Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1050 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1068NOMINAL INDEXSharjeel Imam v. State & other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1050 VIKAS VERMA v. DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTION AND ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1051 Himanshu v. TCNS Clothing Co. Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1052 AJAY KUMAR NAYYAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1053 X v. Y 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1054 Chetan v....
Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1050 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1068
NOMINAL INDEX
Sharjeel Imam v. State & other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1050
VIKAS VERMA v. DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTION AND ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1051
Himanshu v. TCNS Clothing Co. Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1052
AJAY KUMAR NAYYAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1053
X v. Y 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1054
Chetan v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1055
VGP IPCO LLC & Anr v. Mr Suresh Kumar Trading As Om Shiv Lubricants & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1056
STUMPP SCHUELE LEWIS MACHINE TOOLS PVT LTD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1057
Mitraj Business Private Limited Through Its Director Mr Manoj Kankane v. Union Of India Represented By The Secretary Ministry Of Finance & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1058
Rama Oberoi v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1059
Dr. Punita K. Sodhi vs UOI & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1060
Castrol Limited v. Sanjay Sonavane 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1061
BHEL v. Xiamen Longking Bulk Material Science and Engineering Co. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1062
Rahul Solanki v. CRPF 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1063
Gurpreet Singh Sonik v. Commissioner Of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1064
Sangeet Seth v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1065
Leelawati v. Rajeev Kumar 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1066
Tasleem Ahmed v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1067
M/s. KNR Tirumala Infra Pvt. Ltd. versus National Highways Authority of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1068
Delhi Riots: High Court Denies Bail To Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam And 7 Others In UAPA Case
Title: Sharjeel Imam v. State & other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1050
The Delhi High Court dismissed the bail pleas filed by Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and seven other accused persons in the 2020 Delhi riots "larger conspiracy" case.
A division bench of Justice Naveen Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur pronounced the verdict.
Delhi High Court Stays Advertisement For Appointing Only Retired Public Prosecutors As APPs
Title: VIKAS VERMA v. DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTION AND ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1051
The Delhi High Court has stayed an advertisement restricting appointment of only retired public prosecutors as Assistant Public Prosecutors (APPs).
Justice Sachin Datta passed the order on a plea filed by one Vikas Verma challenging the advertisement issued by the Delhi Government's Directorate of Prosecution on August 22.
Non-Impleadment Of Firm In Cheque Bounce Case Is Curable Defect: Delhi High Court
Case title: Himanshu v. TCNS Clothing Co. Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1052
The Delhi High Court has held that non-impleadment of a firm in cheque bounce case instituted against its partner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a curable defect.
Thus allowing a complainant/ payee to amend the pleadings subject to ₹35,000/- cost, Justice Amit Mahajan observed,
“This Court is of the view that the non-impleadment of the firm is a curable defect...the stage of effective trial has not commenced yet. The accused has not yet faced the process of recording of plea, evidence, or cross-examination. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that permitting an amendment to implead the partnership firm would cause prejudice to the petitioner. On the contrary, refusal to allow such an amendment would result in stifling of proceedings on a mere technicality, thereby defeating the object of Section 138 of the NI Act.”
Title: AJAY KUMAR NAYYAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1053
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to a man accused of cheating a businessman of Rs. 3.90 crores by impersonating as the nephew of Union Home Minister Amit Shah.
Justice Girish Kathpalia passed the order considering the nature and expanse of the allegations, coupled with the pending consideration of amendment in charge to include offences of forging documents punishable with life imprisonment and also keeping in mind the antecedents.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1054
The Delhi High Court has ruled that rise in the income of the husband, coupled with the significant increase in his cost of living, constitute a “clear change in circumstances”, warranting enhancement of the amount of maintenance to the wife.
Case title: Chetan v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1055
The Delhi High Court frowned upon the Delhi government for withdrawing a notification which prescribed that a punishment of warning imposed upon a prisoner shall not stand in his way of seeking furlough.
Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that the said withdrawal was a “regressive step”, not consonant with the concept of reformation of the convict.
Case title: VGP IPCO LLC & Anr v. Mr Suresh Kumar Trading As Om Shiv Lubricants & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1056
The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of US-based automotive lubricant manufacturer Valvoline in its trademark infringement suit against an Indian company selling similar products under the trade name 'VIVOLINE'.
Title: STUMPP SCHUELE LEWIS MACHINE TOOLS PVT LTD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1057
The Delhi High Court has upheld the decision of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) rejecting bid of a company in a tender for procuring 200 Sniper Rifles along with day scope and 20,000 Lapua Magnum Ammunitions.
A division bench comprising Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that matters relating to tender has to be minimal and to be exercised only if the Court finds that the decision of the tendering authority is arbitrary or whimsical or unreasonable.
Case title: Mitraj Business Private Limited Through Its Director Mr Manoj Kankane v. Union Of India Represented By The Secretary Ministry Of Finance & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1058
The Delhi High Court has asked the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to consider whether some “preferential treatment” ought to be given to Start-ups and MSMEs in terms of timelines, warehousing and provisional release in cases of misdeclaration of goods, especially in case of low value consignments.
Case title: Rama Oberoi v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1059
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a cheque drawer's contention that Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act proceeding initiated against him is premature, since it was filed before the '45 days statutory notice period'.
Case Name : Dr. Punita K. Sodhi vs UOI & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1060
A Division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain held that if an appointee joins service within the period extended by a competent authority or by court orders, such joining is deemed to be within the stipulated time in the offer of appointment, and seniority must be reckoned from the original appointment date without any depression in seniority, along with consequential notional benefits.
Case title: Castrol Limited v. Sanjay Sonavane
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1061
The Delhi High Court has restrained one Sanjay Sonavane from issuing any groundless threats of Trademark/ Copyright infringement to Castrol Limited, which uses '3X Protection' mark on its engine oil packaging, over purported infringement of the former's 3P Marks.
Case Title – BHEL v. Xiamen Longking Bulk Material Science and Engineering Co.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1062
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh while allowing a petition under Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act (“ACA”) observed that when the contract required the bidder to establish an office in India as a pre-requisite to performance, the decision by the Arbitrator holding that compliance could be deferred, amounted to rewriting the contract. Such a holding violated fundamental policy of Indian law and the award was liable to be set aside.
Whistleblowing Activities Don't Make Employee 'Immune' From Transfer: Delhi High Court
Case title: Rahul Solanki v. CRPF
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1063
The Delhi High Court has held that an internal whistleblower in an organisation cannot forever immunize himself against transfer, by merely leveling allegations of vengeance against the officials.
Case title: Gurpreet Singh Sonik v. Commissioner Of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1064
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Customs Department cannot exceed the limitation period prescribed for issuance of show cause notice after detention of goods, merely on the ground that the person from whom goods were seized did not appear for appraisement.
Case title: Sangeet Seth v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1065
The Delhi High Court has held that the higher rate of 5% interest to be paid when an assessee moves second plea for compounding the offence of failure to pay Tax Deductible at Source (TDS), is not applicable if their first plea was simply rejected.
Wife Of Judgment-Debtor Not Stranger To Decree, Can't Invoke Order XXI Rule 99 CPC: Delhi High Court
Case title: Leelawati v. Rajeev Kumar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1066
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC cannot be invoked by a Judgment-Debtor, including their spouse, since it is only meant to enable a 'stranger' to the suit to seek relief.
Delhi Riots: High Court Denies Bail To Tasleem Ahmed In UAPA Larger Conspiracy Case
Title: Tasleem Ahmed v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1067
The Delhi High Court dismissed the bail plea filed by Tasleem Ahmed, accused in the UAPA case alleging larger conspiracy in the commission of 2020 North-East Delhi riots.
Case Title: M/s. KNR Tirumala Infra Pvt. Ltd. versus National Highways Authority of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1068
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that when the panel of arbitrators from which appointments are to be made is broad-based, comprising retired Supreme Court Judges and other eminent officials, and is independent, not controlled by any party, the other party cannot refuse to abide by the institutional rules it has consciously agreed to, on the ground that the panel is not impartial.