAVEEN KUMAR v. BABITA JAIN 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1344
MRS. ANSHIKA KUMARI v. BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI AND OTHERS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1345
MAHINDRA HZPC PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS v. SHRI RAM FARMS & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1346
X v. Y 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1347
Shubham Agarwal v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1348
Bed Ram v. UoI & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1349
Rajia @ Sabbo v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1350
Sunair Hotels Ltd. v. State & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1351
PC Jhalani & Ors v. Jhalani Tools (India) Ltd & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1352
Writer Business Services Pvt. Ltd v. UIDAI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1353
The Indian Hotels Company Limited v. John Doe & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1354
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Remfry And Sagar 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1355
Save India Foundation v. GNCTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1356
M/S B S Enviro N Infracon Private Limited v. Vij Contracts Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1357
Sh. Samarendra Das v. M/S Win Medicare Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1358
Union of India Through Secretary & Ors. vs. S K Jasra 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1359
The Indian Hotels Company Limited v. Vivanta Stays 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1360
Arjun Patil v. UOI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1361
Future Consumer Limited v. UOI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1362
M/S Moms Cradle Private Limited v. UOI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1363
Alkali Manufacturers Association of India v. UOI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1364
M/S Balaji Enterprises v. The Principal Commissioner, DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1365
Case title: Earthz Urban Spaces Pvt. Ltd. v. Ravinder Munshi & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1327
The Delhi High Court has held that courts can exempt a property from the doctrine of lis pendens, to shield genuine owners from vexatious suits.
The doctrine stems from Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. It stipulates that any transfer of property during a pending lawsuit affecting that property is subject to the outcome of the lawsuit.
Title: RAHUL @ BHUPINDER VERMA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1328
While acquitting a man in a POCSO case, the Delhi High Court has ruled that mere use of the term “physical relations” without supporting evidence is insufficient to establish rape or aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
Title: X v. STATE OF NCT & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1329
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an order passed by a Magistrate issuing process or summoning an accused, despite a cancellation report filed by the police, can be challenged in revisional jurisdiction before the sessions court or the High Court.
Case Title: NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA. versus HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1330
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) filed by National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) against an arbitral award passed in favor of Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. (HCC). The court further held that the arbitrator's award of compensation for expenses incurred during extended time period was reasoned, plausible and did not suffer from perversity or patent illegality.
Case Title: M/S H P SPINNING MILLS PVT. LTD. versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1331
The Delhi High Court restored an arbitral award in favor of M/s H.P. Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd.(Appellant) which was set aside 16 years ago holding that clause of the insurance policy which required claims to be made within 12 months from the date of loss was void and unforceable under section 28 of the Indian Contract Act. The court held that the Single Judge erred in relying on section 28 pre-amendment precedents which allowed limitation clauses that extinguished rights.
Externment Order Can't Curtail Liberty Or Livelihood On Unsubstantiated Grounds: Delhi High Court
Title: MAHESH SHRIVASTVA @ JEEVA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1332
The Delhi High Court has observed that an externment order cannot be used to deprive an individual of his or her liberty and right to livelihood, on the grounds which are totally unsubstantiated.
Title: WOW MOMO FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED v. WOW BURGER & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1333
The Delhi High Court has granted interim injunction in favour of “WOW MOMO”, an Indian quick-service restaurant chain, in its trademark infringement suit filed against a Hong Kong-based company “WOW BURGER.”
Case Title: NATIONAL HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD (NHIDCL) versus NSPR VKJ JV & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1334
The Delhi High Court held that mere allegations of corruption or pendency of an unverified complaint against an arbitrator cannot justify termination of arbitrator's mandate under section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).
Case Title: GAURAV AGGARWAL versus RICHA GUPTA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1335
The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award terminating proceedings under section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) on the ground that an agreement to sell (ATS) between the parties was unforceable for being unregistered and unstamped under Uttar Pradesh law.
Title: MARS INCORPORATED v. CADBURY (INDIA) LTD & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1336
The Delhi High Court has ended the 25 year long battle between Mars and Cadbury over infringement of “Celebrations” trademark, followed by mutual settlement between the two confectionery companies.
Title: MANORAMA SAKKERWAL v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1337
The Delhi High Court has imposed a costs of Rs. 1 lakh on a woman for misusing the judicial process and suppression of material facts in her petition alleging unauthorized construction at a property located in city's Karol Bagh area.
Title: VARUN ARYA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1338
The Delhi High Court has refused to order special investigation or inquiry into the death of IFS Mukul Arya, India's representative to Palestine, who was found dead in his residence in Ramallah on March 06, 2022.
Title: DEEPAK NANDA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1339
The Delhi High Court has observed that the administrative delay by the authorities in deciding the parole application cannot be allowed to prejudice the rights of the convict.
Case title: Mudit Gupta v. AAI & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1340
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a blind candidate can't be ousted from recruitment for a job post if he is able to perceive and discharge required duties.
Title: SUMIT SINGH v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1341
The Delhi High Court has observed that friendship is not a license to an accused to rape the victim repeatedly and beat her mercilessly.
Title: SHAHID NASIR v. NIA & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1342
The Delhi High Court has observed that the right to life under Article 21 of Constitution of India includes observing an individual's religious duties and personal obligations.
Title: ABUZAR @ ANTA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1343
The Delhi High Court has observed that a judicial officer cannot be forced to pronounce a verdict without adequate clarity or assistance on the issue, whenever required.
Title: NAVEEN KUMAR v. BABITA JAIN
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1344
The Delhi High Court has observed that a landlord being the “housewife landlady” can require the tenanted premises from the tenant for husband's welfare and family duties, which would qualified as “bona fide requirement.”
Title: MRS. ANSHIKA KUMARI v. BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1345
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to take steps to reconstitute the Committee of the Advocates' Welfare Fund Trust expeditiously.
Title: MAHINDRA HZPC PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS v. SHRI RAM FARMS & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1346
The Delhi High Court has barred a woman lawyer from appearing before it through video conferencing, noting that she switched off her camera and muted herself citing parallel ongoing hearing which is against the VC Rules.
Case title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1347
The Delhi High Court has held that questioning husband's legitimacy by calling him bastard and making reprehensible allegations against his mother constitute matrimonial cruelty, a ground for divorce.
Case title: Shubham Agarwal v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1348
The Delhi High Court has paved the way for a third medical examination of a UPSC aspirant, claiming to have more than 40% hearing disability, after a material difference emerged in the reports prepared by AIIMS and Army Hospital.
Case title: Bed Ram v. UoI & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1349
The Delhi High Court enhanced the compensation for land acquisition payable with respect to flood-prone Kilokari, Nangli Razapur, Khizrabad and Garhi Mendu areas of the national capital.
Case title: Rajia @ Sabbo v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1350
The Delhi High Court has suspended the life sentence of a woman, convicted for murder of her alleged paramour, citing concerns about the well being of her three children.
Case title: Sunair Hotels Ltd. v. State & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1351
The Delhi High Court has held that a private individual who is falsely accused in a police complaint can himself initiate proceedings against the accused under Section 211 IPC, without having to get the action initiated by the court.
Case title: PC Jhalani & Ors v. Jhalani Tools (India) Ltd & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1352
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that once a final winding up order has been passed against a Company and the Official Liquidator has taken charge, the Company Court is not required to come to the aid of guarantors so as to shield them from recovery proceedings initiated by creditors.
Case title: Writer Business Services Pvt. Ltd v. UIDAI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1353
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with UIDAI's decision to reject the lowest financial bid submitted by Writer Business Services Pvt. Ltd for audit and quality check of Aadhar applications.
Case title: The Indian Hotels Company Limited v. John Doe & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1354
The Delhi High Court ordered take down of an alleged AI generated deepfake video, alleging poisoning of guests by employees of the renowned hotel Taj Lake Palace in Udaipur.
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Remfry And Sagar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1355
The Delhi High Court has upheld an order of the ITAT allowing IPR law firm Remfry & Sagar to treat the license fees paid by it to acquire its founder's goodwill, as a business expense deductible under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.
Case title: Save India Foundation v. GNCTD
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1356
The Delhi High Court dismissed a PIL seeking to make Delhi's CCTV footage public.The plea filed by Save India Foundation sought directions to the Delhi Police to upload and share the CCTV feed from the cameras installed by the Delhi Government on a public domain, in a time bound manner.
Case title: M/S B S Enviro N Infracon Private Limited v. Vij Contracts Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1357
The Delhi High Court has held that it is inequitable of a creditor to demand balance payment after accepting a lesser sum towards satisfaction of a claim.
Case title: Sh. Samarendra Das v. M/S Win Medicare Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1358
The Delhi High Court has held that a medical sales representative, who has received specialized training for his field of work, cannot be categorised as a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Case Name : Union of India Through Secretary & Ors. vs. S K Jasra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1359
A Division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain held that a chargesheet issued without the prior approval of the competent disciplinary authority under Rule 14(3) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is void ab initio, non-existent in law. Further it cannot be validated by subsequent ratification.
Case title: The Indian Hotels Company Limited v. Vivanta Stays
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1360
The Delhi High Court has restrained an entity from infringing the trademark of Tata Group's Indian Hotels Company Limited which runs and operates hotel brand 'Vivanta'.
Case title: Arjun Patil v. UOI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1361
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Indian currency can be seized by the Enforcement Directorate under provisions of the erstwhile Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, if the same is intended to be used for illegal purchase of foreign exchange.
Case title: Future Consumer Limited v. UOI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1362
The Delhi High Court has held that an unsigned GST demand order is valid, if the same is accompanied by DRC-07 which contains the details of the official who passed the order.
Case title: M/S Moms Cradle Private Limited v. UOI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1363
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a taxpayer cannot ignore an order passed against it and uploaded on the GST portal, merely because copy of the order was allegedly illegible.
Delhi High Court Directs Customs To Ensure Strict Implementation Of Minimum Import Price On Soda Ash
Case title: Alkali Manufacturers Association of India v. UOI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1364
The Delhi High Court has directed the Customs authorities to ensure strict implementation of the Minimum Import Price (MIP) imposed by DGFT on Soda Ash, warning of stringent action in case of any violations.
Case title: M/S Balaji Enterprises v. The Principal Commissioner, DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1365
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an assessee is entitled to copies of the data stored on its electronic devices which are seized by the GST Department, unless the same is prejudicial to the probe.