Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 04 To August 10, 2025

Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 925 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 945

NOMINAL INDEX

Vinay Sharma v. GNCTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 925

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

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

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

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

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

Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 931

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

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

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

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

YV v. VV 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 936

SJ v. AJ 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 937

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

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

X v. Y 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 940

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case title: Vinay Sharma v. GNCTD

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 925

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 926

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 927

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 928

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 929

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 930

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

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

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

Case title: Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 931

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

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

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

Title: MOHD. IMRAN v. THE STATE GNCTD

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 932

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

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

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

Title: SACHIN YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 933

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 934

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 935

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

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

Case title: YV v. VV

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 936

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

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

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

Case title: SJ v. AJ

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 937

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

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

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

Title: SHONEE KAPOOR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 938

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 939

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

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

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

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 940

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

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

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

Case title: Shamina v. Commissioner Of Customs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 941

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

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

Title: NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY v. SATYA NISHTH & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 942

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 943

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

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

Title: MOHDMMED JAVED v. UNION OF INIDIA AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 944

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 945

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

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