Delhi High Court Monthly Digest: August 2025 [Citations 909 - 1049]

Vinay Sharma v. GNCTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 925

F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag & Anr. v. Zydus Lifesciences Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 926

Ambika Traders Through Proprietor Gaurav Gupta v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication DGGSTI, CGST Delhi North 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 927

Vi-John Healthcare India LLP v. Dabur India Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 928

Tata Power Renewable Energy Limited & Ors. v. Ashok Kumar/S & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 929

Sh. Raj Kumar And Anr. v. Mrs Poonam 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 930

Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 931

MOHD. IMRAN v. THE STATE GNCTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 932

SACHIN YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 933

Shree Radhe Vallabh Traders v. Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi East Commissionerate, New Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 934

Tata Play Ltd v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/ Avato 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 935

YV v. VV 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 936

SJ v. AJ 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 937

SHONEE KAPOOR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 938

Shri Sarabjeet Singh , Proprietor Of M/S Khurana Associates v. The Commissioner Of SGST, Delhi SGST & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 939

X v. Y 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 940

Shamina v. Commissioner Of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 941

NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY v. SATYA NISHTH & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 942

PAUL DEEPAK RAJARATNAM & ORS. versus SURGEPORT LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 943

MOHDMMED JAVED v. UNION OF INIDIA AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 944

Indmoney Tech Private Limited & Anr. v. Ashok Kumar And Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 945

MAHUA MOITRA v. NISHIKANT DUBEY & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 946

Mohit Kumar Goyal v. State of NCT of Delhi And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 947

Bodhisattva Charitable Trust And Ors. v. Mayo Foundation For Medical Education And Research 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 948

Surender Kumar Sharma And Ors v. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 949

Sarfraz Ahmad v. Vice Chancellor, JMI And Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 950

Court On Its Own Motion v. Union Of India & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 951

Meena v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 952

SYED AHMAD SHAKEEL v. NIA and other connected matter 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 953

SUKHBIR SINGH v. STATE NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 954

Raj Kumar Kedia v. Income Tax Office 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 955

Ganpati Polymers Through It Proprietor Prop. Ankur Jain v. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax And Another 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 956

SOHAIL MALIK v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 957

PEC Ltd v. Ms Badri Singh Vinimay Pvt Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 958

Azam v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 959

Court On Its Own Motion v. Dhanraj & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 960

M/S Exclusive Capital Limited v. Clover Media Private Limited & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 961

ADVOCATE MANISH KUMAR V/s UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 962

Aditya Rai Gupta v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 963

AMAN SINGH V/s MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI THORUGH ITS COMMISSIONER & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 964

Narender v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 965

Satya Pal Singh v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 966

PRINCE TYAGI AND ANR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 967

CCS Computers Pvt Ltd v. NDMC 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 968

MOHAMMAD SHAHNOOR MANSOORI v. STATE OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 969

Sachindra Priyadarshi v. State Of NCT Of Delhi Through The Chief Secretary 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 970

STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) v. GAURANG KADYAN 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 971

The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 v. Xiocom (Nz) Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 972

Aadya Antya v. High Court Of Delhi Through Registrar General 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 973

Lakshay Vij v. ED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 974

GAINDA LAL v. STATE & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 975

DRAGON BOAT INDIA AND TRADITIONAL SPORTS FEDERATION v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 976

Neosky India Limited & Anr. v. Mr. Nagendran Kandasamy & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 977

RAJASTHAN EQUESTRAIN ASSOCIATION v. EQUESTRIAN FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 978

Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited v. Sauss Home Products Private Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 979

ANEJA CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) versus DOOSAN POWER SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 980

University of Delhi v. Neeraj and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1012

Bhupinder Kumar Malik v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1013

M/S ECG Easy Connect Logistics Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1014

Yogesh Singh v. State NCT of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1015

X v. Y 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1016

SUSHANT RAJ v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1017

Manish Goel HUF v. The Commissioner Delhi Goods And Services Tax Trade And Tax Department New Delhi And Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1018

Gujarat State Fertilisers & Chemicals Ltd. v. M/S Gail (India) Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1019

Yogesh Singh v. State NCT of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1020

Omega QMS v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi West & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1021

Ashiya v. Commissioner of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1022

Lakhveer Singh v. NIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1023

Rahimullah Rahimi v. State NCT of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1024

X v. STATE (NCTD) AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1025

Praveen @ Lallu v. State NCT of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1026

YASH MISHRA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1027

Tata Sons Pvt Ltd v. John Doe 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1028

Deepak Sain v. State NCT of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1029

Samyak Jain v. Superintendent (Adjudication), Central Gst Delhi & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1030

Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. v. Vasundhara Fashion Jewellery LLP 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1031

Surender Bajaj v. Dinesh Chand Gupta and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1032

Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. v. Vasundhara Fashion Jewellery LLP 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1033

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS v. SAMEER DNYANDEV WANKHEDE 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1034

Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds-01 v. Diamond Tree 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1035

ASHWANI KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1036

HAVELI RESTAURANT AND RESORTS LTD v. ADISON RESORTS LIMITED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1037

Soni Devi v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1038

Abdul Malik Alias Parvez v. State Govt Of NCT Of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1039

XX v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1040

Tanvi Chaturvedi v. Smita Shrivastava & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1041

ANJALI & ANR v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1042

Ankush Kumar Parashar v. Sapna @ Mona & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1043

Union Of India And Ors vs Ex Wo Om Prakash Retd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1044

ALTAF v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1045

Ashok Babu v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1046

Pramiti Basu v. Secretary General Supreme Court Of India (and batch) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1047

MS. ARCHANA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1048

Burger King Corporation vs. Swapnil Patil & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1049

Recovered 'Ganja' Was Only Marginally Above Commercial Quantity, Rigours U/S 37 NDPS Act May Not Apply: Delhi High Court Grants Bail

Case title: Vinay Sharma v. GNCTD

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 925

The Delhi High Court has held that the rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act does not apply strictly in cases where the quantity of contraband recovered from an accused is only marginally above the prescribed commercial quantity.

The applicant in this case was apprehended with a bag containing 21.508 kg of ganja.

Process Patent | S.104A Of Patents Act Can Be Invoked At Interim Stage To Seek Disclosure Of Defendant's Process: Delhi High Court

Case title: F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag & Anr. v. Zydus Lifesciences Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 926

The Delhi High Court has held that there is no bar on the invocation of Section 104A of the Patent Act 1970 at the initial stage of a suit, when the patent holder seeks disclosure of the defendant's process.

For context, Section 104A prescribes that where the subject matter of a patent infringement suit is a 'process' for obtaining a product, the burden is on the defendant to prove that the process used by him to obtain the identical product is different from the patented process.

S.74 CGST Act | Consolidated SCN For Multiple Financial Years Necessary To Establish Wrongful Availment Of ITC: Delhi High Court

Case title: Ambika Traders Through Proprietor Gaurav Gupta v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication DGGSTI, CGST Delhi North

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 927

The Delhi High Court has held that consolidated show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST is not only permissible but necessary, to unearth wrongful availment of ITC over a span of period.

A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed,

“The nature of ITC is such that fraudulent utilization and availment of the same cannot be established on most occasions without connecting transactions over different financial years. The purchase could be shown in one financial year and the supply may be shown in the next financial year. It is only when either are found to be fabricated or the firms are found to be fake that the maze of transactions can be analysed and established as being fraudulent or bogus.

'Disproportionate': Delhi High Court Quashes ₹12 Lakh Cost On Vi-John For Delay In Responding To Dabur's Trademark Infringement Suit

Case title: Vi-John Healthcare India LLP v. Dabur India Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 928

Granting relief to Vi John Healthcare in connection with a trademark suit filed against it by Dabur for alleged infringement of its Meswak toothpaste packaging, the Delhi High Court set aside a cost of ₹12 lakh imposed on the former by the trial court.

The costs were imposed in view of the trial court's previous order that any delay by Vi John in filing its Written Statement shall only be considered subject to a cost of ₹25,000/- for each day of delay.

Delhi High Court Passes Summary Judgment In Tata Power's Trademark Infringement Suit, Grants Dynamic Injunction Against John Doe Entity

Case title: Tata Power Renewable Energy Limited & Ors. v. Ashok Kumar/S & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 929

The Delhi High Court passed summary judgment in favour of Tata Power in a suit filed against infringement of its trademarks, including Tata Power Solaroof and Tata Power EZ Charge.

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora also granted dynamic injunction and permitted the company to implead and seek relief against any other John Doe entity found infringing its marks.

S.60(1)(ccc) CPC | Delhi High Court Stays Auction Sale Of Man's Ancestral Property Over Maintenance Dues

Case title.: Sh. Raj Kumar And Anr. v. Mrs Poonam

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 930

The Delhi High Court has stayed a Magistrate Court order directing auction of husband's alleged share in a family property, in the execution petition filed by his wife seeking payment of maintenance.

This was after the husband cited violation of Section 60(1)(ccc) CPC, which prescribes that every person has a right to reside and there cannot be an execution against the only dwelling house which a person possesses.

'Corroding Nation's Economic Fabric': Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Ex-DHFL Chairman Kapil Wadhawan In ₹34,926 Crore Bank Fraud Case

Case title: Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 931

The Delhi High Court denied bail to former Chairman of the erstwhile Dewan Housing Finance Corp Ltd (DHFL) Kapil Wadhawan in a case related to the alleged multi-crore loan scam.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed that Wadhawan was at the helm of a conspiracy that resulted in the diversion and misappropriation of approximately ₹34,926.77 crores from a consortium of 17 banks.

2019 Anaj Mandi Fire: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing Of Charges Against Building Owner Citing Absence Of Safety Mechanisms

Title: MOHD. IMRAN v. THE STATE GNCTD

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 932

The Delhi High Court has upheld a trial court order framing charges against one the owners of a building situated in city's Anaj Mandi area of Sadar Bazar which caught massive fire in the early hours of December 08, 2019, claiming lives of 45 individuals, mostly labourers.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the accused- Mohd. Imran, was the owner of a portion of the fourth floor as well as the storeroom constructed on the terrace of the building, which were unauthorised and illegal structures, thereby reflecting clear violation of building norms.

Compassionate Appointment Can't Be Sought Long After Death Of Family's Bread Winner, Doesn't Continue In Perpetuity: Delhi High Court

Title: SACHIN YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 933

The Delhi High Court has observed that compassionate appointment cannot be sought long after the death of a family's bread winner and is not a right which continues in perpetuity.

A division bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed that compassionate appointment caters to a very specific exigency, which dies with efflux of time.

GST Refund Can't Be Granted To Trader Until Cancelled Registration Is Restored: Delhi High Court

Case title: Shree Radhe Vallabh Traders v. Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi East Commissionerate, New Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 934

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that GST refund cannot be granted to a trader whose GST registration stands cancelled.

In the case at hand, the Petitioner's registration was cancelled in February 2023 with retrospective effect from July 2018.

Phrase 'Three Months' U/S 73(2) GST Act Means Three Calendar Months, Not 90 Days: Delhi High Court

Case title: Tata Play Ltd v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/ Avato

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 935

The Delhi High Court has held that the 'three months' period prior to expiry of three years within which show cause notice for alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit must be issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act, means three calendar months and not 90 days.

Delhi High Court Denies Interim Maintenance To Wife Citing Estranged 70-Yr-Old Husband's Financial & Emotional Incapacity

Case title: YV v. VV

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 936

The Delhi High Court denied interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act to a woman, citing her estranged husband's financial incapacity.

“Respondent should not be burdened with the obligation to provide interim maintenance, particularly when his own financial, physical and emotional conditions are visibly strained,” a division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed.

Wife's Right To Shared Household Under DV Act No Bar To Partition Of Matrimonial Home Between Divorced Couple: Delhi High Court

Case title: SJ v. AJ

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 937

The Delhi High Court has held that a married woman's right to reside in a shared household under Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act cannot override or nullify the lawful entitlement of husband to seek partition or enforcement of ownership rights in civil proceedings.

A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar thus dismissed a divorced woman's appeal against Family Court judgment declaring her and her former husband are entitled to 50% each in the suit property.

Expeditiously Decide Plea To Maintain Database Of Complainants Filing Multiple Sexual Offence Cases: High Court To Delhi Police

Title: SHONEE KAPOOR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 938

The Delhi High Court asked the Delhi Police and other authorities to decide expeditiously a plea seeking maintenance of a database of complainants who have filed multiple cases of sexual offences.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela disposed of a PIL filed by one Shonee Kapoor, represented by Advocate Shashi Ranjan Kumar Singh.

Trader Can't Be Labelled Defaulter Over Unpaid Demand During Pendency Of GST Appeal, After Making Pre-Deposit: Delhi High Court

Case title: Shri Sarabjeet Singh , Proprietor Of M/S Khurana Associates v. The Commissioner Of SGST, Delhi SGST & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 939

The Delhi HIgh Court has held that once a trader prefers an appeal against a demand raised by the GST Department and makes the mandatory pre-deposit, the demand order is automatically stayed and the trader cannot be treated as a defaulter.

A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta thus granted relief to the Petitioner-proprietorship firm and directed the Department to process its request for a fresh GST registration.

S.125 CrPC | Technical Delays, Procedural Lapses Can't Defeat Purpose Of Interim Maintenance To Wife & Minor Child: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 940

The Delhi High Court has observed that technical delays or procedural lapses cannot defeat the purpose of interim maintenance to wife and minor child under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that interim maintenance under the provision in question is meant to provide immediate relief to a spouse and minor children who are otherwise unable to maintain themselves.

Customs Wrongly Treated 998 Purity Gold Jewellery As Prohibited Goods Under Baggage Rules: Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Traveller

Case title: Shamina v. Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 941

The Delhi High Court granted relief to a woman whose 998 purity (equivalent to 24 karat) gold jewellery was treated as prohibited goods under the Baggage Rules 2016, and absolutely confiscated by the Customs Department on her return to the country.

Delhi High Court Orders NTA To Streamline Biometric Process For NEET UG, Upholds Direction To Constitute Grievance Redressal Framework

Title: NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY v. SATYA NISHTH & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 942

The Delhi High Court has directed the National Testing Agency (NTA) to streamline the biometric process while conducting National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET-UG) for future examinations.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Sachin Datta upheld the direction of a single judge asking NTA to constitute a Standing Grievance Redressal Committee to resolve issues of candidates who suffer loss of time due to technical issues, without any fault on their part.

Restraining Breaching Party From Activities Barred By Shareholders' Agreement Is Not Prohibited U/S 27 Of Contract Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: PAUL DEEPAK RAJARATNAM & ORS. versus SURGEPORT LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 943

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that restraining a breaching party through an interim award passed under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act from engaging in certain activities, as per the terms of Shareholders' Agreement (SHA), to prevent the subject matter of arbitration from being rendered futile, is not barred under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, especially when the contract remains valid and has not been lawfully terminated.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release Of 'Udaipur Files' Movie, Dismisses Accused's Plea For Interim Relief

Title: MOHDMMED JAVED v. UNION OF INIDIA AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 944

he Delhi High Court refused to stay the release of “Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder" which is scheduled for release on Friday, i.e., August 8.

The court rejected one of the accused in the case Mohammad Javed's plea for interim relief seeking stay on the release of the film. It however issued notice on the main petition against the order passed by the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) clearing the certification of the film.

'Defrauding Unsuspecting Users': Delhi High Court Grants John Doe Injunction Over Trademark Infringement Of Share Market App 'INDmoney'

Case title: Indmoney Tech Private Limited & Anr. v. Ashok Kumar And Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 945

The Delhi High Court has passed a john doe interim injunction restraining rogue websites and applications from infringing the trademark of share market and financial services app INDmoney.

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora was prima facie satisfied that the defendant-entity, by making unauthorised use of the Plaintiffs' trademarks, has been luring unsuspecting users to invest monies with the said Defendant No. 1.

Cash-For-Query Row: Delhi High Court Orders 'Strict Confidentiality' After Mahua Moitra Flags Media Leak Of CBI Report To Lokpal

Tile: MAHUA MOITRA v. NISHIKANT DUBEY & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 946

Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Mahua Moitra moved the Delhi High Court against the alleged media leak of the news of CBI submitting its report to Lokpal of India in relation to the alleged cash-for-query scam.

Justice Sachin Datta directed that confidentiality shall be “strictly maintained by all the concerned.”

Delhi High Court Asks CBI To Probe Alleged 'Extortion Racket' Inside Tihar Jail

Title: Mohit Kumar Goyal v. State of NCT of Delhi And Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 947

The Delhi High Court told the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register an FIR over the allegations of extortion racket being run inside the Tihar jail involving its officials and inmates.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela perused the status report as well as the preliminary enquiry report of Delhi Government's Principal Secretary (Home).

'Priority Of Use' No Defence Against Trademark Infringement Unless It Predates Both Use & Registration By Plaintiff: Delhi High Court

Case title: Bodhisattva Charitable Trust And Ors. v. Mayo Foundation For Medical Education And Research

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 948

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that priority of user is not a defence to an action for infringement of trademark unless the use of such mark by the defendant predates both the user as well as the registration of the asserted mark of the plaintiff.

Delhi High Court Warns Of Criminal Action Against Unauthorised Street Vendors In City's Shalimar Bagh Area

Case title: Surender Kumar Sharma And Ors v. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 949

The Delhi High Court told the Municipal Corporation of Delhi that merely because it is unable to control unauthorised street vendors and prevent encroachment of public pathways is not grounds to discontinue the weekly market approved by the Town Vending Committee (TVC).

The bench was dealing with a plea moved by holders of the Certificate of Vending (CoV), seeking directions to MCD not to restrain them from holding the weekly market in the city's Shalimar Bagh area. TVC had approved around 300 vendors for the same.

'Too Little, Too Late': Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Jamia Millia Assistant Professor Terminated Without Proper Hearing

Case title: Sarfraz Ahmad v. Vice Chancellor, JMI And Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 950

The Delhi High Court has set aside the order of Jamia Millia Islamia University terminating the services of an Assistant Professor for unauthorised absence, who claimed to have discontinued taking classes for a period of time over alleged victimisation by certain other Professors of the varsity.

In doing so, Justice Prateek Jalan noted there was “inadequate compliance with the principles of natural justice” in as much as the inquiry report, on the basis of which the Executive Council passed its resolutions terminating the Petitioner, was never served upon him.

Recruitment Of Nursing Officers/ Para-Medical Staff Absolutely Crucial For Health Management In Delhi Govt Hospitals: High Court

Case title: Court On Its Own Motion v. Union Of India & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 951

Stating that appointment of nursing and para-medical staff is “absolutely crucial for the health management in hospitals in Delhi”, the High Court has ordered the government to undertake the process of recruitment without any impediment.

A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora ordered, “as and when the results are declared, after completing the necessary formalities, the appointment shall be done on a post-to-post basis without waiting for the recruitment in the other post.”

S.37 NDPS Act | Contraband Recovered From Separate Accused Can't Be Collectively Attributed To One Person To Deny Bail: Delhi High Court

Case title: Meena v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 952

The Delhi High Court has held that when contraband is recovered from multiple accused persons separately, the same cannot be collectively attributed to one of the accused to deny him bail.

UAPA: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To One, Denies Bail To Other In J&K Terror Funding Case

Title: SYED AHMAD SHAKEEL v. NIA and other connected matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 953

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to one Syed Ahmad Shakeel and has denied bail to one Shahid Yusuf in relation to an alleged case of terror funding and secessionist activities in Jammu and Kashmir.

A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur observed that Shakeel had already suffered prolonged incarceration of around 6 years and 11 months, without any certainty of the trial concluding within a reasonable time.

[MCOCA] If State Cites Seriousness Of Offence To Oppose Bail, It Must Avoid Delays In Critical Processes Like Appointing Prosecutor: Delhi HC

Title: SUKHBIR SINGH v. STATE NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 954

While dismissing an accused's plea in a MCOCA case, the Delhi High Court has observed that the State must avoid delays in “critical processes” such as appointment of an SPP where it cites seriousness and gravity of alleged offence to oppose a plea.

Income Tax Act | Criminal Complaint For Tax Evasion Filed During Pendency Of Reassessment Proceedings Not Premature: Delhi High Court

Case title: Raj Kumar Kedia v. Income Tax Office

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 955

The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea for quashing a criminal complaint lodged under Income Tax Act 1961 for alleged tax evasion, moved on the ground that reassessment action was pending and hence the complaint was premature.

Delhi High Court Imposes ₹50K Cost On Trader Who Missed Personal Hearing After Failing To Check GST Portal

Case title: Ganpati Polymers Through It Proprietor Prop. Ankur Jain v. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax And Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 956

The Delhi High Court refused to interfere with a GST demand raised against a trader, who failed to either appear for personal hearing or even file a reply.

Complainant's Privacy Concern Can't Come In Accused's Way To Preserve Call Records Claimed To Be Exculpatory Evidence: Delhi High Court

Title: SOHAIL MALIK v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 957

The Delhi High Court ruled that the privacy concern of a complainant cannot come in the way of an accused seeking preservation of Call Detail Records which is claimed to be exculpatory evidence.

“Preservation of exculpatory evidence is of the utmost sanctity for purposes of ensuring a fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India; and a narrow construction or interpretation of section 91 Cr.P.C. must not stand in the way of preservation of such evidence, whilst of course leaving it to the trial court to subsequently decide whether such evidence is relevant and admissible,” Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said.

Parties' Decision To Transact Goods In 'Sound Condition' Prevails Over Prior Agreement To Transact On 'As Is Where Is' Basis”: Delhi HC

Case Title – PEC Ltd v. Ms Badri Singh Vinimay Pvt Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 958

The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar while upholding an arbitral award has observed that if the parties had agreed to transact goods on 'as is where is' basis in the tender document but agreed in the acceptance letter that the goods would be transacted on 'sound condition' basis, then the earlier agreement will stand substituted by the latter understanding between the parties and the goods will be transacted on 'sound condition' basis.

Knife Is A 'Deadly Weapon' Irrespective Of Its Dimensions, Recovery Not Essential To Attract Offence U/S 397 IPC: Delhi High Court

Case title: Azam v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 959

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that dimension or type of knife used to threaten a person of injury is irrelevant for the purpose of attracting the offence of Section 397 IPC.

The provision states that if, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.

1984 Anti-Sikh Riots Case: Delhi High Court Flags Shortcomings In Murder Trial Of 3 Sikh Men, Directs Reconstruction Of Records

Case title: Court On Its Own Motion v. Dhanraj & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 960

The Delhi High Court found flaws in the investigation and subsequent trial conducted into the killings of three Sikh men in Delhi NCR region, following assasination of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.

Court Must Scrutinise Invocation Of Expression 'Urgent Interim Relief' By Litigants U/S 12A Of Commercial Courts Act: Delhi High Court

Case title: M/S Exclusive Capital Limited v. Clover Media Private Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 961

The Delhi High Court has held that the expression “contemplates urgent interim relief” under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act 2015 though not defined under the statute, demands a rigorous scrutiny of commercial suits bypassing mandatory mediation to ensure that the benefit of exemption under the provision is not misused by unscrupulous litigants.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Against SC/ST Reservation For Those Who Convert From Hinduism To Buddhism

Case title: ADVOCATE MANISH KUMAR V/s UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 962

The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a plea questioning the vires of extension of SC/ST reservation benefits to those who have converted from Hinduism to Buddhism, after noting that the document in question which allegedly provides such benefits was not placed before it.

'Entire Trial Was Concluded In Two Days': Delhi High Court Sets Aside 'Sham' Conviction Under Defacement Of Public Property Act

Case title: Aditya Rai Gupta v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 963

The Delhi High Court slammed a Magistrate Court for conducting a “sham” trial within two days, where the accused was neither aware of the charges, nor given an opportunity to defend himself and not even supplied a copy of the Judgment.

'Are We Post Office?' Delhi High Court Rejects PIL Filed Against Illegal Establishments Without Awaiting MCD's Reply To Representation

Case title: AMAN SINGH V/s MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI THORUGH ITS COMMISSIONER & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 964

The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a PIL claiming "illegal establishments" were being run on certain land, after noting that the petitioner had filed the plea within 10 days of filing his representation with the MCD on July 23 without waiting for a response.

Delhi High Court Flags Trend Of Using Children To Commit Crimes Like Drugs & Arms Distribution, Denies Anticipatory Bail To Accused

Case title: Narender v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 965

The Delhi High Court denied anticipatory bail to a man accused of using a child for transporting 450 quarters of illicit liquor.

In doing so, Justice Girish Kathpalia said,

“Over a period of time, it is being observed that criminals use children to commit wide ranging crimes, involving not just liquor and drugs peddling but also arms/ammunitions and even acts of extreme violence, which is leading the society to consider re-fixing the age of juvenility.”

Compulsory Retirement Over Conviction 'Disproportionate' When Court Released Employee On Probation: Delhi High Court

Case title: Satya Pal Singh v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 966

The Delhi High Court has reinstated an Air Force Accounts Auditor who was compulsorily retired from service following his conviction for dowry harassment under Section 498A of IPC.

Family Disapproval Can't Curtail Autonomy Of Consenting Adults To Choose Life Partners: Delhi High Court

Title: PRINCE TYAGI AND ANR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 967

The Delhi High Court has ruled that family disapproval cannot curtail the autonomy of two consenting adults to choose life partners.

“The right of two consenting adults to choose each other as life partners and to live together in peace is a facet of their personal liberty, privacy, and dignity protected under Article 21. Family disapproval cannot curtail that autonomy,” Justice Sanjeev Narula said.

Company Can Be Blacklisted From Future Tenders If Employee Files Forged Documents In Bid: Delhi High Court

Case title: CCS Computers Pvt Ltd v. NDMC

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 968

The Delhi High Court has held that a company can be blacklisted from future tenders if its employee, authorised to submit the bid forges the documents submitted, irrespective of the company management's knowledge regarding such forgery.

Choice To Marry Across Lines Of Faith Is Individual's Autonomy, Immune From External Veto: Delhi High Court

Title: MOHAMMAD SHAHNOOR MANSOORI v. STATE OF DELHI THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 969

The Delhi High Court has observed that the choice to marry across lines of faith is the autonomy of the individual and is immune from external veto.

Rape Victim's Refusal To Undergo Medical Exam Doesn't Affect Prosecution Case At Stage Of Framing Charges: Delhi High Court

Case title: Sachindra Priyadarshi v. State Of NCT Of Delhi Through The Chief Secretary

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 970

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that where a rape survivor has given detailed accounts of the alleged sexual assaults by the accused, here mere refusal to undergo internal medical examination doesn't materially affect prosecution case at the stage of framing charges.

Continuing Physical Relations On Promise To Marry Despite Family's Caste-Objections Shows Dishonesty, Constitutes Rape: Delhi High Court

Title: STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) v. GAURANG KADYAN

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 971

The Delhi High Court has observed that continuing physical relations with a woman knowing that the marriage is impossible, based on a false promise to marry from the inception, would constitute the offence of rape.

Consideration Paid To Foreign Company For Use Of Computer Software Not 'Royalty', No TDS Liability: Delhi High Court

Case title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 v. Xiocom (Nz) Ltd

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 972

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that consideration paid by an Indian entity to a foreign company for the resale/ use of their computer software is not 'royalty'.

Delhi Judicial Services Rules | Waitlisted Candidate Can't Join Service Even If Appointed Candidate Resigns After Filling Of Vacancies: High Court

Case title: Aadya Antya v. High Court Of Delhi Through Registrar General

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 973

The Delhi High Court has held that in terms of the Delhi Judicial Services Rules 1970, if all the vacancies of judicial officers are initially filled and subsequently, an appointed judge resigns, then such vacancies are treated as fresh vacancies which cannot be filled by a candidate next-in-line in the waitlist.

[Section 223 BNSS] Cognizance On ED Complaint Can't Be Taken Without Hearing Accused: Delhi High Court

Title: Lakshay Vij v. ED

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 974

The Delhi High Court has observed that special court cannot take cognizance of the complaint filed by Enforcement Directorate (ED) without giving opportunity of hearing to the accused.

Merely Because Deceased Was Seen Crying Doesn't Prove She Was Harassed For Dowry: Delhi High Court In Dowry Death Case

Title: GAINDA LAL v. STATE & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 975

While upholding discharge of a husband and his family members in a dowry death and cruelty case, the Delhi High Court has observed merely because the deceased was seen crying cannot per se make out any case of dowry harassment.

Delhi High Court Directs Centre To Ask J&K Govt To Include 'Dragon Boat Racing' In Khelo India Water Sports Festival

Title: DRAGON BOAT INDIA AND TRADITIONAL SPORTS FEDERATION v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 976

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to ask the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir to include “Dragon Boat Racing” as a competitive sport in the Khelo India Water Sports Festival, scheduled to be held from August 21-23 at Dal Lake, Srinagar.

Post-Termination Restrictive Covenants In Employment Contracts Are Void U/S 27 Of Contract Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Neosky India Limited & Anr. v. Mr. Nagendran Kandasamy & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 977

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that post-service restrictive covenants in employment contracts, which operate after cessation of employment, are void and are not enforceable under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (“Contract Act”) and violate Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The court vacated the injunction granted in an application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), which restrained the Respondents from engaging in a competing business post-termination of their employment agreements.

Delhi High Court Flags 'Serious Disputes' In Functioning Of Equestrian Federation Of India, Stays Extraordinary General Meeting

Title: RAJASTHAN EQUESTRAIN ASSOCIATION v. EQUESTRIAN FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 978

The Delhi High Court has restrained the Equestrian Federation of India (EFI) from holding Extra-Ordinary General Meeting (EOGM) on Sunday, citing “serious disputes” in the overall functioning of the Federation.

“It is evident that there are serious disputes about virtually every facet of the functioning and current state of affairs of the EFI,” Justice Sachin Datta said in an order passed on August 13.

Delay Is No Defence Against Action For Infringement & Passing Off Where Adoption Of Trademark Is Dishonest: Delhi High Court

Case title: Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited v. Sauss Home Products Private Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 979

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that delay by a registered trademark holder in prosecuting alleged infringement is not a defence available to the Defendant, where it is evident that Defendant's use of impugned trademark was dishonest/ fraudulent.

Timeline Prescribed For Filing Statement Of Defence Under Rule 18(3) Of Indian Council Of Arbitration Rules Is Directory In Nature: Delhi HC

Case Title: ANEJA CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) versus DOOSAN POWER SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 980

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has held that the timeline prescribed under Indian Council of Arbitration Rules, 2024 for filing a Statement of Defence by the respondent is directory in nature and can be extended by the Arbitral Tribunal if a sufficient cause is established.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside CIC Order Directing Disclosure Of Information On PM Modi's Degree

Title: University of Delhi v. Neeraj and other connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1012

The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing the Delhi University (DU) to disclos information with respect to the bachelor's degree of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Justice Sachin Datta allowed DU's plea filed in 2017 against CIC's order which allowed inspection of records of the students who had passed BA programme in 1978, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi is also stated to have cleared the examination. The order was stayed on the first date of hearing on January 24 in 2017.

No Right To Ante-Dating Of Promotion Merely Because Post Remained Unfilled Despite Availability Of Eligible Candidate: Delhi High Court

Case title: Bhupinder Kumar Malik v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1013

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an employee cannot claim right to antedating of promotion merely because he was promoted at a later point in time, keeping the vacant post unfilled without providing reasons.

Import Of Counterfeit iPhones Dilutes Brand Equity, Affects Consumer Welfare: Delhi High Court In Customs Fraud Case

Case title: M/S ECG Easy Connect Logistics Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1014

The Delhi High Court has expressed concern over alleged import of counterfeit iPhones, stating that such imports not only affect brand owners but also adversely affect consumer welfare— as old and used products could get re-branded as new ones.

'Greedy Investors Pumping Money Into Unsustainable Ventures Distort Market Balance, Must Be Prepared For Consequences': Delhi HC In Cheating Case

Case title: Yogesh Singh v. State NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1015

The Delhi High Court has held that investors, who gamble their money with impractical promises of “unbelievably high returns”, must own their risks instead of running to the State and crying foul when they face loss.

Woman's Right To Reside In Shared Household Can't Act As Sword To Create Proprietary Rights: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1016

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a woman's right to reside in a shared household under Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act cannot act as a sword to create proprietary rights.

Domestic Violence Offences With Intention To Kill Must Be Viewed With Seriousness, Marriage Not Mitigating Factor: Delhi High Court

Title: SUSHANT RAJ v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1017

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the offences of domestic violence with the intention to kill must be viewed with seriousness and marital relationship is not a mitigating factor in such cases.

'Total Non-Application Of Mind': Delhi High Court On Dept's Rejection Of Trader's Plea For GST Cancellation, Subsequent Cancellation Order

Case title: Manish Goel HUF v. The Commissioner Delhi Goods And Services Tax Trade And Tax Department New Delhi And Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1018

The Delhi High Court expressed its disapproval with the GST Department for rejecting a trader's application for retrospective cancellation of his GST registration on medical grounds, and later cancelling his registration with retrospective effect.

Govt Notifications Imposing Restrictions On Usage In Contracts For Supply Of Gas Are Laws Under Article 12, Must Be Complied With: Delhi HC

Case Name: Gujarat State Fertilisers & Chemicals Ltd. v. M/S Gail (India) Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1019

The Delhi High Court, while dismissing a Section 34 petition, observed that the five contracts entered into between the parties were subject to the restrictions imposed by the Government. By providing the gas at a subsidised price, the Government has the authority to regulate the use of such gas.

Inherent Jurisdiction U/S 528 BNSS Can Be Exercised To Prevent Abuse Of Process, Not To Reopen Concluded Adjudication: Delhi High Court

Case title: Yogesh Singh v. State NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1020

The Delhi High Court has held that inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 are available to it even if the bail plea preferred before it stands disposed of.

Department Can't Withhold Refund In Terms Of S.54(11) GST Act Unless Appeal Against Refund Order Is Filed: Delhi High Court

Case title: Omega QMS v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi West & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1021

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the power to withhold refund under Section 54(11) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 cannot be exercised by the Department in absence of an appeal against the refund order.

'Mere Prospect Of Filing Review Not Grounds To Hold Seized Goods': Delhi High Court Orders Customs To Release Woman's Gold Jewellery

Case title: Ashiya v. Commissioner of Customs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1022

The Delhi High Court has granted relief to a Muslim woman whose gold bangles were seized by the Customs Department on return from Mecca and were withheld despite an order of the Adjudicating Authority, directing release.

Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Man Accused Under UAPA For Supplying Weapons To 'Bambiha' Gang, Says Arrest Not Illegal

Case title: Lakhveer Singh v. NIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1023

The Delhi High Court denied bail to a UAPA accused, booked for supplying arms and ammunition to the Bambiha Gang, in furtherance of alleged conspiracy to commit terrorist activities in the country, particularly the national capital.

Mere Non-Filing Of FSL Report At Time Of Filing Chargesheet Doesn't Entitle NDPS Accused To Default Bail: Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case title: Rahimullah Rahimi v. State NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1024

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that the non-filing of Forensic Science Laboratory Report in a drugs case does not vitiate the chargesheet and the accused cannot claim it as a ground to seek default bail.

Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction Of Father For Repeatedly Raping 9-Yr-Old Daughter, Says Witnesses' Credibility Unshaken

Title: X v. STATE (NCTD) AND ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1025

The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction and 10 year sentence of a father for raping his 9 year old minor daughter repeatedly every night in 2017.

Conviction Of A Single Accused For Gang Rape Is Permissible If Other Accused Couldn't Be Apprehended: Delhi High Court

Case title: Praveen @ Lallu v. State NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1026

The Delhi High Court has held that a single person can be convicted for the offence of gang rape punishable under Section 376DA IPC (Section 70 BNS), even if the co-offender manages to escape trial.

Delhi High Court Upholds Vires Of S.193(9) BNSS On Further Probe, Says It Does Not 'Camouflage' Accused's Right To Default Bail

Title: YASH MISHRA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1027

The Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 193(9) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, saying that the provision does not act as a camouflage to an accused's right to default bail.

Delhi High Court Grants John Doe Order Awarding Dynamic Interim Injunction Protecting Tata Pay Trademark

Case title: Tata Sons Pvt Ltd v. John Doe

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1028

The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim dynamic injunction, protecting the trademark of Tata Group's payment solutions platform Tata Pay.

'Can't Turn Blind Eye To Reformative Purpose Of Imprisonment': Delhi High Court Reduces 3-Month Sentence Awarded To POCSO Convict

Case title: Deepak Sain v. State NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1029

The Delhi High Court has reduced the sentence of 3 months imprisonment imposed upon a POCSO convict after 10 years of trial, stating that it cannot “uproot” him from the society after a decade.

GST Dept Can't Probe Misuse Of GSTIN By Third Party, Power Lies With Economic Offences Wing: Delhi High Court

Case title: Samyak Jain v. Superintendent (Adjudication), Central Gst Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1030

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that allegations of misuse of a trader's GST identification number by a third party cannot be probed by the GST Department.

No Injunction Can Be Granted Against Defendant Using Their Name As Trademark Even In Cases Of Passing Off: Delhi High Court

Case title: Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. v. Vasundhara Fashion Jewellery LLP

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1031

The Delhi High Court has held that “no injunction can be granted even in the case of passing off against a defendant, restraining the use by her, or him, of her, or his, own name.”

Dismissal Of Plea U/S 8 Of A&C Act Amounts To Res Judicata; S.11 Court Cannot Refer Parties To Arbitration: Delhi High Court

Case Name: Surender Bajaj v. Dinesh Chand Gupta and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1032

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, while dismissing a Section 11 petition under the A&C Act, observed that dismissing a Section 8 application under the A&C Act amounts to res judicata. The Section 11 Court cannot refer the parties to Arbitration if the order dismissing Section 8 is not set aside or interfered with.

Use Of Full Name Not Mandatory To Avail Protection U/S 35 Trademarks Act: Delhi High Court

Case title: Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. v. Vasundhara Fashion Jewellery LLP

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1033

The Delhi High Court has held that the benefit of Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act 1999, which proscribes any injunction being granted against the use by the defendants of his/ her name as a trademark, is not restricted to use of full name by the defendant.

Delhi High Court Rejects Centre's Plea Against Direction To Grant Promotion To IRS Officer Sameer Wankhede If Found Eligible

Title: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS v. SAMEER DNYANDEV WANKHEDE

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1034

The Delhi High Court has dismissed Central Government's plea against a direction to grant promotion to IRS officer Sameer Wankhede if he is found suitable by the UPSC.

'Common Area Maintenance Charge' Paid To Mall By Showroom Is Not Rent, Not Liable To TDS U/S 194-I Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court

Case title: Commissioner Of Income Tax-Tds-01 v. Diamond Tree

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1035

The Delhi High Court has held that the Common Area Maintenance Charge (CAM) paid by a showroom owner to the mall does not qualify as 'rent' and is not liable to TDS under Section 194I of the Income Tax Act 1961.

Hindu Marriage Can't Be Dissolved By Signing Marriage Dissolution Deed In Front Of Villagers: Delhi High Court

Title: ASHWANI KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1036

The Delhi High Court has held that a Hindu marriage cannot be dissolved by signing a marriage dissolution deed in front of villagers or “social people and witnesses.”

Delhi High Court Rules In Favour Of Haveli Restaurants, Asks 'Punjabi Haveli' To Remove Ads From Third Party Websites

Title: HAVELI RESTAURANT AND RESORTS LTD v. ADISON RESORTS LIMITED

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1037

Ruling in favour of famous Haveli Restaurant and Resorts, the Delhi High Court has recently asked a Ludhiana based company running under the name “Punjabi Haveli” to refrain from using “Haveli” marks and to remove its advertisements or listings from third party websites.

Matrimonial Dispute Is No Grounds To Deny Family Pension To Wife Upon Husband's Death: Delhi High Court

Case title: Soni Devi v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1038

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a wife cannot be denied family pension upon her husband's death, merely because they had an ongoing matrimonial dispute.

'American Ganja' Being More Expensive Than 'Indian Ganja' Doesn't Increase Culpability Under NDPS Act: Delhi High Court

Case title: Abdul Malik Alias Parvez v. State Govt Of NCT Of Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1039

“Merely because American ganja is more expensive than Indian ganja, culpability does not increase in the former,” the Delhi High Court has held.

Working “For” An Organisation Cannot Be Equated With Working “In” It For Eligibility In Recruitment Process: Delhi High Court

Case title: XX v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1040

The Delhi High Court has held that working 'for' an organization cannot be equated with working 'in' an organization”, and 'employment' and 'empanelment' are to be treated differently when interpreting recruitment rules.

Mandatory To Implead Alleged Paramour Of Spouse When Seeking Divorce On Grounds Of Adultery: Delhi High Court

Case title: Tanvi Chaturvedi v. Smita Shrivastava & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1041

The Delhi High Court has held that it is not only necessary but mandatory to implead the alleged paramour of one's spouse when seeking divorce on the ground of adultery.

Students Contesting DUSU Polls Need Not Deposit Rs. 1 Lakh Bond: Delhi High Court Clarifies

Title: ANJALI & ANR v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1042

The Delhi High Court has clarified that the students contesting the Delhi University Students' Union (DUSU) Elections, 2025, need not deposit the bond of Rs. 1 lakh, which was imposed as a precondition by the varsity.

Husband's Home Loan & Responsibility Towards Parents Can Be Considered While Determining Maintenance: Delhi High Court

Case title: Ankush Kumar Parashar v. Sapna @ Mona & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1043

The Delhi High Court, while reducing the quantum of maintenance granted to a man's wife and child, took into consideration his financial obligations like home loan and responsibility towards his parents.

Disability Attributable To Military Service; Burden To Rebut Lies On Employer : Delhi HC

Case. : Union Of India And Ors vs Ex Wo Om Prakash Retd

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1044

A Division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that a member of the armed forces is presumed to be in sound health at the time of entry into service; therefore, if a disability such as Primary Hypertension arises during service and was not noted at entry, it is presumed to be attributable to or aggravated by military service. The burden lies on the employer to rebut this presumption with clear reasons. Further the disability pension being a beneficial provision, must be interpreted liberally.

Accused Seeks Quashing Of POCSO Case Saying Victim Would Face Social Stigma, Delhi High Court Imposes Rs. 10K Costs

Title: ALTAF v. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1045

The Delhi High Court has imposed Rs. 10,000 costs on an accused who sought quashing of a POCSO case registered against him on the ground that it was in the interest of the minor victim who would otherwise would face social stigma.

Omission To Act When Someone Else Commits An Offence In Furtherance Of Common Intention Attracts S.34 IPC; Presence Not Necessary: Delhi HC

Case title: Ashok Babu v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1046

The Delhi High Court has held that merely standing guard or omitting to act when someone else commits an offence in furtherance of their common intention would be sufficient to attract liability under Section 34 IPC.

Delhi High Court Declines Pleas Of Candidates Excluded From Supreme Court Junior Court Assistant Recruitment

Case title: Pramiti Basu v. Secretary General Supreme Court Of India (and batch)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1047

The Delhi High Court dismissed a batch of pleas filed by candidates aspiring for the post of Junior Court Assistant (JCA) at the Supreme Court, over their exclusion from the recruitment process.

'Men-Only' Reservation In Air Force Flying Posts Unjustified; Eligible Women Must Be Appointed: Delhi High Court

Title: MS. ARCHANA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1048

The Delhi High Court has directed the Central Government to appoint a woman candidate on the post of Air Force Pilot, observing that we are no longer in the times in which discrimination could be made between male and female candidates for entering into the Armed Forces.

Delhi High Court Blocks Fraudulent Websites Collecting Money Under 'Burger King' Trademark

Case title: Burger King Corporation vs. Swapnil Patil & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1049

The Delhi High Court has observed that the illegal use of “Burger King” trademark or collecting money under the name of the American multinational fast food restaurant chain is not permitted.