Delhi High Court Monthly Digest: July 2025 [Citations 720 - 908]

SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE (GOVT. OF THE NCT) OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 721

Amazon Technologies Inc v. Lifestyle Equities 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 722

Rasiklal Mohanlal Gangani v. State & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 723

SHANKESH MUTHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 724

NK v. K 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 725

Neelam Azad v. State and other connected matter 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 726

MM DHONCHAK v. UNION OF INDIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 727

Anish Sharma v. DOE GNCTD & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 728

VIP Industries Ltd v. Carlton Shoes Ltd & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 729

RAJDEEP SARDESAI & ORS. V/s SHAZIA ILMI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 730

M/S Crocs Inc USA v. M/S Bata India & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 731

Jitendra Chouksey v. Union of India & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 732

Aditya Chauhan & Anr v. Union of India & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 733

X v. Y 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 734

M/S Products And Ideas (India) Pvt. Ltd v. Nilkamal Limited And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 735

AADRITI PATHAK THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL MOTHER MRS. SADHANA SHARMA v. GD GOENKA PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 736

Dabur India Limited v. Patanjali Ayurved 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 737

INSPECTOR MIN GAJENDRA KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 738

UNION OF INDIA & ORS v. COL. BALBIR SINGH (RETD.) and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 739

BELVEDERE RESOURCES DMCC v. OCL IRON AND STEEL LTD & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 740

VINOD v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 741

JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 742

AIIMS v. Minor A & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 743

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs AMAZON WEB SERVICES 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 744

Modi Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd v. Speciality Meditech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 745

Modi Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd v. Speciality Meditech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 746

PRANAV PANDEY v. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 747

Commissioner Of Service Tax Delhi v. Shyam Spectra Private Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 748

M/S Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assessing Officer, Circle 10(1) & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 749

M/S Shreehari Ananta Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner Of Customs Icd Patparganj 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 750

DAZN LIMITED & ANR vs BUFFSPORTS. ME & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 751

CONQUEROR INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR v. XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 752

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-7 v. M/S Thomson Press (India) Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 753

GNCTD v. Jyoti 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 754

M/S Viva Infraventure Pvt. Ltd. vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 755

Nand Lal Luhar And Ors v. Western Railway And Ors (and batch) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 756

Mrs Madhurbhashani & Ors v. Ranjit Singh (and connected matter) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 757

ROSHAN REAL ESTATES PVT LTD versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 758

Amrit Pal Singh v. ED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 759

M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED. Versus RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 760

CELEBI AIRPORT SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v/s UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 761

Raheja Developers Limited v. Ahluwalia Contractors India Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 762

STATE v. YOGESH @ GOLU & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 763

RAM KAWAR GARG versus BAJAJ CAPITAL INVESTOR SERVICES LIMITED NOW NEW NAME IS JUST TRADE SECURITIES LIMITED AND ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 764

BIRKENSTOCK IP GMBH v. ASHOK KUMAR(S)/JOHN DOE(S) & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 765

AAKASH DEEP CHOUHAN v. CBI & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 766

GNCTD v. Nisha 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 767

Saurav Das & Ors v. CIC 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 768

Rahnuma & Ors. v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 769

UPENDRA NATH DALAI v. UNION OF INDIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 770

Gulshan Babbar Advocate v. GNCTD (and batch) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 771

SURENDRA KUMAR v. CBI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 772

Mubina v. Commissioner of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 773

Dr Aastha Raj v. National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 774

SAGIR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 775

MAULANA ARSHAD MADANI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 776

SHIV SHANKAR v. STATE & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 777

Asociacion De Productores De Pisco A.G v. Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 778

DIVYANSHI KHANNA (MINOR) THROUGH HER LEGAL GUARDIAN & ORS v. HOCKEY INDIA & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 779

RUSHANT MALHOTRA & ORS v. THE GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 780

SHANKAR v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 781

AXIS MAX LIFE INSURANCE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 782

RAJAB ALI KHAN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 783

Baba Global Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 29 & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 784

TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR v. JOHN DOE AND 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 785

UMESH VERMA v. STATE 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 786

Kroll Information Assurance LLC v. The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 787

PUMA SE v. HIMANSHU SHARMA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 788

TIPS FILMS LIMITED v. HTTPS//0GOMOVIES.COM.TR/ & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 789

SARVINDER SINGH & ANR v. VIPUL TANDON 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 790

M/S MJ Bizcrafts LLP Through Partner Rajender Kumar v. Central Goods And Services Tax Delhi South Commissionerate Through Its Commissioner & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 791

UNION OF INDIA versus VEDANTA LIMITED & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 792

BUDHI SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 793

ARSALAN FEROZE AHENGER v. NIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 794

Reliance Industries Limited v. Pawan Kumar Gupta & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 795

Johnson & Johnson Pte Ltd v. Mr. Abbireddi Satish Kumar & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 796

ANWAR KHAN @ CHACHA & ORS v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 797

X v. Y 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 798

A v. B 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 799

SAMIR @ AZHAR v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 800

DR. SUBHASH VIJAYRAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 801

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 802

Bhupender Kumar v. Additional Commissioner Adjudication CGST Delhi North & Ors.2025 LiveLaw (Del) 803

ABHIJIT MISHRA v. WIPRO LIMITED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 804

Tungsten Automation England Limited (Formerly Known As Tungsten Network Limited) v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 3(1)(1) New Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 805

Principal Commissioner Of Customs (ACC Imports) Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 806

ANIL VERMA v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 807

Exclusive Motors Pvt Ltd v. CBI & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 808

ANKIT v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 809

Reliance Retail Limited v. Ashok Kumar & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 810

MOHD ANWAR & ORS. v. STATE NCT OF DELHI and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 811

Dolby International AB & Anr. v. Lava International Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 812

Ability Dodzi @ Chinazom Ability v. State NCT Of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 813

Arpit Mishra v. State2025 LiveLaw (Del) 814

National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) vs. South Indian Bank Ltd and Union Bank of India Ltd. & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 815

BALBIR MEENA v. STATE GOVT NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 816

Neeraj Bharadwaj v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(2) & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 818

CANARA BANK versus SANJEEV SHARMA & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 819

Ms. X v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 820

THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI v. MUKESH & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 821

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI v. JAWAHAR SINGH 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 822

Bhadra International India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Punjab national Bank & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 823

Amit Jain & Ors. v. Anila Jain & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 824

E. R. SQUIBB AND SONS, LLC & ORS v. ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 825

Teena Choudhary v. UPSC & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 827

Banti Kumar Mathur v. The State Of Nct Of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 828

X v. Y 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 829

SANEESH SOMAN v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 830

Anurag Dalmia v. Income Tax Office 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 831

Mold Tek Packaging Limited v. Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 832

MS VEERJI RESTAURANT PRIVATE LIMITED v. YASH RAI & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 833

Prabir Purkayastha v. ED and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 834

Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 835

Twenty-Four Frames Factory Private Limited v. John Doe & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 836

Naresh Kumar @ Pahelwan v. State Of Nct Of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 837

SKD v. MG & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 838

AS v. NKS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 839

MOHAMMAD SHAHID @ SAHID v. STATE OF (NCT) OF DELHI & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 840

MOHD RIZWAN ASHRAF v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 841

BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT. LTD v. ANIL KUMAR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 842

Mohd Alam v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 843

HARI SINGH v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2025LiveLaw (Del) 844

B.D. SHARMA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 845

X v. Y 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 846

DR AMIT KUMAR v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 847

Delhi High Court Allows Minor Rape Survivor To Terminate 27-Week Pregnancy

Title: MINOR A THR HER MOTHER S v. STATE & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 720

The Delhi High Court has allowed a minor rape survivor to terminate her pregnancy of approximately 27-weeks gestational period and directed the Medical Superintendent of AIIMS to make necessary arrangement for the same.

Vacation judge Justice Manoj Jain noted that the 16-year-old girl was a victim of sexual assault and was not interested in continuing with the pregnancy.

Priyadarshini Mattoo Case: Delhi High Court Finds 'Element Of Reformation' In Life Convict, Orders Review Of Plea For Early Release

Title: SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE (GOVT. OF THE NCT) OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 721

The Delhi High Court set aside a decision of the Sentence Review Board (SRB) of Delhi Prisons denying the request for premature release made by Santosh Kumar Singh, convicted in the 1996 rape and murder case of law student Priyadarshini Mattoo in the national capital.

Singh is serving life imprisonment in the case.

Delhi High Court Stays Ruling Asking Amazon To Pay ₹339.25 Crore To 'Beverly Hills Polo Club' Over Trademark Infringement

Title: Amazon Technologies Inc v. Lifestyle Equities

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 722

The Delhi High Court stayed a single judge ruling asking Amazon Technologies Inc to pay Rs. 339.25 crore damages and costs for trademark infringement of the luxury lifestyle brand, Beverly Hills Polo Club.

“The considerations outlined herein above make out, in our considered opinion, an exceptional case, in which it would be a complete travesty of justice to require the Appellant Amazon Tech to deposit, or secure, any part of the amount decreed by the impugned judgment, in order to maintain its appeal,” the Bench said .

Trial Court Cannot Issue Summons To Accused Without Assigning Proper Reasons: Delhi High Court

Case title: Rasiklal Mohanlal Gangani v. State & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 723

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a trial court cannot issue a summons to an accused person without assigning proper reasons for the same.

Justice Amit Mahajan observed, “Merely taking note of the facts of the case and recording prima facie satisfaction, without giving any reasons for the same, is insufficient.”

[Extradition Act] Anticipatory Bail Available To Indian Citizen Apprehending Arrest For Alleged Offence Committed Abroad: Delhi High Court

Title: SHANKESH MUTHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 724

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC can be invoked by a 'fugitive criminal' facing proceedings under the Extradition Act, 1962.

Justice Sanjeev Narula held that an Indian citizen who apprehends arrest in India for an alleged offence committed abroad is not stripped of the protection guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Ad-Interim Maintenance Can Be Granted Without Filing Of Specific Application, Is Payable From Date Of Order: Delhi High Court

Title: NK v. K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 725

Distinguishing between interim maintenance and ad-interim maintenance, the Delhi High Court has held that the latter can be granted without filing of a specific application by the concerned party and is payable from the date of the order passed by the Court and not from the date of filing of maintenance application or petition.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that Court can grant ad-interim maintenance to alleviate the hardship of the claimant, pending its decision on the grant of interim maintenance and determination of its quantum.

Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Two Accused In 2023 Parliament Security Breach UAPA Case, Bars Them From Giving Interviews

Case Title: Neelam Azad v. State and other connected matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 726

The Delhi High Court granted bail to Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat, accused in the Parliament security breach case which happened on December 13, 2023.

A division bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar granted bail to the two subject to them furnishing bail bond of Rs. 50,000 each and two sureties of like amount.

Delhi High Court Rejects Retired Judge MM Dhonchak's Appeal, Upholds Extension Of Suspension From Chandigarh DRT

Title: MM DHONCHAK v. UNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 727

The Delhi High Court upheld a single judge ruling upholding the extension of suspension of MM Dhonchak, a retired judicial officer and former Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Chandigarh.

A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar dismissed Dhonchak's appeal against the single judge order of March 03 dismissing his petition against the second order of extension of suspension.

'Policy Decision': Delhi High Court Asks Litigant Seeking Special Syllabus For Autistic Children To Approach Concerned Authorities

Title: Anish Sharma v. DOE GNCTD & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 728

The Delhi High Court closed a PIL seeking special syllabus for children suffering from autism observing that it is a policy decision which has to be taken by the concerned authorities.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela asked the litigant, Anish Sharma, to file an appropriate representation to the authorities- Union Government, Delhi Government, CBSE, education boards and other relevant authority.

Goodwill Lies In 'Mark' Itself, Not In Particular Category: Delhi High Court In VIP v. Carlton London

Case title: VIP Industries Ltd v. Carlton Shoes Ltd & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 729

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that goodwill, for the purposes of a passing off action, is to be shown in respect of a mark and not in respect of particular goods or a category of goods.

In stating so, a division bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul upheld a single judge order restraining luggage and travel accessories manufacturer VIP from making use of the mark 'CARLTON' with respect to any kind of bags.

After Delhi High Court Shows Reluctance Rajdeep Sardesai Withdraws Appeal Challenging Partial Relief To BJP's Shazia Ilmi In Defamation Case

Case title: RAJDEEP SARDESAI & ORS. V/s SHAZIA ILMI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 730

Journalist Rajdeep Sardesai withdrew his appeal from the Delhi High Court which was filed against a single judge ruling granting partial relief to BJP leader Shazia Ilmi in her defamation case over a video posted by Sardesai on 'X'— alleging that she abused a video journalist of India Today during a televised debate.

The single judge had confirmed an interim order passed in August last year, directing Sardesai to remove the video.

After a division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar showed reluctance to interfere in the matter, Sardesai withdrew the appeal.

Passing Off Action For Product Registered Under Design Act Maintainable: Delhi High Court Restores Crocs' Pleas Against Liberty, Bata, Relaxo

Case title: M/S Crocs Inc USA v. M/S Bata India & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 731

The Delhi High Court has restored the suits filed by Crocs USA against Indian footwear brands Liberty, Bata, Relaxo, Aqualite and others for copying its distinctive clog design.

The suits were dismissed earlier by a single judge by holding that no passing off action can be found on a trade dress which is registered as a design under the Designs Act.

Delhi High Court Orders DCGI Intervention On Plea Concerning Approval Of Weight Loss Drugs, Directs Stakeholders Consultation

Title: Jitendra Chouksey v. Union of India & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 732

The Delhi High Court ordered intervention of the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) on a plea filed concerning the issue of approval of drug combinations sold in the market for weight loss treatment.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela directed the DCGI to consult experts and stakeholders, including the manufacturers of the drugs, on the issue.

Ensure RTI Information Is Provided In Modes Sought, With Adequate Safety Measures: Delhi High Court To Centre

Title: Aditya Chauhan & Anr v. Union of India & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 733

The Delhi High Court directed the competent authority of the Union Government to take measures and issue directions of frame Rules to ensure that the information under the Right to Information Act (2005) is provided in the mode sought by the information seeker, while also ensuring adequate safety measures.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela directed the competent authority of the Government of India to take a decision on the issue within three months.

Dignity Of Dependent Wife & Child Is Denied When Financial Support Is Delayed By Husband: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 734

The Delhi High Court has observed that the dignity of a dependent wife and child is denied when the financial support is delayed by the husband, underscoring that even a day's lapse defeats the very purpose of maintenance.

“The very object of maintenance is defeated if its disbursal is left at the convenience of the earning spouse. Financial support delayed is dignity denied, and this Court is conscious of the fact that timely maintenance is integral to safeguarding not only subsistence but the basic dignity of those who are legally entitled to such support,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

Dealer Importing & Selling Trademarked Goods Cannot Sue Authorised Distributor For Infringement: Delhi High Court

Case title: M/S Products And Ideas (India) Pvt. Ltd v. Nilkamal Limited And Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 735

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that when a trader imports and sells goods bearing the trademark of another company, such trader cannot sue another authorized dealer of the trademark holder for infringement.

Inclusive Education Not Merely About Access, It Is About Belongingness: Delhi High Court Relief To Child With 'Mild Autism'

Title: AADRITI PATHAK THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL MOTHER MRS. SADHANA SHARMA v. GD GOENKA PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 736

While granting relief to a child with “mild autism”, the Delhi High Court has observed that “inclusive education‟ is not merely about access to education but it is about belongingness.

“It is also about recognising that every child has a place in the classroom not because they are the same, but because they are different, and that difference enriches the learning environment for all,” Justice Vikas Mahajan observed.

Delhi High Court Restrains Patanjali Ayurved From Running Ads Allegedly Disparaging To Dabur's Chyavanprash Product

Title: Dabur India Limited v. Patanjali Ayurved

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 737

he Delhi High Court restrained Patanjali Ayurved from running advertisements allegedly disparaging to Dabur's Chyavanprash product.

The Court noted that Patanjali's TVC portrayed that the existing Chyawanprash in the market are ordinary and consumers ought not to settle for ordinary products, which are not prepared in accordance with ayurvedic knowledge as they are not manufactured as per ancient ayurvedic texts and tradition.

Delhi High Court Upholds Rule Restricting Retention Of General Pool Residential Accommodation By CAPF Personnel To Max Three Years

Title: INSPECTOR MIN GAJENDRA KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 738

The Delhi High Court has upheld a rule placing restriction on the retention of General Pool Residential Accommodation (GPRA) by Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) personnel to a maximum of three years at the last place of posting, when a personnel is thereafter posted to a Non-Family Station.

Disability Pension Can Be Granted For Disease Suffered By Armed Forces Personnel After Joining Service: Delhi High Court

Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS v. COL. BALBIR SINGH (RETD.) and other connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 739

The Delhi High Court has ruled that grant of disability pension to Indian Armed Forces personnel is "not an act of generosity" but a rightful "acknowledgement of their sacrifices which manifest in the form of disabilities or disorders" suffered during the course of their military service.

WhatsApp, Email Communications Between Parties Can Constitute Valid Arbitration Agreement: Delhi High Court

Title: BELVEDERE RESOURCES DMCC v. OCL IRON AND STEEL LTD & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 740

The Delhi High Court has ruled that communications between the parties through WhatsApp and emails can constitute a valid arbitration agreement.

Justice Jasmeet Singh perused Section 7(4)(b) of the Arbitration Act and said that it is not necessary for a concluded contract to be in existence for a valid arbitration agreement to be existing between the parties.

Unduly Harsh To Reject Furlough Applications On Ground Of Delay In Surrender During COVID-19: Delhi High Court

Title: VINOD v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 741

The Delhi High Court has ruled that it is unduly harsh of the prison authorities to reject the furlough applications of convicts on the ground of delay in surrender by a few says during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma said that courts and prison authorities must also remain mindful of the exceptional and unprecedented circumstances that prevailed during the pandemic.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Bollywood Actor Jacqueline Fernandez's Plea To Quash Rs. 200 Crore Money Laundering Case

Title: JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 742

The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea moved by Bollywood actress Jacqueline Fernandez seeking quashing of Rs. 200 crores money laundering case involving alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar.

Justice Anish Dayal said that her apprehension that any evidence would be self-incriminating cannot lead to quashing of the ECIR as statutory and constitutional protections are already provided and will have to be assessed in that rubric.

Delhi High Court Modifies MTP Order After Minor Rape Survivor Agrees To Carry Pregnancy, Orders Free Medical & Psychological Help By AIIMS

Title: AIIMS v. Minor A & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 743

A minor rape survivor, who had sought termination of her 27-week pregnancy, agreed before the Delhi High Court to carry the child after AIIMS's medical board opined that the pregnancy be prolonged to 34 weeks of gestational period for the best interest of the girl as well as the baby.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal modified a single judge's order which had earlier allowed the 16-year-old girl to terminate her pregnancy which was at 26 weeks and six days as on June 30.

Payments Made To AWS For Cloud Computing Services Not Taxable: Delhi High Court

Case Title:THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs AMAZON WEB SERVICES

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 744

The Delhi High Court has held that payments made to Amazon Web Services (AWS) for cloud computing services do not qualify as “royalty.”

The bench, comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia, upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT) decision which held that such payments are not taxable as royalties or fees for technical services (FTS).

Can't Reject Claim Of Infringement Merely Because Defendant Could Seek Removal Of Plaintiff's Trademark Due To 'Non-Use': Delhi High Court

Case title: Modi Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd v. Speciality Meditech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 745

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a registered trademark owner's claim against infringement cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the defendant could have sought removal of the mark from the trademark's register under Section 47 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 on grounds of 'non-use'.

'Family Of Marks' Concept Not Expressly Recognised Under Trademarks Act, But Can Be Applied To Injunct Specific Marks: Delhi High Court

Case title: Modi Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd v. Speciality Meditech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 746

The Delhi High Court has held that though the Trade Marks Act 1999 does not expressly recognise the concept of a 'family of marks' however, the same is judicially developed and can be invoked by a registered trademark owner to seek injunction against specific marks.

Delhi High Court Rejects Plea Against Civil Services Exam 2023, Says It Can't Suggest Manner In Which Questions Are Framed In Paper

Title: PRANAV PANDEY v. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 747

Rejecting a plea challenging Paper I and Paper II of Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2023, the Delhi High Court has observed that it cannot suggest the manner in which questions are framed in a question paper, so long as there is no ambiguity in the question or the answers provided.

Appeal On Taxability Including Point Of Limitation Doesn't Lie Before HC U/S 35G Of Central Excise Act: Delhi High Court

Case title: Commissioner Of Service Tax Delhi v. Shyam Spectra Private Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 748

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that an appeal from CESTAT under the Central Excise Act 1944 involving the issue of taxability will lie before the Supreme Court under Section 35L.

Delhi HC Sets Aside Income Tax Action Against Rajat Sharma-Owned India TV's Parent Company Over Alleged Unaccounted Foreign Remittances

Case title: M/S Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assessing Officer, Circle 10(1) & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 749

The Delhi High Court set aside the reassessment action initiated against journalist Rajat Sharma's company, M/S Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd., which owns and runs the India TV channel, over alleged foreign remittances.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside ₹10 Crore Security Demanded By Customs For Provisional Release Of Seized Goods, Calls It 'Onerous'

Case title: M/S Shreehari Ananta Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner Of Customs Icd Patparganj

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 750

Coming to the rescue of an importer, the Delhi High Court has set aside the security of ₹10 crore (approx) demanded by the Customs Department for provisional release of its perishable goods.

Calling the condition 'onerous', a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta ordered provisional release of Petitioner's imported Roasted Areca Nuts on furnishing bond of Rs.4.10 crore along with a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 50 lakh.

Delhi High Court Grants Exparte Injunction To Dazn india Against Websites Illegaly Streaming FIFA 25

Case Title: DAZN LIMITED & ANR vs BUFFSPORTS. ME & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 751

The Delhi High court has granted ex parte dynamic injunction to DAZN Ltd.the official broadcasters of the FIFA World Cup 2025 against illegal streaming rogue website.A single bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee has allowed immediate blocking of rogue websites following an ex-parte order

Delhi High Court Refuses To Injunct Xiaomi From Using 'Find Device' Technology Over Alleged Patent Infringement

Title: CONQUEROR INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR v. XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 752

The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited in a patent infringement suit filed against its “find device” technology, which helps users to locate, lock or erase data from their lost or stolen devices.

Delhi High Court Rejects Income Tax Department's Appeal Against Thomson Press Over Alleged Transaction Of Property Below Circle Rate

Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-7 v. M/S Thomson Press (India) Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 753

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal preferred by the Income Tax Department against Thomson Press (India) over the sale of a property in Noida back in 2013, allegedly at a price much lower than the prevailing circle rate.

OBC Certificate Issued Only For Applying To Posts Under Govt Of India Can't Be Used To Claim Reservation To Delhi Govt Posts: High Court

Case title: GNCTD v. Jyoti

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 754

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that where the OBC certificate is issued to a person from a backward community only for applying to posts under the Central government, such a certificate cannot be used to claim reservation to posts notified by the Delhi government.

Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause Prevails Over Arbitrator's Procedural Order In Determining 'Seat' Of Arbitration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Viva Infraventure Pvt. Ltd. vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 755

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that an 'exclusive jurisdiction clause' in the arbitration agreement unequivocally denotes the 'seat' of arbitration. The court observed that any contrary determination made by the Arbitrator without the express written consent of the parties only relates to a 'venue' under Section 20(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court therefore dismissed the Section 29A(5) petition due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Rights Must Be Balanced With Public Interest: Delhi High Court Upholds Division Of Railway Posts Between Low Vision & Blind Aspirants

Case title: Nand Lal Luhar And Ors v. Western Railway And Ors (and batch)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 756

The Delhi High Court recently upheld the action of Railways in bifurcating the posts reserved for visually impaired candidates into two categories— one which could be held by both low vision (LV) and blind candidates and the other which could be held only by LV but not blind candidates.

Delhi High Court Flags Trend Of Rich Tenants Occupying Landlord's Property On 'Paltry' Rate In Dispute Over ₹40 Rent In Sadar Bazar Area

Case title: Mrs Madhurbhashani & Ors v. Ranjit Singh (and connected matter)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 757

The Delhi High Court raised concerns over the trend of financially well-off tenants continuing to occupy the landlord's property for decades altogether, while parting with a very meagre rent.

Irked by mere ₹40 rent paid by the Respondent-tenants in Delhi's Sadar Bazar area, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani ordered their eviction.

Past Professional Relationship Creates Enough Bias To Terminate Arbitrator's Mandate U/S 14 Of A&C Act, Duration Is Immaterial: Delhi HC

Case Title: ROSHAN REAL ESTATES PVT LTD versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 758

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that if any person had any professional or supervisory relationship with the party to the Arbitration, such person cannot be appointed as an Arbitrator as per Entry 1 of the Seventh Schedule. It does not matter whether such a relationship existed over 17 years ago but the real test is whether such a relationship created a reasonable apprehension of bias. Accordingly, the mandate of the Arbitrator was terminated in the present case.

SC's Vijay Madanlal Judgment Doesn't Exempt Foreign Recipients Of Proceeds Of Crime From Scrutiny On Mere Contractual Legitimacy Of Transaction: Delhi HC

Case title: Amrit Pal Singh v. ED

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 759

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that foreign recipients of proceeds of crime are not exempted from scrutiny under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, on a mere ground of 'contractual legitimacy' of transactions.

Contract Clause Favouring Employer Over Contractor In Claiming Damages Are Deemed Knowingly Included If Not Challenged Before Tribunal: Delhi HC

Case Title: M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED. Versus RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 760

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has held that clauses of the contract giving an advantage to the employer over the contractor in claiming damages, if not questioned before the Arbitral Tribunal or at the time of formation or execution of the contract, cannot be questioned under section 34 of the Arbitration Act as the parties are deemed to have knowingly incorporated such clauses in the contract.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Turkey-Based Celebi's Plea Against Revocation Of Security Clearance On Ground Of 'National Security'

Case title: CELEBI AIRPORT SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v/s UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 761

The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea by Turkey based company Celebi Airport Services Private Limited challenging the decision of Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) revoking its security clearance in the "interest of national security".

Amendment To Bring Additional Grounds U/S 34 Of A&C Act Is Maintainable If Objections Are Not Beyond Judicial Scrutiny Of Court: Delhi HC

Case Name: Raheja Developers Limited v. Ahluwalia Contractors India Ltd

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 762

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri while hearing amendment petition filed u/s 34 of the A&C Act observed that the omission to plead a ground of challenge in the original Section 34 petition pertaining to non-adherence to the mandatory procedure of Section 29A would not oust the jurisdiction of the Section 34 Court to scrutinize the same. The Court held that the amendments sought in the present application fall within the exceptions carved out by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction.

State's Delay In Filing Appeals In Serious Criminal Offences Prejudices Victim's Right To Fair Adjudication: Delhi High Court

Title: STATE v. YOGESH @ GOLU & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 763

The Delhi High Court has observed that State's delay in filing appeals in serious criminal offences prejudices the victim's right to fair adjudication of allegations, especially where the victim comes from marginalized or economically weaker sections of society.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that Courts must remain sensitive to the said factor while adjudicating applications for condonation of delay in criminal cases involving serious offences.

Mandate Of Arbitrator Can Be Terminated For Delay In Passing Award Despite Absence Of Automatic Termination Clause In NSE Bye-Laws: Delhi HC

Case Title: RAM KAWAR GARG versus BAJAJ CAPITAL INVESTOR SERVICES LIMITED NOW NEW NAME IS JUST TRADE SECURITIES LIMITED AND ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 764

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that although the National Stock Exchange (NSE) Bye Laws do not provide for the automatic termination of the Arbitrator's mandate after the expiry of the time period stipulated under Bye Law 7(b) of the NSE Bye Laws, the mandate of the Arbitrator can be terminated by the Relevant Authority if the Arbitrator fails to pass the award within time thereby indirectly limiting the arbitrator's mandate. This shows that the intent and spirit of both the NSE Bye-Laws and the Arbitration Act is the same as both prescribe for the termination of the arbitrator's mandate if timely award is not passed.

Delhi High Court Passes John Doe Order In Favour Of Birkenstock, Orders Local Commissioners To Inspect Infringers' Premises

Title: BIRKENSTOCK IP GMBH v. ASHOK KUMAR(S)/JOHN DOE(S) & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 765

While passing a john doe order in favour of footwear brand Birkenstock, the Delhi High Court has ordered inspection by local commissioners on the premises of infringer entities.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee restrained the defendants or distributors or sellers or importers or exporters or franchises from selling or marketing or dealing in the products bearing “Birkenstock” trademark or its trade dress.

Interception Of Calls Valid To Prevent Corruption, Economic Scale Of Offence Must Satisfy 'Public Safety' Threshold: Delhi High Court

Title: AAKASH DEEP CHOUHAN v. CBI & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 766

The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea filed by an accused against interception of calls and messages by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), saying that corruption has a pervasive impact on a nation's economy.

Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed the plea moved by one Aakash Deep Chouhan, challenging a trial court order framing charges against him under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He further sought directions for expunging or destruction of telephonic messages and calls allegedly unlawfully intercepted by CBI.

OBC Certificate Issued In Delhi Can't Be Treated As 'Migrant' Because It's Based On Father's Caste Certificate From Another State: High Court

Case title: GNCTD v. Nisha

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 767

The Delhi High Court upheld a direction to Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board not to treat the OBC certificate granted by the Delhi government to an aspirant as 'migrant', merely because it was based on her father's caste certificate issued by the UP government.

A division bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul observed,

“The certificate has to be read as it is. It does not purport to have been issued to the respondent merely because she is a migrant. It clearly states that “Nisha, Resident of (address redacted) Delhi belongs to the community JAT which is recognized as Other Backward Class...The mere fact that it has been issued on the basis of the OBC certificate issued to the respondent's father in UP does not deviate from the earlier recitals in the Certificate.”

'Not That Simple, Entails Huge Infrastructure Investment': Delhi High Court On PIL To Allow Public, Journalists To Attend CIC Hearings

Title: Saurav Das & Ors v. CIC

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 768

The Delhi High Court disposed of a public interest litigation seeking a direction on the Central Information Commission (CIC) to allow members of the general public as well as journalists to attend the proceedings physically as well as virtually.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal remarked the issue is not as simple as the petitioners want to portray and that the matter requires huge infrastructural investment.

Delhi High Court Orders Railways To Pay Compensation For Death Of Man Who Fell From Train After Boarding From Wrong Side

Case title: Rahnuma & Ors. v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 769

The Delhi High Court has ordered the Railway Claims Tribunal to grant compensation to the heirs of a man who passed away after falling from his train.

While doing so, Justice Manoj Jain observed that it “really does not matter” that the deceased had boarded the train from the wrong side, when it was proved that he had successfully boarded the train and had fallen thereafter.

Delhi High Court Rejects PIL To Abolish Offences Of 'Waging War', 'Unlawful Assembly' From BNS 2023

Title: UPENDRA NATH DALAI v. UNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 770

The Delhi High Court dismissed a public interest litigation seeking abolition of offences of waging war against the State and unlawful assembly from the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal remarked that it cannot direct the Parliament to abolish the provisions as that will be amounting to legislation, which is not the realm of Courts.

SC's AR Antulay Judgment On Locus Standi To Initiate Criminal Complaints Doesn't Apply To Writ Petitions: Delhi High Court

Case title: Gulshan Babbar Advocate v. GNCTD (and batch)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 771

The Delhi High Court dismissed with costs a batch of writ petitions seeking court-monitored ED probe into real estate company M/s IREO Residences for allegedly duping homebuyers and siphoning of funds worth over ₹4,000 crore.

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora noted that the Petitioner was neither a homebuyer nor was otherwise directly or indirectly affected by the alleged acts of the company.

Delhi High Court Grants Relief To 90-Year-Old Booked In 1984 For Demanding ₹15K Bribe

Title: SURENDRA KUMAR v. CBI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 772

In a 41-year-old corruption case, the Delhi High Court has granted relief to a 90-year-old man, who remained in custody for only one day and remained on bail during pendency of trial and appeal, by commuting his sentence to the period already undergone.

Surendra Kumar, who was working in Chief Marketing Manager of the State Trading Corporation of India (STCI), was arrested in the case in 1984 over the allegations of demanding Rs. 15,000 bribe from a firm partner. Kumar was released on bail shortly after his arrest but was convicted in the case after 19 years- in 2002.

'Was Returning From Mecca': Delhi High Court Orders Customs To Release Woman's Gold Jewellery, Says 24 Kt Purity Not Grounds For Seizure

Case title: Mubina v. Commissioner of Customs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 773

The Delhi High Court has ordered the Customs Department to release the gold jewellery which was seized from a Muslim woman while she was returning from a religious pilgrimage to Mecca.

A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that it is normal practice in our country for women to wear basic jewellery and the same cannot be seized by the Customs Department only on the ground that it is of 24 carat purity.

Stigma Of 'Unfair Means' Adversely Affects Candidate's Career, Must Be Supplied Relevant Docs, CCTV Footage To Enable Defence: Delhi HC

Case title: Dr Aastha Raj v. National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 774

The Delhi High Court came to the rescue of a doctor, whose candidature was rejected by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences and was barred from appearing in the exam for two years, over unsubstantiated allegations of using 'unfair means' during the exam.

Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that the stigma of indulging in unfair means can adversely affect the career of a candidate and thus, the Exam authority must afford a meaningful opportunity of defence to the candidate by providing all the documents relied upon by them, including CCTV footage, if any.

Purpose Of Punishment Not 'Endless Incarceration': Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Life Convict Seeking Premature Release

Title: SAGIR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 775

The Delhi High Court has granted relief to a man, convicted for life in 2003 rape and murder case of an 8 year old, whose plea for premature release was rejected by the Sentence Review Board (SRB).

Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that while the crime committed by the convict was gruesome, but he was awarded life imprisonment for the same and had already spent 24 years in jail.

Delhi High Court Stays Release Of 'Udaipur Files' Movie, Asks Centre To Decide On Revision Against CBFC Certificate

Title: MAULANA ARSHAD MADANI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 776

The Delhi High Court stayed the release of the controversial movie "Udaipur Files : Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder", allowing Islamic clerics body Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind and other petitioners to approach the Central Government in revision against the certification granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for the movie.

Till the Central Government took a decision on the interim relief on the petitioner's revision application, the High Court stayed the release of the film.

The film, said to be based on the 2022 murder of Udaipur-based tailor Kanhaiya Lal, was due for release tomorrow. Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, through its President Arshad Madani, approached the High Court against the film alleging that it was communally provocative and vilified the Muslim community at large.

Husband Dejected With Marriage Not Proof Of Abetment: Delhi High Court Upholds Wife's Acquittal In Suicide Case

Title: SHIV SHANKAR v. STATE & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 777

The Delhi High Court has upheld the acquittal of a wife and her family members in a case accusing them of abetting the suicide of the husband, citing lack of evidence and proof.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that it may be a case where the husband was unhappy and dejected with his marriage but no act of abetment was made out against the wife and her family members, either from the suicide note or from the testimony of the deceased's parents.

Unlike Trademarks Act, Priority Of Adoption Plays No Role In Ownership Under GI Act: Delhi High Court

Case title: Asociacion De Productores De Pisco A.G v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 778

The Delhi High Court embarked upon the distinction of rights under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 and the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

While dealing with the GI claims of Peru and Chile-based organisations in South America over 'PISCO' for certain alcoholic beverages, Justice Mini Pushkarna observed,

“While the trademark is a private right of an individual or an entity, GI is collective right of producers in a region. The Trade Marks Act distinguishes the goods and services of one trader from others. On the other hand, GI indicates a product‟s origin from a specific geographical origin. While a trademark can be assigned, transferred or licensed, a GI cannot be assigned or transferred. The trademark belongs to one person or entity, however, GI belongs to the community/region.”

High Court Grants Relief To Delhi Hockey Team After Hockey India Agrees To Modify Sub Junior Women Championship Schedule

Title: DIVYANSHI KHANNA (MINOR) THROUGH HER LEGAL GUARDIAN & ORS v. HOCKEY INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 779

Hockey India recently told the Delhi High Court that the schedule for the 15th Hockey India Sub Junior Women NationalChampionship 2025 will be modified or tailored for the Delhi Hockey Team.

This was after the participation of Delhi Hockey Team was cancelled in the championship due to the team being taken off the Hockey India online portal.

Appreciating the stand taken by Hockey India, the Court disposed of the plea filed by group of sub-junior hockey players of the Delhi Hockey Team,represented by their legal guardians.

Delhi Govt Should Decide On Approved Enhancement Of Monthly Remuneration For Law Researchers Expeditiously: High Court

Title: RUSHANT MALHOTRA & ORS v. THE GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 780

The Delhi High Court has issued notice on a plea seeking to enhance the monthly remuneration of its law researchers from Rs. 65,000 to Rs. 80,000 along with arrears.

A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Ranjeesh Kumar Gupta said that prima facie, the Delhi Government ought to consider the approved enhancement for the LRs by the Court and take a decision in an expedited manner.

'Scant Regard For Liberty': High Court Raps Delhi Police Over Non-Appearance Of IOs, Calls For 'Serious Efforts' To Streamline System

Title: SHANKAR v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 781

The Delhi High Court has rapped the Delhi Police over non-appearance and unpreparedness of its investigating officers, calling it “scant regard for liberty” in their eyes.

While dealing with an anticipatory bail plea filed in a cheating case, Justice Girish Kathpalia expressed shocked over the fact that despite repeated directions, neither the IO nor the SHO had appeared.

Delhi High Court Restrains Disclosure Of Confidential Information Of Axis Max Life Insurance Customers On Dark Web, Online Platforms

Title: AXIS MAX LIFE INSURANCE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 782

The Delhi High Court has restrained disclosure or transmission of confidential personal information of Axis Max Life Insurance customers on online platforms and dark web.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee passed the interim order in the suit filed by Axis Max Life Insurance Limited against an unknown entity(s) threatening that the confidential and sensitive personal data of its 20 lakh customers will be published for sale on the dark web, if it did not deal and negotiate.

'Violent, Repeated Sexual Abuse': Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Minor's Rape & Murder

Title: RAJAB ALI KHAN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 783

The Delhi High Court has denied bail to a man accused of raping and murdering a minor girl in 2018, noting that the post-mortem report provided "clear medical evidence" which revealed that it was a case of "violent and repeated sexual abuse" of the victim.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that prima facie, the strength of the material, including forensic, electronic, medical, and documentary evidence, weighed heavily against the grant of bail to the accused.

AO Is 'Deciding Authority' U/S 148A Income Tax Act, Can't Revise Decision At Instance Of Principal Commissioner: Delhi High Court

Case title: Baba Global Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 29 & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 784

The Delhi High Court has held that the Assessing Officer is the “authority” to decide whether a reassessment action under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 should be initiated against an assessee and his stance can't be revised at the instance of another authority.

Delhi High Court Passes John Doe Order, Restrains Infringement Of 'Tata' Trademarks

Title: TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR v. JOHN DOE AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 785

The Delhi High Court has passed a john doe order restraining the infringement of “Tata” trademarks, observing that repeated instances of duping of customers had occurred through domains that have claimed to offer fake dealerships or distributorships.

Cryptocurrency Has Profound Implications On Country's Economy, Dissolves Money: Delhi High Court Denies Bail In Fraud Case

Title: UMESH VERMA v. STATE

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 786

Denying bail to a man in a fraud case, the Delhi High Court has observed that cryptocurrency has profound implications on country's economy which dissolves recognized money into “dark unknown and untraceable money.”

S.3(k) Patents Act | Delhi High Court Declines Patent To US-Entity For System To Locate Users Sharing 'Sensitive Content' On P2P Networks

Case title: Kroll Information Assurance LLC v. The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks And Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 787

The Delhi High Court has declined a plea moved by US-based Kroll Information Assurance, seeking to patent 'System to locate users via a Peer to Peer Network'.

Justice Amit Bansal cited Section 3(k) of the Patents Act 1970 which declares inventions related to 'algorithm' and 'computer program per se' as non-patentable.

Delhi High Court Awards ₹8 Lakh In Favour Of Puma In Trademark Infringement Suit Against Counterfeit Products

Title: PUMA SE v. HIMANSHU SHARMA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 788

The Delhi High Court has awarded Rs. 8 lakh in favour of footwear brand Puma in its trademark infringement suit against an individual manufacturing counterfeit products.

Delhi High Court Restrains Rogue Websites From Streaming Maalik, Sarbala Ji Movie Content

Title: TIPS FILMS LIMITED v. HTTPS//0GOMOVIES.COM.TR/ & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 789

The Delhi High Court has restrained 56 rogue websites from illegally and unauthorisedly streaming content of Maalik and Sarbala Ji movies.

Need Evidence To Ascertain Rent, Can't Do Guess Work To Calculate Mense Profit: Delhi High Court

Title: SARVINDER SINGH & ANR v. VIPUL TANDON

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 790

The Delhi High Court has held that coming to a figure which might be the rent of an area on its own, without any material, is not permissible in law.

Justice Subramonium Prasad said mere guess work in thin air is no evidence and cannot be used to ascertain rent.

S.107 GST Act | Impugned Order “Automatically Stayed” Once Appeal Is Filed & Pre-Deposit Is Made; No Attachment Of Bank Account: Delhi HC

Case title: M/S MJ Bizcrafts LLP Through Partner Rajender Kumar v. Central Goods And Services Tax Delhi South Commissionerate Through Its Commissioner & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 791

The Delhi High Court has observed that once an appeal is filed by the assessee under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 and pre-deposit is made, there is “automatic stay” of the impugned order raising demand.

Parties Can't Be Barred From Performing Contractual Obligations In Final Partial Award When It Remains In Force: Delhi HC

Case Title: UNION OF INDIA versus VEDANTA LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 792

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that parties cannot be prevented from performing their contractual obligations as interpreted in the Final Partial Award, especially when both the Final Partial Award as well as the contract interpreted therein have not been stayed and remain in force.

Applications For Furlough, Parole Can Be Considered During Pendency Of Appeal Against Conviction Before Supreme Court: Delhi High Court

Title: BUDHI SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 793

The Delhi High Court has ruled that applications for furlough and parole of a convict can be considered by the prison authorities during the pendency of their appeals against conviction before the Supreme Court.

Using Social Media For Disseminating Radical Ideology Attracts UAPA: Delhi High Court

Title: ARSALAN FEROZE AHENGER v. NIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 794

The Delhi High Court has observed that using social media for disseminating radical information or ideology attracts UAPA and that it is not necessary that such an act must be a physical activity.

Delhi High Court Provides Interim Relief To Jio & Reliance, Orders E-Commerce Platforms To Delist Counterfeit FMCG Goods

Case title: Reliance Industries Limited v. Pawan Kumar Gupta & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 795

The Delhi High Court has ordered e-commerce platforms like Amazon and Flipkart to temporarily delist pages of as many as 21 sellers offering counterfeit products in the FMCG sector by misusing Reliance and Jio trademarks.

'Triple Identity Test Satisfied': Delhi High Court Restrains Infringement Of Johnson & Johnson's ORSL Trademark, Awards ₹1.2 Cr Damages

Case title: Johnson & Johnson Pte Ltd v. Mr. Abbireddi Satish Kumar & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 796

The Delhi High Court awarded Rs. 1,21,56,864 cumulative damages to pharmaceutical multinational Johnson & Johnson over infringement of its ORSL trademark.

ORS-L (later changed to ORSL) is a range of flavoured electrolyte drinks first introduced by Jagdale Industries Limited in 2003.

No Bar On Re-Arrest Of Accused After Procedural Defects Of Prior 'Illegal Arrest' Are Cured: Delhi High Court

Title: ANWAR KHAN @ CHACHA & ORS v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 797

The Delhi High Court has ruled that there is no statutory or judicial bar on re-arrest of an accused after curing the procedural defects of a prior illegal arrest.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that a lapse or omission on the part of the investigating agency, whether inadvertent or deliberate, cannot result in a blanket immunity to the accused against any future arrest in the same case.

Domestic Violence Act Doesn't Distinguish Between First Or Subsequent Marriage For Maintenance: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 798

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Domestic Violence Act does not distinguish between a first or subsequent marriage for the purpose of entitlement to maintenance.

Self-Declared Information On Matrimonial Site Not Admissible Proof Of Income: Delhi High Court

Title: A v. B

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 799

The Delhi High Court has observed that any “self-declared information” made on a matrimonial portal, without verification or corroborative evidence, cannot be treated as reliable or admissible proof of income.

Delhi High Court Deprecates Investigating Officer Appearing Without Case Diaries, Grants Bail In Murder Case

Title: SAMIR @ AZHAR v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 800

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a man accused in a murder case while strongly deprecating the conduct of an investigating officer who appeared in Court without proper case file and diaries.

Frame SOP To Avoid Unnecessary References To Forensic Labs In Criminal Cases: High Court To Centre, Delhi Govt

Title: DR. SUBHASH VIJAYRAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 801

The Delhi High Court directed the Union and Delhi Governments to take a decision on framing a standard operating procedure (SOP) or guidelines to avoid unnecessary references being made to the forensic science laboratories (FSLs).

Make Ad-Hoc Appointments To Posts Of Public Prosecutors Pending Regular Recruitment: High Court To Delhi Govt

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 802

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to take steps to make ad-hoc appointments to the post of Additional Public Prosecutors or Assistant Public Prosecutors in the criminal courts, pending regular recruitment.

Penalty U/S 122(1A) GST Act Can Be Imposed Retrospectively Even If SCN Was Issued After Its Enactment: Delhi High Court

Case title: Bhupender Kumar v. Additional Commissioner Adjudication CGST Delhi North & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 803

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Section 122(1A) of the Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 can be imposed retrospectively, provided the show cause notice had been issued to the assessee when the provision was introduced.

Delhi High Court Orders Wipro To Pay ₹2 Lakh To Employee For Defamatory Remarks In Termination Letter

Title: ABHIJIT MISHRA v. WIPRO LIMITED

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 804

The Delhi High Court has expunged defamatory remarks made against the character of an employee working with Wipro Limited from his termination letter.

India-UK DTAA | Consideration For Availing Services That Require Technical Expertise Not FTS Unless Recipient Absorbs Technology: Delhi HC

Case title: Tungsten Automation England Limited (Formerly Known As Tungsten Network Limited) v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 3(1)(1) New Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 805

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that consideration paid for merely availing services that require technical expertise would not qualify as 'Fees for Technical Service' under Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA.

Customs Act | Adjudicating Authority Can't Decline Refund Of Excess Duty In Presence Of CA's Certificate: Delhi High Court

Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Customs (ACC Imports) Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 806

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Customs authority cannot, in absence of some evidence, decline refund of excess duty paid by a trader when the latter furnishes certificates from a qualified chartered accountant in support of its case.

Delhi High Court Imposes ₹20K Costs On Woman For 'Casually' Filing Sexual Assault Case Against Live-In Partner

Title: ANIL VERMA v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 807

The Delhi High Court has imposed Rs. 20,000 costs on a woman for filing a sexual assault case against her live-in partner, observing that such a complaint cannot be permitted to be filed in a casual or reckless manner.

CBI Can't Seek Demand Draft Of Suspected Proceeds Of Crime U/S 91 CrPC: Delhi High Court

Case title: Exclusive Motors Pvt Ltd v. CBI & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 808

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 91 of CrPC, which empowers the Police to seek production of 'any document or other thing' desirable for the purposes of investigation, cannot be used to seek a demand draft of the amount suspected to be proceeds of crime.

After High Court Rap, Delhi Police Assures Production Of Case Diaries By All Investigating Officers

Title: ANKIT v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 809

After Delhi High Court rap, the Delhi Police has assured the Court that henceforth all the investigating officers shall produce the case diaries of the case for judicial examination.

Delhi High Court Issues 'Real Time' Injunction Restraining Entities From Misusing Reliance's Tira Trademark To Commit Financial Scams

Case title: Reliance Retail Limited v. Ashok Kumar & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 810

The Delhi High Court has issued interim directions restraining infringement of Reliance Retail's Tira trademark in the beauty and personal care sector and its misuse to commit financial scams.

Delhi High Court Quashes Charges Against Indian Nationals For Sheltering Tablighi Jamaat Attendees During COVID-19

Case Title: MOHD ANWAR & ORS. v. STATE NCT OF DELHI and other connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 811

The Delhi High Court quashed 16 cases registered against 70 Indian nationals accused of sheltering attendees of Tablighi Jamaat congregation in their homes or mosques during COVID-19.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna quashed the chargesheets registered against the Indian nationals and disposed of their pleas seeking quashing of 16 FIRs registered against them.

Delhi High Court Explains Scope Of 'Pro Tem' Orders In Patent Infringement Suit Against Mobile Company 'Lava'

Case title: Dolby International AB & Anr. v. Lava International Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 812

The Delhi High Court had the occasion to discuss in detail the scope of a pro tem order, while dealing with Europe based audio/video processor Dolby International's suit against alleged patent infringement by Indian mobile phone company Lava.

Bar On Revision Of Interlocutory Order U/S 438(2) Of BNSS Can't Be Bypassed By Invoking Inherent Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

Case title: Ability Dodzi @ Chinazom Ability v. State NCT Of Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 813

The Delhi High Court has held that the bar prescribed under Section 438(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Surakhsha Sanhita 2023 against revision of interlocutory orders cannot be bypassed by invoking the High Court's inherent powers.

Complainant Declining Medical Examination Despite Alleging Sexual Assault Can Weaken Prosecution Case: Delhi High Court

Case title: Arpit Mishra v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 814

The Delhi High Court has observed that refusal of the prosecutrix to undergo medical examination despite alleging serious sexual assault can weaken the prosecution's case.

Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Of About ₹229.5 Crores Against NHAI As 'Termination Payment'

Case Title: National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) vs. South Indian Bank Ltd and Union Bank of India Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 815

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has upheld an Arbitral Award directing the National Highways Authority of India (“NHAI”/”Petitioner”) to deposit ₹229.50 crores as Termination Payment into the Escrow Account along with interest and costs. The court reiterated that the scope of judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is narrow and circumscribed. The Arbitral Award can be set aside on the ground, inter alia, being in conflict with the public policy of India, patent illegality, violation of principles of natural justice.

Delhi High Court Imposes Rs. 20K Costs On Litigant For 'Abusing' Victim Compensation Scheme Under SC/ST Act

Title: BALBIR MEENA v. STATE GOVT NCT OF DELHI AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 816

The Delhi High Court has imposed costs of Rs. 20,000 on a litigant for “misusing and abusing” the victim compensation scheme under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Notice U/S 153C Income Tax Act Can Be Issued Only If Incriminating Material Has 'Bearing On Total Income' Of Non-Searched Assessee: Delhi HC

Case title: Neeraj Bharadwaj v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(2) & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 818

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that assessments under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be made on a non-searched entity only when the Assessing Officer has incriminating material which “has a bearing” on its total income.

Arbitration Can't Be Restricted To Specific Respondents When Agreements Form Part Of Single Commercial Transaction: Delhi High Court

Case Title: CANARA BANK versus SANJEEV SHARMA & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 819

The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that when an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act is filed in opposition to a civil suit, a party cannot later object that the arbitration was intended to apply only to specific respondents, especially when the pleadings indicate that the agreements formed part of a single commercial transaction.

[S.53A CrPC] Almost Mandatory To Take Blood Samples For DNA Analysis In Rape Cases, Police Can Use Force If Needed: Delhi High Court

Case title: Ms. X v. State (NCT of Delhi)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 820

Stating that DNA testing is an “almost perfect science” to determine truthfulness of the allegations of rape, the Delhi High Court has held that Police is duty bound to take accused's blood sample for analysis in such cases.

Confinement In A Room Sufficient To Frame 'Wrongful Confinement' Charge, Tying Of Victim's Hands Not Necessary: Delhi High Court

Title: THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI v. MUKESH & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 821

The Delhi High Court has observed that confinement within a room is sufficient to make out a prima facie case for framing charge for the offence of wrongful confinement.

Mere Threats Without Intention To Cause Alarm Not Criminal Intimidation: Delhi High Court

Title: STATE OF NCT OF DELHI v. JAWAHAR SINGH

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 822

The Delhi High Court has observed that mere threats given by the accused, without an intention to cause alarm, would not constitute an offence of criminal intimidation.

Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked When Party Has Already Approached DRT Under SARFAESI Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Bhadra International India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Punjab national Bank & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 823

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition while upholding that if a borrower has already approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the SARFAESI Act, for a one-time settlement, a writ seeking the same relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable.

Monthly Rent Payment Cannot Be Accepted As Instalments Towards Sale Consideration Of Property: Delhi High Court

Case title: Amit Jain & Ors. v. Anila Jain & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 824

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that monthly payment of rent made under a registered lease deed cannot be construed as instalments towards the sale consideration of a property.

Patent Infringement: Delhi High Court Restrains Zydus From Manufacturing Biologic Similar To 'Nivolumab' Cancer Drug

Title: E. R. SQUIBB AND SONS, LLC & ORS v. ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 825

The Delhi High Court has restrained Zydus Lifesciences Limited from manufacturing, selling importing, exporting or dealing in any biologic which is similar to Nivolumab, a drug used to treat cancer, sold under the brand name “Opdivo.”

Post-Wise Identification Within 1% Reservation For Visually Impaired Candidates (Low Vision & Blind) Is Valid For Safety Reasons : Delhi HC

Case Name: Yash Sharma and Ors vs. West Central Railway and Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 826

A division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul held that identification of posts suitable only for low vision within the 1% reservation for visually impaired is valid, as post-wise identification within reserved vacancies based on the nature of duties and safety requirements is permissible, and blind candidates cannot claim posts not identified as suitable for them.

'Unhappy With Approach': Delhi HC Tells UPSC For Ousting Eligible CAPF Candidate Who Mistakenly Uploaded Outdated OBC Certificate

Case title: Teena Choudhary v. UPSC & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 827

The Delhi High Court has expressed its 'unhappiness' with the Union Public Service Commission for ousting an aspirant from the recruitment process to Central Armed Police Force, merely because she uploaded the caste certificate of an earlier date.

'Raises Suspicion': Delhi HC Expresses Alarm Over Missing Case Diaries From Police Record In Murder Investigation

Case title: Banti Kumar Mathur v. The State Of Nct Of Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 828

While dealing with the bail plea of a murder accused, the Delhi High Court was shocked to note that certain case diaries were missing from Police records.

Child Being In Husband's Custody After Matrimonial Dispute Not Cruelty Or Harassment U/S 498A IPC: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 829

The Delhi High Court has observed that the child being in custody of the husband after matrimonial disputes arise between the parties is not cruelty or harassment under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

“…merely because the child was in the custody of the husband after disputes interse arose, cannot be equated with cruelty or harassment as envisaged under Section 498A IPC,” Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.

Merely Receiving A Package Without Being Aware Of Illicit Contents Not 'Possession' Under NDPS Act: Delhi High Court

Title: SANEESH SOMAN v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 830

The Delhi High Court has ruled that merely receiving a package without the accused being aware of its illicit contents is not “conscious possession” under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

“The act of merely receiving a package, absent any material to suggest that the Applicant was aware of its illicit contents, prima facie, cannot by itself satisfy the legal threshold of “possession” under the NDPS Act,” Justice Sanjeev Narula said.

Unauthenticated Documents From Foreign Govt Regarding Swiss Bank Account Of Assessee Can't Form Basis For Criminal Action: Delhi HC

Case title: Anurag Dalmia v. Income Tax Office

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 831

The Delhi High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against an assessee under Section 276C, 276D and 277 of the Income Tax Act 1961 merely on the basis of some unauthorised documents alleging existence of an undisclosed Swiss Bank account in his name.

Advisable For Legislature To Correct Lacuna On What Constitutes 'Infringement' Under Patents Act: Delhi High Court

Case title: Mold Tek Packaging Limited v. Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 832

The Delhi High Court has suggested to the legislature to define what constitutes 'infringement' under the Patents Act 1970.

A division bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul noted that while other intellectual property statutes define what constitutes infringement therein, the Patent Act is 'peculiarly' silent on this aspect.

Delhi High Court Orders Food Joints To Pay ₹5 Lakh Damages To 'Veerji Malai Chaap Wale' Restaurant Over Trademark Infringement

Title: MS VEERJI RESTAURANT PRIVATE LIMITED v. YASH RAI & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 833

The Delhi High Court has awarded Rs. 5 lakh as costs and damages to famous Veerji Malai Chaap Wale restaurant in its trademark infringement suit against various eateries and food delivery joints.

While the matter was settled with one of the defendant eateries, Justice Amit Bansal noted that the other five food joints did not appear before the Court and thus, their conduct not only warranted but also necessitated imposition of both costs and damages.

Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To NewsClick Founder Prabir Purkayastha In ED, EOW Cases Alleging Foreign Funding

Title: Prabir Purkayastha v. ED and other connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 834

The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to Prabir Purkayastha, editor-in-chief and founder of news portal NewsClick, in Enforcement Directorate's money laundering case as well as Delhi Police's EOW FIR concerning allegations of foreign funding.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna pronounced the verdict and disposed of the pleas filed by Purkayastha in 2021.

High Court Unsatisfied With Steps Taken By Delhi Govt, Police In Running One Stop Centres For Women & Children; Issues Directions

Title: Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 835

The Delhi High Court said that it was not satisfied with the steps and measures taken by the Delhi Government and the Police in running one stop centres provide support for women and children facing violence in the national capital.

Issuing guidelines to the authorities, a division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that necessary steps and action which are required to be taken in the matter have not been taken by the Delhi Government and the Delhi Police.

Delhi High Court Directs Meta, 'X' Social Media Platforms To Take Down Pirated Links Of 'Kannappa' Film

Case title: Twenty-Four Frames Factory Private Limited v. John Doe & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 836

The Delhi High Court directed social media platforms Meta and X to take down pirated links of Vishnu Manchu starrer Telugu film 'Kannappa'.

Justice Jyoti Singh passed the interim order on a copyright infringement suit filed by the film production Twenty-Four Frames Factory Private Limited.

Right To Speedy Trial Cannot Be Diluted Merely Because Case Arises Under Special Enactment Like MCOCA: Delhi High Court

Case title: Naresh Kumar @ Pahelwan v. State Of Nct Of Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 837

Reinforcing the principle of right to speedy trial, the Delhi High Court admitted on bail an accused under the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act 1999, citing prolonged incarceration of over 8 years.

'Capability To Earn' & 'Actual Earnings' Are Separate Things: Delhi High Court Upholds Grant Of Maintenance To MBA-Qualified Wife

Case title: SKD v. MG & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 838

Stating that “capability to earn and actual earnings are two separate things”, the Delhi High Court recently upheld the grant of maintenance to an MBA-qualified wife.

In doing so, a division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar observed that when the couple separated, their child was very young and in order to take care of the child, the wife may have left her job.

Making Allegations Of Extra-Marital Affair In Complaints To Spouse's Employer Is 'Cruelty': Delhi High Court

Case title: AS v. NKS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 839

The Delhi High Court has upheld a family court order dissolving the marriage of a couple on the grounds that the wife had subjected the husband to cruelty by making derogatory complaints to his employer.

A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar observed that marriage requires adjustment and parties may take a long time to adjust with each other but both husband and wife are expected to show due respect to each other.

Mere Friendship Can't Give Liberty To Indulge In Sexual Intercourse Without Consent: Delhi High Court

Title: MOHAMMAD SHAHID @ SAHID v. STATE OF (NCT) OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 840

The Delhi High Court has observed that mere friendship cannot give liberty to a boy to indulge in sexual intercourse with a girl without her consent.

“….merely because a girl befriends a boy, the latter cannot be given liberty to indulge into sexual intercourse with her without her consent,” Justice Girish Kathpalia said.

UAPA | Delhi High Court Refuses Default Bail To 'ISIS Member' Accused Of Procuring Arms, Radicalising Youth

Title: MOHD RIZWAN ASHRAF v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 841

The Delhi High Court denied default bail to a man accused of being an active member of the ISIS, procuring arms, ammunitions and explosives for the extremist armed group and radicalising impressionable youth.

A division bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed the appeal filed by Mohd. Rizwan Ashraf who was arrested in the UAPA case on October 01, 2023.

S.223 BNSS | Cognizance Can't Be Taken On Complaint Without Giving Notice To Accused: Delhi High Court

Title: BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT. LTD v. ANIL KUMAR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 842

Comparing the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the Delhi High Court has held that cognizance cannot be taken on a complaint before giving notice to the accused under the new law.

Give Written Note Of Surrender Date To Convict During Release On Parole, Furlough To Avoid Ambiguity: Delhi High Court To Jail Authorities

Title: Mohd Alam v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 843

The Delhi High Court has directed the jail authorities in the national capital to ensure that a written note of date of surrender is handed over to the convict at the time of releasing him or her on parole or furlough after taking their acknowledgement to avoid any ambiguity.

Justice Girish Kathpalia said that in various cases, it is seen that due to illiteracy and ignorance, the convict released on parole or furlough fails to surrender back in time and the delayed surrender leads to punishment.

Delhi High Court Grants Relief To 1993 Plane Hijacker In Plea Against Denial Of Premature Release

Title: HARI SINGH v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 844

The Delhi High Court has granted relief to a man, convicted for hijacking an Indian Airlines flight in 1993, in his plea against the decision of the authorities denying him premature release.

Justice Sanjeev Narula set aside the decision of the sentence review board (SRB) and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration, noting that the convict's conduct in jail indicated elements of reformation.

Trial Court Judges Must Pronounce Orders In Reserved Cases Within Two-Three Weeks After Transfer: Delhi High Court

Title: B.D. SHARMA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 845

The Delhi High Court has directed that all the judges in the trial courts in the national capital shall pronounce orders or judgments in the reserved cases within two or three weeks after their transfer and that the same will not be listed before the subsequent judge for rehearing.

Highly Qualified But Unemployed Wife Has Right To Be Maintained By Husband Till She Gets Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 846

The Delhi High Court has observed that a highly qualified wife, who is unemployed, has a right to be supported and managed by the husband till the time she is able to get gainful employment or develop the source of income.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna rejected a husband's plea challenging a family court order directing him to pay Rs. 1 lakh ad-interim maintenance monthly to the wife.

Delhi High Court Upholds ICC Verdict Finding DU Professor Guilty Of Sexual Harassment

Title: DR AMIT KUMAR v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 847

The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea filed by a professor of the Delhi University against the findings of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) holding him guilty over the allegations of sexual harassment made by various students and an alumnus, as well as the decision to compulsory retirement him.

Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the Executive Authority gave a fair hearing to the professor and its failure to pass a speaking order did not pass the test of prejudice.