- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Delhi High Court
- /
- Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up:...
Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 28 To May 04, 2025
Nupur Thapliyal
8 May 2025 9:30 AM IST
Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 482 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 508NOMINAL INDEXM/S L-1 Identity Solutions Operating Company Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 25 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 482M/S. Vallabh Textiles v. Additional Commissioner Central Tax GST, Delhi East And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 483Rajbir Singh v. Union Of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del)...
Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 482 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 508
NOMINAL INDEX
M/S L-1 Identity Solutions Operating Company Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 25 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 482
M/S. Vallabh Textiles v. Additional Commissioner Central Tax GST, Delhi East And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 483
Rajbir Singh v. Union Of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 484
Mukesh Gupta @ Mukesh Kumar Gupta vs. CBI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 486
CBI vs. Avnish Kumar & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 487
Ankit Khandelwal v. Income Tax Officer & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 488
San Nutrition Private Limited vs. Arpit Mangal & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 489
Sukhbir S. Dagar v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 24(3) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 490
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd Versus Vihaan Networks Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 491
M/S Gmt Garments v. Union Of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 492
Yashvardhan v. Union of India & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 493
ANSH JINDAL v. State and other connected matter 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 494
Anand Mehta v. Director General Of Foreign Trade 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 495
Railtel Corporation of India Limited v. Primatel Fibcom Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 496
SHAFEEQ AHMAD & ORS v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 497
Rajesh Ranjan vs. Union Of India And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 498
Amit Agrawal v. STATE OF NCT DELHI & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 499
LAKSHMI MURDESHWAR PURI v. SAKET GOKHALE 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 500
M/S Montage Enterprises Private Limited (Through Its Authorized Representative Sanjay Kumar Singh) & Ors. v. Central Goods And Services Tax Delhi North & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 501
Shri Sai Ram Enterprises v. Pr. ADG, DGGI, Gurugram & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 502
M/s Jai Opticals v. GNCTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 503
Mohit Kumar Goyal v. State of NCT of Delhi And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 504
N. DEEPIKA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 505
Pradeep Kumar v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 506
M/S Zine Davidoff SA v. Union Of India And Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 507
The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 v. Bharti Airtel Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 508
Case title: M/S L-1 Identity Solutions Operating Company Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 25
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 482
The Delhi High Court has held that an Assessing Officer cannot add income that allegedly escaped assessment in different previous years, to meet the threshold of ₹50 lakh prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 for initiating reassessment action after lapse of three years.
Case title: M/S. Vallabh Textiles v. Additional Commissioner Central Tax GST, Delhi East And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 483
While dealing with a case under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act 2017, the Delhi High Court has held that though cross-examination can be granted in certain proceedings if it is deemed appropriate, the right to cross-examine cannot be an unfettered right.
Case title: Rajbir Singh v. Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 484
The Delhi High Court has flagged the rampant misuse of the Central government's Duty Drawback Scheme by various exporters.
Unable To Decide Regular Matters Due To Acute Shortage Of Judges: Delhi High Court
Case title: Mukesh Gupta @ Mukesh Kumar Gupta vs. CBI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 486
While allowing an accused to travel abroad for a Rotary club programme, the Delhi High Court observed that many regular matters cannot be heard due to an acute shortage of judges, and thus, in such circumstances, an individual cannot be deprived of travelling abroad, even for a leisure trip.
Case title: CBI vs. Avnish Kumar & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 487
While granting remand of three government officials to the CBI, the Delhi High Court has observed that the allegation of conspiracy among officials of CBI, ED and other government departments for taking bribes “shakes the entire edifice” of the investigating machinery and thus necessitates interrogation by the investigating agency.
Case title: Ankit Khandelwal v. Income Tax Officer & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 488
The Delhi High Court has held that when determining whether a reassessment action meets the ₹50 lakh threshold prescribed under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act 1961, the value of income that allegedly escaped assessment as determined by the Assessing Officer at Section 148A(d) stage is relevant.
Case title: San Nutrition Private Limited vs. Arpit Mangal & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 489
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant a temporary injunction in favour of San Nutrition Private Limited in its plea against alleged defamation, disparagement and trademark infringement by four social media influencers who made videos featuring San Nutrition's 'Doctor's Choice' products.
Case title: Sukhbir S. Dagar v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 24(3)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 490
The Delhi High Court has held that sanction for initiation of reassessment action against an assessee under the proviso to Section 151(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, cannot be issued by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax.
Case Title: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd Versus Vihaan Networks Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 491
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia dismissed BSNL's appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) holding that the Single Judge correctly upheld the Arbitrator's finding that Vihaan Networks Limited carried out the work under the Advance Purchase Order, issued on BSNL's specific instructions, which was later withdrawn. Therefore, the Respondent was rightly compensated under the principle of quantum meruit for the losses incurred.
SCN Uploaded On 'Additional Notices' Tab Of GST Portal Not Proper: Delhi High Court
Case title: M/S Gmt Garments v. Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 492
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that uploading of show cause notice by the GST department under the 'additional notices' tab on its portal is not proper as the assessee may miss it.
Case Name : Yashvardhan v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 493
The Delhi High Court bench comprising of Justice Prateek Jalan held that compassionate appointment, an exception to regular recruitment, is granted only to relieve financial hardship after a government servant's death in service. It can be denied if the family is financially stable or has received sufficient benefits under various schemes.
Title: ANSH JINDAL v. State and other connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 494
The Delhi High Court has held that mere quarrels or fights in a marriage or family do not amount to the offence of abetment of suicide.
Case title: Anand Mehta v. Director General Of Foreign Trade
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 495
The Delhi High Court has held that unless specific allegations which discuss the role of a director in the export performance are made, there is no question of finding the director personally liable for non-fulfilment of export obligations by the company.
Case Title – Railtel Corporation of India Limited v. Primatel Fibcom Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 496
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has observed that where the disputes between the parties are already the subject matter of an earlier arbitral reference, a separate notice under Section 21, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) would not be necessary for separate proceedings to adjudicate counter claims.
Title: SHAFEEQ AHMAD & ORS v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 497
The Delhi High Court has observed that false rape complaints not only puts unnecessary load on the overflowing dockets but also causes grave injustice to actual rape victims.
Delhi High Court Dismisses Challenge To Provision On Limitation Under Contempt Of Courts Act
Case title: Rajesh Ranjan vs. Union Of India And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 498
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the vires of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, noting that the petitioner did not raise any substantial grounds to challenge the validity of the provision.
Title: Amit Agrawal v. STATE OF NCT DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 499
The Delhi High Court said that it is crucial for courts to recognise and be conscious of the right of an accused to speedy trial and to prevent the same from being defeated, rather than wake-up much too late and lament that such right has been defeated.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani granted bail to a man in a cheating case, observing that trial will take a long time to conclude.
Title: LAKSHMI MURDESHWAR PURI v. SAKET GOKHALE
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 500
The Delhi High Court rejected a plea filed by Trinamool Congress MP Saket Gokhale seeking recall of a ruling asking him to put an apology on social media and pay Rs. 50 lakh damages to Lakshmi Puri, former Indian Assistant Secretary-General to the United Nations, in a defamation case filed by her.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav also dismissed Gokhale's application for condonation of delay in seeking his relief.
Case title: M/S Montage Enterprises Private Limited (Through Its Authorized Representative Sanjay Kumar Singh) & Ors. v. Central Goods And Services Tax Delhi North & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 501
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a writ petition filed by a Noida based firm allegedly involved in GST fraud of over Rs. 550 crores.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta were unappreciative of the Petitioner's conduct in responding to the Department's proceedings.
Rule 86A CGST Rules | Credit Ledger Can't Be Blocked For More Than One Year : Delhi High Court
Case title: Shri Sai Ram Enterprises v. Pr. ADG, DGGI, Gurugram & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 502
The Delhi High Court has ordered unblocking of an enterprise's Electronic Credit Ledger following the lapse of one year since its initial blocking.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta cited Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 which lays down the conditions of use of amount available in electronic credit ledger. It prescribes that the credit ledger of an assessee cannot be blocked beyond the period of one year.
Case title: M/s Jai Opticals v. GNCTD
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 503
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Goods and Services Tax authorities are expected to empathetically consider an assessee's request for adjournment of personal hearing on medical grounds.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta said the Department should not proceed to pass adverse orders in such matters.
Title: Mohit Kumar Goyal v. State of NCT of Delhi And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 504
The Delhi High Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a preliminary enquiry over the allegations of extortion racket being run inside the Tihar jail.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela also directed Delhi Government's Principal Secretary (Home) to conduct a fact finding enquiry to find out the officials responsible for administrative lapses inside the jail.
Delhi High Court Orders Adequate Legal Representation To Three Indians On Death Row In Indonesia
Title: N. DEEPIKA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 505
The Delhi High Court has ordered that adequate legal representation be provided to three Indian nationals who are on death row in Indonesia.
Justice Sachin Datta directed the Indian Consulate in Indonesia to take requisite steps for ensuring that the convicted Indian nationals are afforded adequate legal representation and to render appropriate assistance to them for pursuing appellate remedies.
Case title: Pradeep Kumar v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 506
The Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of a CAPF personnel for failing to intimate the force about his absence from duty due to his health condition.
A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur was of the view that being in a disciplinary force, a high level of accountability was expected from the personnel and “it was incumbent upon him, post-surgery, to apprise the respondents of his medical condition and to seek leave from them.”
Case title: M/S Zine Davidoff SA v. Union Of India And Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 507
The Delhi High Court has come to the rescue of the Swiss company which owns luxury coffee brand Davidoff, whose trademark was removed from the register over alleged delay in seeking renewal of the mark.
Justice Amit Bansal noted that the Trade Marks Registry had admitted to not having any records indicating that form O3 notice was issued to the petitioner prior to the removal of the mark.
Case title: The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 v. Bharti Airtel Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 508
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal preferred by the Income Tax Department claiming that Bharti Airtel should have deducted TDS on payments made to overseas telecom service providers for bandwidth services.