Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 11 To August 17, 2025

Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 946 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 980

NOMINAL INDEX

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meena v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 952

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

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

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

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

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

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

Azam v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 959

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

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

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

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

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

Narender v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 965

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lakshay Vij v. ED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 974

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tile: MAHUA MOITRA v. NISHIKANT DUBEY & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 946

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 947

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 948

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 949

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 950

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 951

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

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

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

Case title: Meena v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 952

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 953

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 954

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

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

Case title: Raj Kumar Kedia v. Income Tax Office

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 955

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 956

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 957

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 958

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

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

Case title: Azam v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 959

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 960

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 961

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 962

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

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

Case title: Aditya Rai Gupta v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 963

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 964

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

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

Case title: Narender v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 965

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

In doing so, Justice Girish Kathpalia said,

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

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

Case title: Satya Pal Singh v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 966

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 967

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

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

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

Case title: CCS Computers Pvt Ltd v. NDMC

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 968

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 969

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 970

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 971

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 972

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 973

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

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

Title: Lakshay Vij v. ED

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 974

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

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

Title: GAINDA LAL v. STATE & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 975

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 976

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 977

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 978

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 979

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 980

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