Delhi High Court Monthly Digest: March 2025 [Citations 252- 396]

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)- 3 v. M/S Ridgeview Construction Pvt. Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 252

ANUPENDER v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 253

SHIVAM PANDEY v. STATE 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 254

Y V v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 256

HARIT NURSERIES WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.) & ANR. v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 257

Y S CHOWDARY v. ED and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 258

GOVIND YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 259

VAIBHAV KUMAR v. STATE THROUGH SHO RAJOURI GARDEN 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 260

Suparshva Swabs (I) v. National Faceless Appeal Centre & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 261

Flourish Hospitals Pvt. Ltd vs. Delhi Development Authority 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 262

CCL 'K' v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 263

Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nicenic International Group Company Limited & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 264

SHABBIR KHAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 265

Jayati Mozumdar v. Managing Committee Sri Sathya Sai Vidya Vihar & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 266

Rajbir Singh Sihmar And Ors v. Union Of India And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 267

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. Nagar Dairy Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 268

Saurabh Tripathi & Ors. v. Jamia Millia Islamia and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 269

Sushil Kumar v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 270

Phonographic Performance Limited vs. Azure Hospitality Private Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 271

GAGAN v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 272

Christian Michel James v. ED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 273

Interglobe Aviation Ltd v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs Acc (Import) New Custom House New Delhi & Ors. and batch 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 274

DHOBI GHAT JHUGGI ADHIKAR MANCH v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 275

Arth Vidhi v. Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 276

CBI v. MD. YASEEN WANI & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 277

Leelam v. Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 278

INCITE HOMECARE PRODUCTS PVT LTD versus R K SWAMY PVT LTD ERSTWHILE RK SWAMY BBDO PVT LTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 279

CBI vs. Neeraj Kumar 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 280

Sudesh Hans v. Gian Chand Hans and Another 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 281

RESCOM MINERAL TRADING FZE versus RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED RINL AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 282

Tata Teleservices Limited v. The Commissioner CGST Delhi East & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 283

PRAGYA SINGH versus DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 284

M/S DD Interiors v. Commissioner Of Service Tax & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 285

Ramesh Chander v. The Chairman Central Board Of Direct Taxes, & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 286

GE Grid (Switzerland) GMBH v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 287

Sentec India Company Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Customs, Delhi & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 288

Rahul Vattamparambil Remesh v. Union Of India & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 289

MRP (IDENTITY WITHHELD) v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 290

MEENU AGRAWAL v. BHARAT GOEL 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 291

Chotiwala Food And Hotels Private Limited vs. Chotiwala & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 292

C SHARMA v. NAVDEEP SINGH & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 293

M/S Kashish Optics Ltd. v. The Commissioner, CGST Delhi West & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 294

YASH RAJ FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 295

Fasttrack Tieup Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 296

Kiranakart Technologies Private Limited vs. Mohammad Arshad & Anr (C.O. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 297

Rattan India Power Ltd. v. BHEL 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 299

Eureka Forbes Limited vs.Om Sai Enterprises & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 300

Puma SE vs. Mahesh Kumar 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 301

JSD Traders LLP v. Additional Commissioner, GST 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 302

Ramada International, Inc. vs. Clubramada Hotels And Resorts Private Limited & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 303

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. WGF Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 304

WRESTLING FEDERATION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT MR. SANJAY SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 305

Cargill India Private Limited v. Central Board Of Direct Taxes. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 306

MOHD. MUNIB v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 307

M/S Ismartu India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India And Others 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 308

M/S Ismartu India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India And Others 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 309

State Bank of India vs. M/S. P. P. Jewellers Private Limited (M/S. P. P. JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 310

JOHNSON & JOHNSON v. PRITAMDAS ARORA T/A M/S MEDSERVE & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 311

ISHA FOUNDATION v. GOOGLE LLC & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 312

M/s ARSS Infrastructure Projects Ltd. v. National Highway Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 313

Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 314

NAVAL KISHORE KAPOOR v. NIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 315

Amirhossein Alizadeh v. The Commissioner Of Customs & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 316

VIJAY KUMAR @ CHAMPION v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 317

Living Media India Limited & Anr. vs. Telegram FZ LLC & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 318

Aabi Binju versus Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 319

M/S Smartschool Education Private Limited Vs M/S Bada Business Pvt. Ltd And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 320

Bentwood Seating System (P) Ltd. vs Airport Authority Of India & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 321

Mercedes Benz Group AG v. Minda Corporation Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 322

GOPAL MISHRA & ANR v. STATE 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 323

DOMINOS IP HOLDER LLC & ANR. v. M/S DOMINIC PIZZA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 324

M/S B Braun Medical India Pvt Ltd v. Union Of India & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 325

Gopika Vennankot Govind v. Union Of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 326

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. SHIVASHISH GUNWAL ADVOCATE 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 327

RAHUL KUMAR VERMA v. BADMINTON ASSOCIATION OF INDIA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 328

NTPC LIMITED versus STARCON INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 329

Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. & Anr vs. Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 330

Muhammad Nazim v. Commissioner Of Customs & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 331

Ircon International Limited vs M/S Pnc-Jain Construction Co (Jv) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 332

DIRECT NEWS PVT. LTD versus DTS TRAVELS PVT. LTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 333

NAMAHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 334

SUDESH CHHIKARA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 335

Kapil Mishra v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 336

KUNDAN KUMAR @ GORE vs. CBI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 337

M/S Saha Traders Zonal Joint Director General Of Foreign Trade(Cla) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 338

SHAHID NASIR v. NIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 339

THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LIMITED v. GAURAV ROY BHATT & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 340

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Delhi v. D Light Energy P. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 341

Anuj Ahuja vs. Sumitra Mittal 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 342

BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v. DEAYOUNG JUNG AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 343

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. M/S East Delhi Leasing Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 344

Amal Krishna v. Union Of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 345

X v. Y 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 346

Precitech Enclosures Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Rudrapur Precision Industries 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 347

MANNAT GROUP OF HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. M/S MANNAT DHABA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 348

Greesh Verma Jairath vs. State NCT Of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 349

RAMESH CHANDRA v. THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 350

SHAKTI PUMP INDIA LTD versus APEX BUILDSYS LTD and Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 351

M/S VALLABH CORPORATION versus SMS INDIA PVT LTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 352

FAITH CONSTRUCTIONS versus N.W.G.E.L CHURCH 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 353

F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE AG & ANR v. NATCO PHARMA LIMITED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 354

CREATIVELAND ADVERTISING PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. WINZO GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 355

SIDDHARTH SOOD versus MUNISH KUMAR AGGARWAL 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 356

Bridgestone Corporation vs. M/S Merlin Rubber 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 357

Jai Durga Rubberised Fabrics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 358

Sai Kiran Goud Tirupathi v. Commissioner Of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 359

AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 360

Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. Indian Broadcasting Foundation 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 361

ASHLOK v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matter 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 362

Paras Products v. Commissioner Central Gst, Delhi North (and batch) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 363

Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 364

Husky Injection Molding Systems Shanghai Ltd & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 365

Lavkush Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 366

SUNEHRI BAGH BUILDERS PVT LTD versus DELHI TOURISM AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 367

RADICO KHAITAN LIMITED versus HARISH CHOUHAN 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 368

APPLAUSE ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED v. WWW.9XMOVIES.COM.TW & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 369

Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Raj Belts & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 370

M/S GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD versus S.C WADHWA AND SONS (HUF) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 371

Ivy Entertainment Private Limited vs. HR Pictures 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 372

MS. RUCHI KALRA & Ors v. SLOWFORM MEDIA PVT. LTD & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 373

SH VIJAI PRATAP SINGH v. DELHI HIGH COURT, THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 374

RESILIENT INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/S BHARAT PAY AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 375

RAHUL SINGH versus BORDER SECURITY FORCE & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 376

Mohammad Arham v. Commissioner Of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 377

National Restaurant Association v. Union Of India & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 378

Ashow Swain v. Union of India & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 379

AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA versus DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 380

Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 381

Huawei Telecommunications India Company Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 2 & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 382

Mohd. Salim Khan v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 383

Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. DRI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 384

Avika Shahi And Anr vs. Medical Counselling Committee And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 385

HOSHIAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 386

SANOJ KUMAR MISHRA VS. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 387

VIKAS CHAWLA @ VICKY v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 388

M/s Dewan Chand v. Chairman cum Managing Director and Another 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 389

RAMCHANDER versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 390

The Commissioner Of Central Tax, CGST Delhi East v. M/S Simplex Infrastructure Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 391

Vedanta Limited v. CBIC 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 392

Backbone Overseas v. Assistant Commissioner Of Customs, Foreign Post Office , New Delhi And Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 393

Shiv Parkash Bansal v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-14 Delhi & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 394

BHARAT BHUSHAN SHARMA v. GOVT.NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 395

Lufthansa Cargo AG v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 396

S.153C Income Tax Act | Two-Tier Satisfaction Of Assessing Officers Of Both Searched & Non-Searched Entity Needed Even Prior To 2015 Amendment: Delhi HC

Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)- 3 v. M/S Ridgeview Construction Pvt. Ltd

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 252

The Delhi High Court has held that even though Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 did not in its original form prescribe two-tier satisfaction of Assessing Officers of both the searched and non-searched entity for initiating reassessment, the same cannot be deemed absent.

Women Face Harassment In Public Even After Decades Of Independence, Real Empowerment Begins With Right To Move Freely: Delhi HC

Title: ANUPENDER v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 253

The Delhi High Court has observed that even after decades of independence, women face harassment in public spaces and emphasised that real empowerment begins with the right to live and move freely without fear.

“The facts of the present case reflect a deeply concerning reality—that even after decades of independence, women continue to face harassment in public spaces, including public transport, where they should feel safe and secure. Despite the existence of stringent laws aimed at protecting women's dignity and personal autonomy, incidents like these highlight the audacity of offenders who dare to commit such acts, believing they can evade consequences,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

Long Term Consensual Physical Relationship Doesn't Mean Consent Was Purely Based On Promise To Marry: Delhi HC Sets Aside Rape Conviction

Title: SHIVAM PANDEY v. STATE

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 254

The Delhi High Court has said that if a consensual physical relationship continues for a long period, it cannot be said that the woman's consent was purely based on the promise to marry.

Complete Ban On Students Using Smartphones In Schools 'Undesirable': Delhi High Court Issues Guidelines For Regulated Use

Title: Y V v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 256

The Delhi High Court has observed that a “complete ban” on use of smartphones by students attending school is both an “undesirable and unworkable” approach.

Yamuna River Has Surpassed Threshold, Interference In Its Restoration Not Justified: Delhi HC Rejects Plea Against Uprooting Of Nurseries

Title: HARIT NURSERIES WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.) & ANR. v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 257

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Yamuna river in the national capital has surpassed the threshold and any interference in its restorative and rejuvenation is not justified.

Appellate Tribunal For Foreign Exchange Can't Pronounce Person 'Guilty' Of Offences Under FERA Act: Delhi High Court

Title: Y S CHOWDARY v. ED and other connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 258

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange cannot pronounce a person “guilty” of the offences under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Order Rejecting Challenge To JDU's Internal Elections Electing Nitish Kumar As President

Title: GOVIND YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 259

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Janata Dal United's (JDU) expelled member Govind Yadav against a single bench order, which dismissed his petition challenging the internal party elections held by JDU in 2016 electing Nitish Kumar as President of the political party.

Delhi High Court Issues Directions For Compliance Of Higher Courts' Orders To Conclude Trials Expeditiously

Title: VAIBHAV KUMAR v. STATE THROUGH SHO RAJOURI GARDEN

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 260

The Delhi High Court has issued directions to the trial courts in the national capital for compliance of higher courts' orders to conclude pending trials expeditiously in a time bound manner.

Delhi High Court Expresses Concern Over Delay In Disposal Of Matters Before National Faceless Appeal Centre

Case title: Suparshva Swabs (I) v. National Faceless Appeal Centre & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 261

The Delhi High Court has expressed grave concern over the pendency of over 5.4 Lakh appeals before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC).

Delhi High Court Rebukes DDA For Improper, Excess Demarcation Of Land For Hospital; Says Can't Demand Ground Rent On Ambiguous Boundaries

Case title: Flourish Hospitals Pvt. Ltd vs. Delhi Development Authority

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 262

The Delhi High Court has reprimanded the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for failing to properly demarcate a plot of land for constructing a hospital, leading to allotment of excess land to the lessee, non-execution of the lease deed and the demand for ground rent from the lessee before proper demarcation of the land.

Child In Conflict With Law Being Treated As Adult Can't Be Tried Jointly With Adult Offender: Delhi High Court

Title: CCL 'K' v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 263

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the trial proceedings of a child alleged to be in conflict with law and an adult offender cannot be held jointly after a preliminary assessment of Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) is done declaring the child in conflict with law to be psychologically and physically mature.

Delhi High Court Passes John Doe Order Against Extortion Threat Of Leaking Insurance Company's Confidential Customer Data

Case title: Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nicenic International Group Company Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 264

While granting temporary injunction in favour of Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company, the Delhi High Court restrained unknown entities from publishing, distributing or disclosing the company's confidential data pertaining to its customers, after the company received a ransomware threat.

UP Woman On Death Row In UAE For Infant's Murder Executed On February 15: Centre Informs Delhi High Court

Title: SHABBIR KHAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 265

The Union Government has informed the Delhi High Court that an Indian woman, resident of Uttar Pradesh, who was on death row in Abu Dhabi, UAE, for alleged murder of a four month old child, was executed on February 15.

Private Unaided Schools Are Subject To Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 If Service Conditions Are Governed By Statutory Provisions Like DSEAR, 1973 : Delhi HC

Case Name : Jayati Mozumdar v. Managing Committee Sri Sathya Sai Vidya Vihar & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 266

The Delhi High Court bench comprising of Justice Prateek Jalan held that a private unaided school is subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if its service conditions are governed by statutory provisions like the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 (DSEAR).

MACP Scheme Benefits Must Be Granted Along With Pension Benefits To Employees Who Got Deemed Extension Of Service Till 60 Years: Delhi HC

Case Name : Rajbir Singh Sihmar And Ors v. Union Of India And Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 267

A Division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Navin Chawla & Justice Shalinder Kaur held that MACP scheme benefits must be granted along with pension benefits to employees whose service is deemed to extend until 60 years.

Respondent Cannot File Cross-Objections To Appeal Before High Court U/S 260A Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court

Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. Nagar Dairy Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 268

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which pertains to appeals to High Courts, does not envisage the filing of cross-objections by the opposite party, unlike Order XLI Rule 22 CPC.

Jamia Protest: Delhi High Court Constitutes Committee To Calm Down Situation, Stays Suspension Of Students

Title: Saurabh Tripathi & Ors. v. Jamia Millia Islamia and other connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 269

The Delhi High Court has directed that a committee be constituted to “calm down” the situation amid recent students' protest in the Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI).

Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Wrestler Sushil Kumar In Sagar Dhankar Murder Case

Title: Sushil Kumar v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 270

The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to wrestler Sushil Kumar in relation to the case of murder of 27-year-old former junior national wrestling champion Sagar Dhankar in May 2021.

Delhi High Court Restrains Company Which Owns Mamagoto, Dhaba From Playing Phonographic Performance's Copyrighted Songs In Its Restaurants

Case title: Phonographic Performance Limited vs. Azure Hospitality Private Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 271

The Delhi High Court has granted a temporary injunction in favour of Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL), restraining Azure Hospitality Private Limited which runs several restaurants, from playing PPL's copyrighted songs at the premises of its restaurants.

Non Supply Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Either In Arrest Memo Or Separately To Accused Illegal: Delhi High Court In Abetment Of Suicide Case

Title: GAGAN v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 272

The Delhi High Court declared the arrest of a man as illegal, in an abetment of suicide case, after noting that neither “grounds of arrest” column was there in the arrest memo nor the grounds were separately served upon him at the time of his arrest.

Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Christian Michel Booked By ED In AgustaWestland Chopper Scam

Case Title: Christian Michel James v. ED

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 273

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to British Arms Counsultant Christian James Michel in the FIR registered by Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the Agusta Westland chopper scam.

Delhi High Court Allows Indigo Airlines' Plea, Holds Levy Of Additional IGST On Repaired & Re-Imported Aircraft Parts To Be Unconstitutional

Case title: Interglobe Aviation Ltd v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs Acc (Import) New Custom House New Delhi & Ors. and batch

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 274

In big relief to Indigo airlines, the Delhi High Court has held that an additional levy of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) and cess under Section 3(7) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 on re-import of aircraft parts that were repaired abroad, is unconstitutional.

Illegal Construction Threatens Ecologically Sensitive Yamuna Floodplains: Delhi HC Rejects Dhobi Ghat Slum Residents' Plea Against Demolition

Title: DHOBI GHAT JHUGGI ADHIKAR MANCH v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 275

The Delhi High Court has observed that Yamuna floodplains in the national capital is ecologically sensitive and any unlawful encroachment or construction in the area poses significant threat to it.

NDLS Stampede: Delhi High Court Refuses To Implead Persons Prevented From Boarding Train, Asks Them To Avail Remedy Separately

Case Title: Arth Vidhi v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 276

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain an application filed by various individuals seeking intervention in a pending public interest litigation filed over the recent stampede that occurred at New Delhi Railway Station on February 15.

Awarding Less Than Minimum Prescribed Sentence Under Wildlife Protection Act Would Frustrate Its Object, Set A Dangerous Precedent: Delhi HC

Title: CBI v. MD. YASEEN WANI & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 277

The Delhi High Court has held that it is impermissible to award a sentence which is less than the minimum prescribed term under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

No Liberalised Family Pension For Death During Casual Leave; Direct Causal Link With Official Duty Essential: Delhi HC

Title: Leelam v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 278

Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur held that death of a CRPF Sub-Inspector in a road accident during casual leave does not qualify for Liberalized Family Pension or Ex-Gratia Compensation. The court held that mere classification of leave as 'on duty' under service rules is not enough unless there exists a direct causal link between the death and the performance of official duties. It ruled that for Liberalized Family Pension or Ex-Gratia Compensation, the death must occur in circumstances related to the performance of official duties.

Time Spent Before 'Wrong' Court Excluded U/S 14 Of Limitation Act While Calculating Limitation Period U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: INCITE HOMECARE PRODUCTS PVT LTD versus R K SWAMY PVT LTD ERSTWHILE RK SWAMY BBDO PVT LTD

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 279

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma has held that during the calculation of the limitation period of three months for the application under Section 34(1) of the Act, the time during which the applicant was prosecuting such application before the wrong court is excluded. Court noted that the proceedings in the wrong court should be bona fide, with due diligence.

Delhi High Court Upholds Trial Court Order Allowing Accused's Plea To Preserve Call Detail Records, Location Data Of CBI Officers

Case title: CBI vs. Neeraj Kumar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 280

The Delhi High Court has observed that a Trial Court's order allowing the application of an accused for preservation of Call Detail Records and location data of CBI officers and independent witnesses is an 'interlocutory order' and thus a revision petition under Section 397 CrPC challenging the order is not applicable.

[Arbitration Act] Limitation Does Not Stop If Initial Filing Is Non Est, Date Of Filing Must Be Reckoned From Date Of Refiling: Delhi HC

Case Title: Sudesh Hans v. Gian Chand Hans and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 281

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has reiterated that the filing of the arbitral award under challenge along with application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not a mere procedural formality but an essential requirement and non-filing of the same would make the application non est in the eyes of law.

Delhi HC Grants Interim Relief U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act By Attaching TMT Steel Bars Worth ₹69.5 Crores Made Using Coal Whose Quality Was Disputed

Case Title: RESCOM MINERAL TRADING FZE versus RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED RINL AND ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 282

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has granted interim relief to a petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to the extent of 50% of the balance outstanding claimed i.e., Rs. 69.50 Crores by attaching TMT Steel bars (finished product) of the equivalent amount in a dispute over the quality of coal delivered, which was used to manufacture the steel bars.

Delhi HC Asks CESTAT To Decide If Tax On Services Purchased By Prepaid Mobile Subscribers From Existing Balance Would Amount To Double-Tax

Case title: Tata Teleservices Limited v. The Commissioner CGST Delhi East & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 283

The Delhi High Court has asked the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal to decide whether levy of tax on the services purchased by a prepaid subscriber of Tata Teleservices, using the existing mobile balance on which tax was already paid, would amount to double taxation.

Making Two Applications For One Recruitment Examination, Concealing One, Delhi High Court Dismisses Writ Petition

Case Title: PRAGYA SINGH versus DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 284

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices C.Hari Shankar and Anup Kumar Mendiratta dismissed a Petition whereby the Petitioner sought quashing of a notice by which her candidature was rejected. The Bench held that since the Petitioner had filed two application forms and had also concealed her educational qualifications before the Tribunal as well as the Court, she would not be entitled to any sort of relief.

CESTAT Can't Reject Appeal Merely Because Pre-Deposit Was Made In Wrong Account, Especially When Rules Were Unclear: Delhi High Court

Case title: M/S DD Interiors v. Commissioner Of Service Tax & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 285

The Delhi High Court has held that merely because a pre-deposit prescribed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for preferring an appeal is made in the wrong account, that too when the integrated portal might not have been fully functional, cannot result in rejection of appeal on the ground of defects.

'Ego Issue': Delhi HC Disapproves Of Tax Commissioner Seeking Declaration Against Appointments Committee Of Cabinet Over Delay In Promotion

Case title: Ramesh Chander v. The Chairman Central Board Of Direct Taxes, & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 286

The Delhi High Court rejected the petition filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, seeking a declaration against the Appointments Committee Of Cabinet (ACC) which promoted him to the post with purported delay.

Survey Report On Existence Of 'Permanent Establishment' In Tax Year Not Relevant For Previous/Future AYs: Delhi HC Grants Relief To Swiss Co

Case title: GE Grid (Switzerland) GMBH v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 287

The Delhi High Court has held that the existence of a foreign entity's Permanent Establishment (PE) in India is required to be determined in law for each year separately on the basis of the scope, extent, nature and duration of activities in each year.

'Extra Duty Deposit' Different From Customs Duty, Limitation For Seeking Refund U/S 27 Of Customs Act Is Inapplicable: Delhi High Court

Case title: Sentec India Company Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Customs, Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 288

The Delhi High Court has held that an Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) does not constitute a payment in the nature of customs duty under the scope of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and thus, the period of limitation for seeking a refund of customs duty under the provision would not apply qua EDD.

'Highly Undesirable Practice, Wastes Judicial Time': Delhi High Court Laments Frequent Non-Appearance Of Govt Counsel In Customs Matters

Case title: Rahul Vattamparambil Remesh v. Union Of India & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 289

The Delhi High Court has expressed its displeasure at the frequent non-appearance of government counsel in customs related matters.

[POCSO Act] Lying Very Close To Minor Victim Amounts To 'Outraging Modesty' But Not 'Aggravated Sexual Assault' If No Overt Sexual Intent: Delhi HC

Title: MRP (IDENTITY WITHHELD) v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 290

The Delhi High Court has held that pressing lips of a minor victim and lying very close to her may amount to offence of outraging her modesty under Indian Penal Code but the same may not amount to offence of aggravated sexual assault under POCSO Act if overt sexual intent is absent.

Family Court's Approach Can't Be Like Ordinary Civil Proceeding: Delhi HC Sets Aside Order Closing Wife's Right To File Reply In Divorce Plea

Title: MEENU AGRAWAL v. BHARAT GOEL

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 291

The Delhi High Court has said that while dealing with matrimonial matters, family courts must adopt an approach which is different from ordinary civil proceedings.

Delhi HC Grants Permanent Injunction In Favour Of Rishikesh Based Chotiwala Restaurant Over Trademark Infringement, Awards ₹3 Lakh Damages

Case title: Chotiwala Food And Hotels Private Limited vs. Chotiwala & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 292

The Delhi High Court has recently granted a permanent injunction in favour of Rishikesh-based restaurant Chotiwala Food And Hotels Private Limited, restraining three Delhi-based restaurants from using Chotiwala's name, trademark and artistic work.

Not Coherent: Delhi HC Uphold's Dismissal Of Woman's Complaint Claiming She Survived 25 Gunshots Using Ayurvedic Medicines, Without Surgery

Title: C SHARMA v. NAVDEEP SINGH & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 293

The Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of a woman's complaint who claimed that she survived about 25 gunshot wounds in her head and heart using ayurvedic medicines without surgery or going to the hospital.

S.67 Of CGST Act & S.110 Of Customs Act Are Pari Materia; GST Department Must Give Notice To Assessee Before Extending Seizure Period: Delhi HC

Case title: M/S Kashish Optics Ltd. v. The Commissioner, CGST Delhi West & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 294

The Delhi High Court has held that an assessee must be issued notice within six months of seizure of its goods under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, failing which the goods must be returned by the Department.

Shamshera Movie Copyright Case: Delhi High Court Stays Further Investigation In FIR Against Yash Raj Films, Aditya Chopra

Title: YASH RAJ FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 295

The Delhi High Court has stayed further investigation against Yash Raj Films Private Limited and director Aditya Chopra in the FIR registered against them in relation to the Shamshera movie copyright case.

Income Tax Department Cannot Attach Properties Indefinitely Without Pursuing Steps To Resolve Matter: Delhi High Court

Case title: Fasttrack Tieup Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 296

The Delhi High Court has held that the Income Tax Department cannot, suspecting escapement of tax on income by an assessee, indefinitely attach its properties without taking further steps to resolve the matter.

Relief To Quick Delivery Platform 'Zepto': Delhi High Court Directs Cancellation Of Trademark Registered By Individual In 2014

Case title: Kiranakart Technologies Private Limited vs. Mohammad Arshad & Anr (C.O.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 297

The Delhi High Court has directed the cancellation of 'Zepto' trademark registered in 2014 by an individual, in a rectification petition filed by consumer goods delivery services Kiranakart Technologies Private Limited which operates under the Zepto mark.

Transfer Pricing | Existence Of International Transaction Must Be Determined Before Benchmarking Analysis Is Commenced: Delhi HC

Case title: PCIT-1, New Delhi v. Beam Global Spirits & Wine (India) Pvt.Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 298

The Delhi High Court has held that before the Income Tax Department commences transfer pricing benchmarking analysis of an assessee's international transactions, the very existence of such 'international transaction' must be determined.

Case title: PCIT-1, New Delhi v. Beam Global Spirits & Wine (India) Pvt.Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 298

The Delhi High Court has held that before the Income Tax Department commences transfer pricing benchmarking analysis of an assessee's international transactions, the very existence of such 'international transaction' must be determined.

Case Title: Rattan India Power Ltd. v. BHEL

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 299

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has observed that the power to pass an award on admissions is wide, and evidentiary admissions (admissions contained outside pleadings) can also form the basis of an arbitral award.

Delhi High Court Issues Permanent Injunction Against Trademark & Copyright Infringement Of Acquaguard's Spare Parts, Imposes ₹2 Lakh Costs

Case title: Eureka Forbes Limited vs.Om Sai Enterprises & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 300

The Delhi High Court has granted permanent injunction in favour of Eureka Forbes Limited which owns 'Acquaguard', restraining a manufacturer of spare parts of water purification systems from infringing on its trademarks and copyrights.

Eureka Forbes Limited (plaintiff) manufactures and sells water purifiers and its spares and consumables under the 'AQUAGUARD' and formative trademarks.

Trademark Infringement: Delhi High Court Directs Manufacturer Of Counterfeit Products To Pay ₹11 Lakh To Puma

Case title: Puma SE vs. Mahesh Kumar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 301

The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favour of Puma, restraining a manufacturer of counterfeit products from selling products under Puma's trademarks and its logos.

Observing that the manufacturer engaged in a blatant act of counterfeiting, Justice Mini Pushkarna directed the manufacturer of counterfeit products to pay Rs. 11 lakh in damages and costs to Puma.

S.29 CGST Act | SCN Must Reflect Both Reasons And Intent Of Retrospective Cancellation Of Registration: Delhi High Court

Case title: JSD Traders LLP v. Additional Commissioner, GST

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 302

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an order cancelling GST registration of a trader with retrospective effect will not sustain unless the show cause notice preceding such decision reflects both the reasons and the authority's intent for retrospective cancellation.

Delhi High Court Issues Permanent Injunction Against Trademark Infringement Of Ramada International, Awards ₹10 Lakh Damages

Case title: Ramada International, Inc. vs. Clubramada Hotels And Resorts Private Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 303

The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of the American hotel chain Ramada International, against trademark infringement by a party using the 'Ramada' mark as its corporate name.

Ramada International (plaintiff) submitted that it adopted the trademark RAMADA in 1954 for its hotel in Arizona, USA. It stated that it franchises and manages over 900 hotels across more than 60 countries including India.

S.36 Income Tax Act | Deduction For Bad Debt Allowed Only If Assessee Lends In Ordinary Course Of Banking/Money Lending Business: Delhi HC

Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. WGF Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 304

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that allowance in respect of bad debts as an expense under Section 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is permissible only if:

(a) the debt was taken into account for computing the income of the assessee in the previous year in which the amount is written off or prior previous years; or

(b) represents money lent in the ordinary course of business of banking or money lending.

Suspension Of Wrestling Federation Of India Revoked: Centre Tells Delhi High Court

Title: WRESTLING FEDERATION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT MR. SANJAY SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 305

The Central Government informed the Delhi High Court that the suspension of Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) by the Union Sports Ministry on December 24, 2023, has been revoked.

An order to the said effect was passed by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports on March 10. Vide the said order, the Centre has restored the recognition of WFI as a national sports federation for wrestling.

Income Tax Rules | Centre's Power To Relax Conditions Under Rule 9C Exceptional & Discretionary, Not Ordinarily Subject To Judicial Review: Delhi HC

Case title: Cargill India Private Limited v. Central Board Of Direct Taxes.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 306

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the power of the Central government to relax conditions prescribed under Rule 9C of the Income Tax Rules 1962, read with Section 72A of the Income Tax Act, 1962, is exceptional, discretionary and cannot ordinarily be subject to judicial review.

Complainant Has No Right To Be Heard In Bail Proceedings Under Juvenile Justice Act: Delhi High Court

Title: MOHD. MUNIB v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 307

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a complainant has no right to be heard at every stage of bail proceedings under the Juvenile Justice Act.

“The involvement of the complainant remains a matter of judicial discretion rather than an enforceable entitlement, and the fundamental principle of juvenile justice i.e., "rehabilitation over retribution" must remain paramount in any such determination,” Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said.

S.28(4) Customs Act | Genuine Disagreement With Department Regarding Classification Of Goods Not 'Suppression Of Facts' By Trader: Delhi HC

Case title: M/S Ismartu India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India And Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 308

The Delhi High Court has held that merely because there is disagreement between the Customs department and a trader regarding the classification of the latter's goods for the purpose of levying duty, it does not mean that the trader has indulged in 'suppression of facts' from the Department.

Subsequent Notice U/S 28(4) Customs Act Cannot Be 'Supplementary' To Prior Notice U/S 28(1), Both Provisions Operate In Separate Fields: Delhi HC

Case title: M/S Ismartu India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India And Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 309

The Delhi High Court has held that notices under Section 28(1) and Section 28(4) of the Customs Act 1962 operate in different scenarios and even by an exaggerated stretch, cannot possibly be said to be interchangeably issued.

'Luxury Litigation': Delhi High Court Dismisses SBI's Plea To Expunge Magistrate's Remarks Suggesting Collusion In Loan Default Case

Case title: State Bank of India vs. M/S. P. P. Jewellers Private Limited (M/S. P. P. JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 310

Remarking that the State Bank of India (SBI) was pursuing a “luxury litigation”, the Delhi High Court dismissed the bank's petition which sought to expunge remarks made by a Magistrate which pointed to a lack of due diligence on the part of SBI in recovery of loan amount and further indicated collusion with the defaulter.

Counterfeit Medical Products Threat To Public Health: Delhi HC Awards ₹3.34 Crore Damages To Johnson & Johnson Over Trademark Infringement

Title: JOHNSON & JOHNSON v. PRITAMDAS ARORA T/A M/S MEDSERVE & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 311

The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favour of the American pharmaceutical company Johnson & Johnson, against trademark infringement and selling large quantities of counterfeit products by a party engaged in the sale of surgical devices using Johnson & Johnson's 'Surgicel', 'Ligaclip' and 'Ethicon' trademarks.

Delhi High Court Orders Take Down Of YouTuber Shyam Meera Singh's 'Defamatory' Video On Sadhguru, Isha Foundation

Title: ISHA FOUNDATION v. GOOGLE LLC & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 312

The Delhi High Court directed the take down of YouTuber Shyam Meera Singh's recent, allegedly defamatory YouTube video on Isha Foundation and its founder spiritual leader Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev.

The video titled “Sadhguru EXPOSED: What's happening in Jaggi Vasudev's Ashram” was uploaded by Singh on his YouTube channel on February 24 and he shared it on his 'X' page with allegations suggesting that minors were being exploited in the Ashram.

Veracity Of Allegations Against Settlement Agreement Cannot Be Looked Into By Court In Application U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s ARSS Infrastructure Projects Ltd. v. National Highway Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 313

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has reiterated that the scope of inquiry under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is limited to examining the prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement.

Contingent Liability vs Laid Out Expense: Delhi HC Allows Vodafone To Claim ₹5.1 Crore Depreciation Over Estimated Costs To Restore Mobile Tower Sites

Case title: Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 314

The Delhi High Court has allowed Vodafone Mobile, engaged in providing telecommunication services, to claim depreciation of ₹5.10 crores in respect of fixed assets over provisioned expenditure to discharge its contractual obligation of restoring mobile tower sites to their original condition at the end of the lease period.

UAPA: Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Accused Naval Kishore Kapoor, Says Terror Funding Wreaked Havoc In Kashmir

Title: NAVAL KISHORE KAPOOR v. NIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 315

The Delhi High Court denied bail to accused Naval Kishore Kapoor in a terror funding case registered by National Investigation Agency (NIA) under UAPA.

A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur dismissed Kapoor's appeal challenging a trial court order denying him bail on August 19, 2019.

'Cannot Be Forced To Repeatedly Approach Court': Delhi HC Orders Release Of Iran National's Jewellery Confiscated By Customs Almost 3 Yrs Ago

Case title: Amirhossein Alizadeh v. The Commissioner Of Customs & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 316

The Delhi High Court ordered the Customs Department to release the silver-coated gold chains of an Iranian national, which were confiscated on his arrival in India almost three years ago.

A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noted that the prescribed period of six months for issuance of a Show Cause Notice had already elapsed.

Writ Petition For Quashing Of FIR Can't Serve As Substitute For Availing Remedies Under BNSS: Delhi High Court

Title: VIJAY KUMAR @ CHAMPION v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 317

The Delhi High Court has observed that a writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking quashing of an FIR cannot serve as a substitute for availing remedies specifically provided under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for securing personal liberty.

Delhi High Court Grants Relief To India Today Group Against Dissemination Of Its E-Magazines By Illegal Telegram Channels

Case title: Living Media India Limited & Anr. vs. Telegram FZ LLC & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 318

The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of India Today Group, against copyright and trademark infringement by several Telegram channels/accounts uploading e-magazines owned by the India Today Group.

Courts Can't Interfere In Assessment By Reporting Officer In Absence Of Bias Or Prejudice Against Employee:Delhi High Court

Case Title: Aabi Binju versus Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 319

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices C.Hari Shankar and Anup Kumar Mendiratta partly allowed a writ petition seeking to set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal that upheld the gradings given to the Petitioner in the ACR's by Reporting and Reviewing Officers. The Bench observed that while the Courts are required to consider and give weightage to the reports and gradings given by Officers, it is also necessary to consider whether such remarks or gradings were assigned without any bias or prejudice.

Withdrawal Of MSMED Council Application Does Not Preclude Arbitration U/S 11, Even Without Council's Response: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Smartschool Education Private Limited Vs M/S Bada Business Pvt. Ltd And Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 320

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that withdrawal of an application before the MSMED Council does not bar a party from seeking the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even in the absence of any corresponding response from the MSMED Council.

Serious Allegations Of Fraud Constituting Criminal Offense Are Non-Arbitrable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Bentwood Seating System (P) Ltd. vs Airport Authority Of India & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 321

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the allegations of fraud which are extremely serious and potentially constitute a criminal offense are non-arbitrable. The court noted that the plea of fraud is of such a nature that it impacts the entire contract, including the arbitration agreement. Consequently, the court held that such a dispute is not arbitrable in nature.

Party Entering Settlement Agreement, Agreeing To Consent Award Cannot Later Object To Its Enforcement On Grounds Of Lack Of Knowledge: Delhi HC

Case Title: Mercedes Benz Group AG v. Minda Corporation Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 322

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anish Dayal has rejected an objection raised by the Award Debtor against the enforcement of an Award on the ground that it was contrary to public policy since it was not informed by the Award Holder about a previous settlement with the Judgment Debtor's subsidiary.

Accused Can't Be Denied Certified Copy Of Documents Forming Part Of Chargesheet After Commencement Of Trial: Delhi High Court

Title: GOPAL MISHRA & ANR v. STATE

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 323

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an accused cannot be denied the certified or attested copy of documents forming part of the chargesheet after commencement of trial.

“Even assuming that copy of the hard disk in question was supplied to the accused persons at the stage of Section 207 Cr. P.C. proceedings, still the right of the petitioner to ask for the certified copy of documents which form part of the chargesheet cannot be negated.”

Domino's Trademark Infringement: Delhi High Court Orders Delisting Of Dominic Pizza, Domindo Pizza From Zomato & Swiggy

Title: DOMINOS IP HOLDER LLC & ANR. v. M/S DOMINIC PIZZA & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 324

The Delhi High Court has restrained various restaurants from using the marks “Dominic Pizza” and “Domindo Pizza” while selling pizzas as well as in their packaging and menu cards in a trademark infringement suit filed by Domino's.

Error By Supplier In Mentioning GSTN Of Trader Can't Form Basis To Reject ITC On Purchases: Delhi High Court

Case title: M/S B Braun Medical India Pvt Ltd v. Union Of India & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 325

The Delhi High Court came to the rescue of a Company engaged in the sale of various pharmaceutical products and medical devices, holding that it could not be denied Input Tax Credit on purchases merely because its supplier had mentioned a wrong GST number on the invoices.

Delhi High Court Orders Customs Department To Release Arab Minor's Jewellery Which She Wore Since Childhood

Case title: Gopika Vennankot Govind v. Union Of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 326

The Delhi High Court has ordered the Customs Department to release the personal jewellery of a minor from UAE who had come to India to attend a relative's wedding.

Delhi High Court Discharges Lawyer Booked For Criminal Contempt Over Misbehaviour With Judge, Asks Him To Render Pro Bono Services

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. SHIVASHISH GUNWAL ADVOCATE

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 327

While discharging a lawyer in a criminal contempt case, the Delhi High Court has asked him to render pro bono services in at least two matters before Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO).

Ensure Parity In Participation Of Male, Female Athletes In Sporting Events Organized By National Sports Federations: Delhi High Court To Centre

Title: RAHUL KUMAR VERMA v. BADMINTON ASSOCIATION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 328

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports to make efforts to ensure that parity is maintained in the participation of male and female athletes in sporting events organized by the National Sports Federations (NSFs).

Order Passed U/S 23(3) Of Arbitration Act Is Procedural & Not An Interim Award, Cannot Be Challenged U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: NTPC LIMITED versus STARCON INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 329

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that an order dismissing an application under Section 23(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act is only a procedural order and does not qualify as an 'interim award' amenable to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act

Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains Infringement Of Himalaya's 'Liv.52' Trademark, Imposes ₹30.91 Lakh In Costs & Damages

Case title: Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. & Anr vs. Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 330

The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favour of the personal care and herbal health company Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd against trademark infringement of its 'Liv.52' products used for liver care by manufacturers and sellers of infringing 'Liv-333' goods.

Customs Dept Repeatedly Told To Serve Notices, Orders On Assessee Via Email: Delhi High Court Seeks Compliance

Case title: Muhammad Nazim v. Commissioner Of Customs & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 331

The Delhi High Court has asked the Customs Department to scrupulously comply with its “repeated” direction to serve notices, orders on an assessee under the Customs Act, 1962 via email.

Application U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act Not Maintainable If Not Filed With Copy Of Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ircon International Limited vs M/S Pnc-Jain Construction Co (Jv)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 332

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan has held that an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is non-maintainable if it is not accompanied by a copy of the impugned award. The court held that the filing of the award is not a mere procedural requirement but a mandatory prerequisite for invoking the court's jurisdiction under Section 34.

Arbitral Tribunal Is Sole Judge Of Evidence, Court Not Required To Re-Evaluate Evidence U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DIRECT NEWS PVT. LTD versus DTS TRAVELS PVT. LTD

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 333

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia held that the arbitrator is the ultimate master of the quantity and quality of evidence to be relied upon when he delivers his arbitral award. An award would not be held invalid merely because the award is based on little evidence or on evidence which does not meet the quality of a trained legal mind.

Delhi High Court Asks Centre To Comply With Supreme Court Order Directing It To Decide Representation Seeking To Rename India As 'Bharat'

Title: NAMAHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 334

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to expeditiously comply with an order passed by the Supreme Court in 2020 directing that a petition seeking direction to change the name of the country as "Bharat" from "India" be treated as a representation.

S.450 BNSS | Court Of Chief Judicial Magistrate Can't Transfer A Case Either Suo Moto Or On Any Application: Delhi High Court

Title: SUDESH CHHIKARA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 335

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot transfer a case from one Court or another either suo moto or upon an application being moved to that effect.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Trial Of BJP Leader Kapil Mishra In 2020 FIR For Alleged Communal Tweets

Title: Kapil Mishra v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 336

The Delhi High Court refused to stay trial court proceedings against BJP Minister Kapil Mishra in relation to an FIR filed against him in 2020 over his tweets that the AAP and Congress parties had created a “mini Pakistan” at Shaheen Bagh and that the then Assembly polls would be a contest between “India and Pakistan”.

Delhi HC Flags CBI's Contradictory Approach, Highlights Difference Between Notice To Witness U/S 160 CrPC And Notice To Accused U/S 41A CrPC

Case title: KUNDAN KUMAR @ GORE vs. CBI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 337

While granting anticipatory bail to an individual accused of cheating and cyber fraud, the Delhi High Court observed that if the arrest of a person accused of a cognisable offence punishable for less than seven years is not required, the investigating agency has to issue a notice under Section 41A CrPC before the proceedings with the arrest.

Delhi High Court Slams Directorate General Of Foreign Trade For Cancelling Trader's DEPB License 15 Yrs After SCN Was Issued

Case title: M/S Saha Traders Zonal Joint Director General Of Foreign Trade(Cla)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 338

The Delhi High Court quashed a Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) communication cancelling the license issued to a trader involved in import and export of goods, citing almost fifteen years delay in culminating the show cause notice.

Delhi High Court Refuses Interim Bail To PFI Leader Shahid Nasir In UAPA Case, Asks Him To Move Special NIA Court

Title: SHAHID NASIR v. NIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 339

The Delhi High Court has refused to grant interim bail to Popular Front of India (PFI) leader Shahid Nasir in a case registered by NIA under UAPA.

Delhi High Court Declares 'Taj' As Well Known Trademark For Services In Hotel And Hospitality Industry

Title: THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LIMITED v. GAURAV ROY BHATT & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 340

The Delhi High Court has declared “Taj” a well known trademark in respect of hotels and other related services in the hospitality industry.

Transfer Pricing | 'Resale Price Method' Most Appropriate To Determine ALP Where Distributor Makes No Value Addition To Imported Products: Delhi HC

Case no.: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Delhi v. D Light Energy P. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 341

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that where the distributor of an imported product makes no value addition to it before sale, Resale Price Method is the most appropriate method to determine the arm's length price in relation to its business with an Associated Enterprise.

Cheque Dishonor | Conviction Alone Not Sufficient For Appellate Court To Seek 20% Deposit, Must Consider Attending Circumstances: Delhi HC

Case title: Anuj Ahuja vs. Sumitra Mittal

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 342

The Delhi High Court has observed that a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of cheque cannot itself qualify as a reason for an Appellate Court to direct the accused to deposit 20% of fine or compensation under Section 148 NI Act.

Delhi High Court Directs BCI To Enrol South Korean Citizen As Advocate Within Two Days

Title: BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v. DEAYOUNG JUNG AND ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 343

The Delhi High Court directed the Bar Council of India to enrol a South Korean citizen- Daeyoung Jung as an advocate within two days.

A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that withholding the enrolment would not be permissible since there was no stay of a single judge order which had quashed BCI's decision refusing to consider Jung as eligible for enrolment as an advocate.

'Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt' Is A Principle Of Criminal Law, Not Applicable To Tax Law: Delhi High Court

Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. M/S East Delhi Leasing Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 344

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the principle of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' cannot be made applicable to Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which enables an assessing officer to open an assessment if he has 'reason to believe' that an assessee's income escaped assessment.

NRI's Entitled To Benefits Provided To 'Eligible Passengers' Under 2016 Baggage Rules: Delhi High Court

Case title: Amal Krishna v. Union Of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 345

The Delhi High Court has held that a non-resident Indian is fully entitled to the benefit provided to an “eligible passenger” under the Baggage Rules, 2016 for the purposes of Customs on arrival to India.

Well-Educated Wife With Job Experience Must Not Remain Idle Solely To Gain Maintenance From Husband: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 346

The Delhi High Court has observed that a well educated wife with suitable job experience must not remain idle solely to gain maintenance from her husband.

Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause Prevails Over Seat Of Arbitration Clause If It Expressly Covers Proceedings Relating To Arbitration: Delhi HC

Case Title: Precitech Enclosures Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Rudrapur Precision Industries

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 347

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has observed that generally if an agreement contains both exclusive jurisdiction clause and seat of arbitration clause, then judicial proceedings relating to arbitration would lie only before the court having territorial jurisdiction over the arbitral seat/venue. However, as in the instant case, if the exclusive jurisdiction clause also covers proceedings relating to arbitration then it would prevail over the seat of arbitration clause.

Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains Local Dhabas From Using Registered Trademarks Of Popular Murthal Eatery 'Mannat Dhaba'

Title: MANNAT GROUP OF HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. M/S MANNAT DHABA & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 348

The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained various restaurants (local dhabas) situated on the Delhi-Dehradun highway from using the registered trademarks of popular Murthal based eatery “Mannat Dhaba.”

Can't Use S.482 CrPC To 'Short Circuit' Prosecution: Delhi HC Refuses To Quash FIRs Against Woman's Kin Accused Of Outraging Her Modesty

Case title: Greesh Verma Jairath vs. State NCT Of Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 349

While hearing petitions seeking quashing of FIRs filed by a relative of the accused, the Delhi High Court observed while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the high court would not normally determine whether evidence is reliable as that is the Trial Court's function.

S.45 PMLA | Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Unitech Founder Ramesh Chandra In Money Laundering Case On Account Of 'Age-Related Infirmities'

Title: RAMESH CHANDRA v. THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 350

The Delhi High Court granted bail to 86-year-old founder of Unitech Group Ramesh Chandra, in a money laundering case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

Participation In Arbitral Proceedings Does Not Imply Acceptance Of Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator Unless Objections Are Waived In Writing: Delhi HC

Case Title: SHAKTI PUMP INDIA LTD versus APEX BUILDSYS LTD and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 351

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that the mandate of the Arbitrator can be terminated under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) if the Arbitrator was appointed unilaterally, which is explicitly prohibited under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act unless the ineligibility is expressly waived through a written agreement.

Court Can Appoint Arbitrator U/S 11(6) Of Arbitration Act If MSME Council Fails To Initiate Mediation U/S 18 Of MSMED Act: Delhi HC

Case Title: M/S VALLABH CORPORATION versus SMS INDIA PVT LTD

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 352

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that When the Facilitation Council under the Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Development Act (MSMED Act) fails to initiate the mediation process under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, the court can appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).

Court's Jurisdiction U/S 11(6) Of A&C Act Is Decided Under CPC When No Seat Or Venue Is Specified In Arbitration Agreement: Delhi High Court

Case Title: FAITH CONSTRUCTIONS versus N.W.G.E.L CHURCH

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 353

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has held that in the absence of a specified seat or venue in the Arbitration Agreement, the court's jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) is determined by Sections 16 to 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). The relevant factors include where the respondent resides or conducts business and where the cause of action arose.

Availability Of Drug For Rare Diseases At Economical Prices Material Factor To Be Considered Before Restraining Via Interim Injunction: Delhi HC

Title: F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE AG & ANR v. NATCO PHARMA LIMITED

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 354

The Delhi High Court has observed that availability of a drug for treatment of rare diseases at economical and competitive prices is a material factor to be considered for grant of interim injunction in an intellectual property right (IPR) lawsuit.

Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitrator's Refusal Of Injunction Against Use Of Tagline "Jeeto Har DinZo" By Winzo Games

Case Title: CREATIVELAND ADVERTISING PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. WINZO GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 355

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has upheld the findings of the Arbitrator, who refused to grant an injunction restraining Winzo Games Private Limited (“Respondent”) from using the tagline “Jeeto Har DinZo” developed by Creativeland Advertising Private Limited (“Appellant”).

Execution Of Gift Deed After Arbitral Award Was Passed Indicates Attempt To Frustrate Rights Of Decree Holder, Not Bona Fide Conduct: Delhi HC

Case Title: SIDDHARTH SOOD versus MUNISH KUMAR AGGARWAL

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 356

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has held that the execution of the Gift Deed by the petitioner after an arbitral award is passed suggests an attempt to frustrate the rights of the decree-holder.

Delhi HC Awards ₹34.41 Lakh Damages To Japanese Automobile Tyres Manufacturer 'Bridgestone' Over Trademark Infringement By Indian Firm

Case title: Bridgestone Corporation vs. M/S Merlin Rubber

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 357

The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favour of the Japanese company, Bridgestone Corporation, against trademark infringement of its 'Bridgestone' mark by a similar business manufacturing tyres and tubes for automobiles under 'Brimestone' mark.

'Comedy Of Errors': Delhi HC On CESTAT Passing Contradictory Orders In Appeal Which Did Not Meet Its Pecuniary Jurisdiction

Case title: Jai Durga Rubberised Fabrics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 358

The Delhi High Court took a critical view of the Customs Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi for repeatedly passing contradictory orders in an appeal, which should have been dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.

Delhi High Court Orders Customs To Release 'Name Engraved' Gold Jewellery Of Indian Tourist

Case title: Sai Kiran Goud Tirupathi v. Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 359

The Delhi High Court has ordered the Customs Department to release the gold kada of an Indian tourist, which was seized upon his return to the country after a visit to the Republic of Mali.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Disturb Allotment Of Land To Political Parties Which Was Initially Allotted To Airport Authority Of India

Title: AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 360

The Delhi High Court has refused to disturb the allotment of a land measuring 2.0524 acres in city's Vasant Vihar area to three political parties, for construction of their party offices, which was earlier allotted to the Airports Authority of India (AAI) but was later cancelled in 2002 by the Union Government.

Application Of Funds By Indian Broadcasting Foundation In BARC Is Not For Profit, Exempted U/S 11 & 12 Of Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court

Case title: Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. Indian Broadcasting Foundation

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 361

In an order bringing relief to the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), which was incorporated to protect the interests of various stakeholders in the field of television broadcasting, the Delhi High Court allowed the body to claim exemption from payment of tax under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Requests By Victims Of Sexual Violence For Exemption To Appear Can't Be Treated At Par With Requests Of Hardened Criminals: Delhi HC

Title: ASHLOK v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 362

The Delhi High Court has observed that requests made by victims of sexual violence to exempt them from appearing in court cannot be treated at par with such requests of hardened criminals.

Vos Technologies Judgment On Time Bound Adjudication Of SCNs Applicable To Recovery Proceedings U/S 11A Of Central Excise Act: Delhi High Court

Case title: Paras Products v. Commissioner Central Gst, Delhi North (and batch)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 363

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 11A of the Central Excise Act 1944, which empowers taxing authorities to recover duties not levied/ short-levied or short-paid, is pari materia to corresponding provisions of the Customs Act, the Finance Act and the CGST Act.

Delhi High Court Allows MP Engineer Rashid To Attend Parliament 'In-Custody', Can't Use Phone Or Interact With Media

Title: Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 364

The Delhi High Court has allowed jailed Jammu and Kashmir MP Engineer Rashid to attend the second part of the Parliamentary session from March 26 to April 04 “in-custody”.

Determination Of Anti-Dumping Duties Is A Time-Bound Process By Competent Authority, Writ Courts Will Be Hesitant To Interfere: Delhi HC

Case title: Husky Injection Molding Systems Shanghai Ltd & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 365

The Delhi High Court has held that writ petitions challenging the determination of anti-dumping duties by Directorate General of Trade Remedies are maintainable however, since the determination is a time bound process, Courts will not readily interfere in the process.

Delhi High Court Rejects PIL Alleging Vulgarity In Honey Singh's Song 'Maniac', Asks Litigant To Avail Civil Or Criminal Remedies

Title: Lavkush Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 366

The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) against singer Honey Singh's latest song “Maniac”, alleging that it portrays women as “sexual objects” and uses vulgar words.

Court Cannot Interfere In Arbitration Proceedings At Final Stage, When Sufficient Opportunity Has Been Given To Claimant To Inspect Documents: Delhi HC

Case Title: SUNEHRI BAGH BUILDERS PVT LTD versus DELHI TOURISM AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 367

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Jain has upheld the order passed by the Arbitrator whereby an application seeking production of certain documents has been dismissed. The court held that sufficient opportunity had been given to the claimant, but he didn't avail that opportunity. Thus, the court cannot interfere with the order of the arbitrator at the final stage.

Acceptance Of Goods Delivered Under Tax Invoice Amounts To Accepting Terms Governing It, Including Arbitration Clause: Delhi High Court

Case Title: RADICO KHAITAN LIMITED versus HARISH CHOUHAN

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 368

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has held that the arbitration clause contained in the tax invoice itself is clear to the extent that acceptance of subject goods delivered under the invoice would amount to accepting the terms governing it, including the arbitration clause contained therein.

Delhi High Court Issues Dynamic Injunction, Permanently Restrains Rogue Websites Illegally Streaming 'Undekhi' Series

Title: APPLAUSE ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED v. WWW.9XMOVIES.COM.TW & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 369

The Delhi High Court has issued a dynamic injunction in favour of Applause Entertainment Private Limited and restrained various rogue websites illegally streaming and making available to public “Undekhi” series premiered on the digital platform 'SonyLIV'.

Delhi High Court Issues Permanent Injunction Against Shop Owners From Infringing Louis Vuitton Trademarks On Handbags, Belts

Case title: Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Raj Belts & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 370

The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favour of the French fashion brand Louis Vuitton Malletier, against trademark infringement by shop owners located in Karol Bagh.

Power To Issue Interim Orders U/S 9 Of A&C Act Not Confined Solely To Orders Which Can Be Passed Under O.39 R.1 & 2: Delhi HC

Case Title: M/S GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD versus S.C WADHWA AND SONS (HUF)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 371

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia held that the powers of the court to order interim measures of protection under Section 9 of the Act are wide and are not confined solely to orders that can be passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, the court would be guided by the principles underlying the Code. Clearly, such orders would also extend to granting the relief, if such relief is admissible on admitted facts.

Delhi High Court Stays Release Of Tamil Film 'Veera Deera Sooran' By 4 Weeks Over Alleged Breach Of Assignment Agreement

Case title: Ivy Entertainment Private Limited vs. HR Pictures

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 372

The Delhi High Court deferred the release of Tamil film starring Vikram, 'Veera Deera Sooran' by four weeks–slated to be released, over a breach of an assignment agreement by the film's producer.

After the Court granted ad-interim injunction, both the parties amicably settled the matter and filed the settlement agreement on the same day. In view of the settlement agreement, the ad-interim injunction granted on release of the film was discharged and the film was released in afternoon of 27.03.2025.

Hyperlinking Of Defamatory Article Can Attract Liability As Republication In Some Cases : Delhi High Court

Title: MS. RUCHI KALRA & Ors v. SLOWFORM MEDIA PVT. LTD & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 373

The Delhi High Court has passed a ruling adjudicating the question as to when will hyperlinking of a publication would amount to republication.

The Court said that the mode, manner and context of hyperlinking must reveal an element of independent expression, even if subtle, in addition to the mere act of hyperlinking, for it to constitute republication. “However, there can be no straight jacket formula to determine whether the hyperlink is just a reference or it is a republication. The same would have to be seen bearing in mind the facts and context of each case,” the Court said.

Delhi High Court Upholds Rule Prohibiting Retired Judges Of Other States From Applying For Senior Advocate Designation

Title: SH VIJAI PRATAP SINGH v. DELHI HIGH COURT, THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 374

The Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the rule prohibiting retired judges of other States to apply for senior advocate designation in Delhi.

Delhi High Court Grants Relief To BharatPe, Restrains Use Of 'Bharatpay' Mark And Website

Title: RESILIENT INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/S BHARAT PAY AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 375

The Delhi High Court has granted relief to fintech company “BharatPe” and restrained the use of “Bharatpay” mark as well as the domain name used for payment of utility bills, data recharge services, insurance and financial services.

Recovery Of Excess Amount Can't Be Permitted If Officer Is Not At Fault: Delhi High Court

Case Title: RAHUL SINGH versus BORDER SECURITY FORCE & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 376

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur observed that if an Officer was granted training allowance for the period he was not working as an Instructor, recovery for an excess amount at a later stage could not be permitted as it was undeniably not his fault. The Bench held that any amount recovered from the Petitioner should be refunded to him within a period of eight weeks.

S.110 Customs Act | SCN Cannot Be Issued After One Year, Detention Of Goods Impermissible: Delhi High Court

Case title: Mohammad Arham v. Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 377

The Delhi High Court has held that detention of goods by the Customs Department cannot continue beyond a period of one year, if a show cause notice was not issued to the assessee within such period.

Service Charge Is Voluntary Payment By Consumers, Can't Be Made Mandatory On Food Bills: Delhi High Court

Case Title: National Restaurant Association v. Union Of India & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 378

The Delhi High Court held that service charge and tips are voluntary payments by consumers and cannot be made compulsory or mandatory on food bills by restaurants or hotels.

Justice Prathiba M Singh thus rejected two petitions filed by Federation of Hotels and Restaurant Associations of India (FHRAI) and National Restaurant Association of India (NRAI), challenging CCPA guidelines of 2022 prohibiting hotels and restaurants from levying service charges “automatically or by default” on food bills.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Centre's Order Cancelling Academic Ashok Swain's OCI Card

Case Title: Ashow Swain v. Union of India & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 379

The Delhi High Court set aside an order issued by the Central Government cancelling the OCI card of academic and writer Ashok Swain.

However, the high court has granted liberty to the Central Government to issue fresh show cause notice to Swain.

Force Majeure Clause 'Eclipses' Contractual Terms, Existence And Duration Of Force Majeure Event To Be Determined By Arbitral Tribunal: Delhi HC

Case Title: AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA versus DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 380

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that while deciding a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, courts cannot adopt the approach of one-size-fit-for-all. Courts can interfere into the award only if it shocks the conscience of the court and is prone to adversely affect the administration of justice.

Delhi HC Asks MP Engineer Rashid To Deposit 50% Amount Demanded By Jail Authorities For Parliament Visit, ₹4 Lakh To Be Paid Within 3 Days

Title: Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 381

The Delhi High Court ordered jailed Jammu and Kashmir MP Engineer Rashid to deposit ₹4 lakh (approx) with the jail authorities, so as to attend the second part of the Parliamentary session which ends on April 04.

The figure is 50% of the total amount demanded by the jail authorities (₹8.74 lakhs) to enable his Parliament visit 'in-custody', which was ordered by the High Court on March 25.

Order Restraining Revenue From Taking Coercive Steps For Recovery Of Demand Can Interdict Adjustment Of Refunds: Delhi HC

Case title: Huawei Telecommunications India Company Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 2 & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 382

The Delhi High Court has held that when an appellate authority has asked the Income Tax Department to not take any coercive steps against an assessee for recovery of outstanding demands, the same can in some cases interdict the Department from adjusting the outstanding amount from refunds due to the assessee.

High Court Grants Interim Bail To Delhi Riots Accused To Arrange Funds For Daughter's Academic Fee

Title: Mohd. Salim Khan v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 383

The Delhi High Court granted interim bail to Mohd. Salim Khan, accused in the UAPA case alleging a larger conspiracy in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.

A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur ordered Khan's release on interim bail for 10 days in order to permit him to arrange funds for payment of academic fees of his daughter who is pursuing law from Jamia Hamdard University.

Customs Can Clone Data Of Seized Electronic Devices As Per Statutory Procedure, Need Not Retain Devices Throughout Prosecution: Delhi HC

Case title: Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. DRI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 384

The Delhi High Court has called upon the Customs Department to clone the required data from seized electronic devices of persons allegedly involved in smuggling and other violations under the Act, instead of retaining such devices throughout prosecutions.

NEET-UG | Delhi HC Rejects Plea Against MCC Withdrawing Conversion Of SC-Children/Women Seats To General Category Prior To Counselling

Case title: Avika Shahi And Anr vs. Medical Counselling Committee And Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 385

Refusing to grant relief to NEET-UG candidate who could not secure admission to MBBS course, the Delhi High Court observed that the correction of a legal error on reservation to align with constitutional principles before the commencement of the third round of counselling cannot be considered as a procedural breach or administrative fault on part of the authorities.

Terminating Services Of CAPF Personnel On Being Detected HIV Positive 'Discriminatory': Delhi High Court

Title: HOSHIAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 386

The Delhi High Court has held that termination of service of Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) personnel on the ground of them being detected as HIV positive is discriminatory and prohibited under the HIV Act.

Would Send Wrong Signals To Society: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Film Director Accused Of Rape, Clicking Obscene Pics

Case title: SANOJ KUMAR MISHRA VS. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 387

Refusing anticipatory bail to a rape accused, the Delhi High Court observed that granting anticipatory bail in a case where a film direction allegedly allured the victim on the pretext of making her a heroine and then sexually exploited her, would send wrong signals across the society.

Serving Grounds Of Arrest On Accused During Remand Not Valid, 'Contemporaneous Record' In Police Diary Necessary: Delhi High Court

Title: VIKAS CHAWLA @ VICKY v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 388

The Delhi High Court has observed that serving grounds of arrest to an arrestee as part of the remand application moved by the Police before the Magistrate is no compliance with the requirements of law.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that since grounds of arrest must exist before an arrest is made, there must be a contemporaneous record of the grounds of arrest in the police diary or other document.

Unconditional Withdrawal Of Prior Petition Filed U/S 11 Of A&C Act Bars Subsequent Petition On Same Cause Of Action: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Dewan Chand v. Chairman cum Managing Director and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 389

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has observed that if a petition for appointment of arbitrator is withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh petition, then by application of Order 23 Rule 1(4), CPC, a subsequent petition on the same cause of action would be barred.

Writ Petition Is Not An Appropriate Remedy To Seek Enforcement Of Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court

Case Title: RAMCHANDER versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 390

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jyoti Singh held that when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. The court found merit in the preliminary objection of the Railways that a writ is not the appropriate remedy for the petitioner to seek enforcement of the arbitral award.

Non-Payment Of Service Tax By Sub-Contractor Due To Uncertainity Not Wilful Misstatement Or Fraud: Delhi HC Upholds CESTAT Order

Case title: The Commissioner Of Central Tax, CGST Delhi East v. M/S Simplex Infrastructure Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 391

The Delhi High Court has upheld an order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal interdicting the GST Department from invoking extended period of limitation for recovery action against a sub-contractor who did not pay service tax amid confusion as to his liability to pay the same.

Delhi High Court Slams CBIC For Cryptic Order Denying Duty Drawbacks To Vedanta Despite Its Own Instructions Allowing Retrospective Benefit

Case title: Vedanta Limited v. CBIC

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 392

The Delhi High Court has asked the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to pass a “reasoned order” on Indian multinational mining company- Vedanata's plea claiming duty drawbacks on clean energy cess, paid between the year 2010-17.

“Completely Unacceptable”: Delhi High Court Pulls Up Customs For Prolonged Detention Of Export Goods Despite Dept's Circular

Case title: Backbone Overseas v. Assistant Commissioner Of Customs, Foreign Post Office , New Delhi And Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 393

The Delhi High Court has criticised the Customs Department for acting against its own Circular for expeditious clearance of goods, by detaining the export goods of a trader for over two months.

Relationship Between Searched And Non-Searched Entity Not Mandatory For Invocation Of Proceedings U/S 153C Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court

Case title: Shiv Parkash Bansal v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-14 Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 394

The Delhi High Court has held that the statutory scheme of Sections 153A and 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not envisage the discovery of a connection or interrelationship between the searched and the non-searched entity.