Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 24 To March 02, 2025

Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 220 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 253

NOMINAL INDEX

Mohamed Shamiuddeen v. Commissioner Of Customs & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 220

Moonshine Technology Private Limited vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 221

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA VS. CONTROLLER OF PATENTS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 222

Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 223

ADDICTIVE LEARNING TECHNOLOGY LIMITED & ANR v. ADITYA GARG & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 224

SFDC Ireland Limited v. Commissioner Of Income Tax & Another 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 225

Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) And Ors. vs. Sumit 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 226

SATINDER SINGH BHASIN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 227

Infiniti Retail Limited vs. M/S Croma Wholeseller & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 228

Randeep Singh Surjewala v. ECI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 229

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 230

Idemia Syscom India Private Limited v. M/s Conjoinix Total Solutions Private Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 231

Ateesh Agarwal v. Union Of India And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 232

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 233

Asha Ram Nehra v. Commissioner of Police and Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 234

The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -2 v. Nokia Network OY 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 235

Neelkanth Pharma Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 236

LIFESTYLE EQUITIES CV & ANR. vs. AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 237

Daljeet Singh Gill v. Union Of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 238

CASTROL LIMITED vs. KAPIL & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 239

MR Makhinder Chopra Commissioner Of Customs New Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 240

ESTATE OF MAHARAJA DR KARNI SINGHJI OF BIKANER THROUGH EXECUTRIX v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 241

BIHAR OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION v. PRESIDENT INDIAN OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 242

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THROUGH ITS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 243

Burger King Corporation vs. Swapnil Patil & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 244

M/S Legacy Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 245

Monish Gajapati Raju Pusapati v. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 246

COMMISSIONER DELHI POLICE vs. NHRC 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 247

UNION OF INDIA & ANR v. ALL INDIA POSTAL ACCOUNTS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 248

M/s Isc Projects Private Limited v. Steel Authority of India Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 249

ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LTD v. SAREGAMA INDIA LTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 250

SQN LDR PRABHAKAR BHATT vs. MAJ. ANNU LAMBA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 251

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

Delhi HC Grants Relief To Foreigner Whose Rolex Watch Was Seized By Customs, Says Waiver Of Show Cause & Hearing In 'Standard Form' Not Lawful

Case title: Mohamed Shamiuddeen v. Commissioner Of Customs & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 220

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that authorities making a traveller waive show cause notice before confiscation of goods, etc. under Section 124 of the Customs Act 1962, on a mere proforma, is not lawful.

A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma thus granted relief to a permanent resident of Hong Kong, whose Rolex wristwatch valued at ₹30,29,400/- was confiscated by the Customs Department at the airport.

Delhi High Court Passes John Doe Order Against Rogue Websites Infringing Online Gaming Company Baazi Group's Trademark

Case title: Moonshine Technology Private Limited vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 221

The Delhi High Court has issued a temporary injunction against 'rogue websites' from accessing and using the domain names infringing the trademark of Moonshine Technology Private Limited, the parent company of Baazi Group of Companies providing online gaming products and services.

S.10(4) Patents Act | Delhi HC Rejects Appeal For Salmonella Microorganism-Based Live Vaccine, Says Application Lacks 'Inventive Contribution'

Case Title: THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA VS. CONTROLLER OF PATENTS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 222

The Delhi High Court has upheld the refusal to grant a patent to the Regents of the University Of California relating to a recombinant Salmonella microorganism-based live vaccine for preventing enteric bacterial infection.

Delhi High Court Asks NIA Court To Expeditiously Decide MP Engineer Rashid's Bail Plea In UAPA Case

Title: Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 223

The Delhi High Court asked a National Investigation Agency (NIA) Court to decide expeditiously the bail plea filed by Jammu and Kashmir MP Rashid Engineer in a terror funding case registered under UAPA.

Conversational Tweets On 'X' Thread Can't Be Assessed In Isolation To Determine Defamation: Delhi High Court Rejects Plea Of 'LawSikho'

Title: ADDICTIVE LEARNING TECHNOLOGY LIMITED & ANR v. ADITYA GARG & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 224

The Delhi High Court has observed that the utterances in the nature of tweets in a conversational thread on X platform (formerly Twitter) are not to be assessed in isolation for determining the claim of defamation.

“The Court has to consider that nature of the medium (X) is casual and fast paced, conversational in character and an elaborate analysis of a 140-character tweet (or even more than that) may be disproportional,” Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said.

S.197 IT Act | AO Must Form Prima Facie Opinion Regarding Taxability In India Before Rejecting Assessee's Application For Nil TDS: Delhi HC

Case title: SFDC Ireland Limited v. Commissioner Of Income Tax & Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 225

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that before rejecting an assessee's application under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for nil TDS or deduction of tax at a lower rate, the assessing officer must form a prima facie opinion regarding the assessee's taxability in India.

RPwD Act | Hyper Rigid Approach While Dealing With Disabled Candidates Dilutes Purpose Of 'Reasonable Accommodation': Delhi High Court

Case title: Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) And Ors. vs. Sumit

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 226

While hearing a plea against a decision granting exemption to an orthopaedically disabled person from typewriting test after the results were declared, the Delhi High Court observed that the approach of a court while dealing with persons with disabilities must be "qualitatively different" from one adopted for able-bodied candidates.

Man Arrested By UP Police Without Informing Delhi Police, High Court Seeks Response On Compliance Of Protocol For Inter-State Arrests

Title: SATINDER SINGH BHASIN v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 227

The Delhi High Court has sought response of the Commissioner of Police, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh as to whether any protocol has been agreed to with the Delhi Police in case of Inter-State arrests as per a 2019 decision of a division bench.

A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Dharmesh Sharma said that there is a need to ensure that the prescribed protocol for inter-state arrests is followed by the UP Police.

Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains Domain Names/Websites From Infringing Tata Group's 'CROMA' Trademark

Case title: Infiniti Retail Limited vs. M/S Croma Wholeseller & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 228

The Delhi High Court issued a permanent injunction in favour of the Tata Group's subsidiary Infiniti Retail Limited, the owner of 'CROMA' trademark, against trademark infringement by domain names/websites using the said mark.

Will Decide Congress MP Randeep Surjewala's Plea For Electoral Rolls Of Maharashtra, Haryana Within Three Months: ECI To Delhi High Court

Title: Randeep Singh Surjewala v. ECI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 229

The Delhi High Court disposed of a plea filed by Congress MP Randeep Singh Surjewala seeking a direction on the Election Commission of India (ECI) to decide his representation seeking supply of the electoral rolls for the Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha polls conducted in the States of Maharashtra and Haryana from 2009 to 2024.

Delhi High Court Quashes ₹2000 Crore Tax Reassessment Notice Against Maruti Suzuki For Alleged Escapement Of Income In AY 2009-10

Case title: Maruti Suzuki India Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 230

The Delhi High Court has quashed the reassessment action initiated by the Income Tax Department against car manufacturer Maruti Suzuki India Ltd for alleged escapement of income in the Assessment Year 2009-10.

MSMED Act Will Prevail Over Arbitration Act In Disputes Pertaining To A Party Which Is An MSME: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Idemia Syscom India Private Limited v. M/s Conjoinix Total Solutions Private Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 231

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has reiterated that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a general law governing the field of arbitration whereas the MSMED Act, 2006 governing a very specific nature of disputes concerning MSMEs, is a specific law and being a specific law would prevail over Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Man Accused Of Taking ₹2 Crore Dowry Seeks Income Tax Dept Probe Into Wife's Family, Delhi High Court Rejects Plea

Case title: Ateesh Agarwal v. Union Of India And Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 232

The Delhi High Court has rejected the writ petition filed by a man, seeking an inquiry into the finances of his wife and her family who claimed to have paid him ₹2 crores dowry, in addition to spending crores of rupees on their wedding.

CBDT Cannot Impose Limitations To Extinguish Rights Granted Under Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 233

Recently, the Delhi High Court held that Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) cannot impose limitations to extinguish rights granted under Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court held that the wide powers granted to the CBDT are not for extinguishing a right that is conferred by the Act. Accordingly, the Court Circular No. 07/2007 dated 23 October 2007 issued by the CBDT to the be ultra vires the Income Tax Act.

Retrospective Pay Reduction Without Prior Notice And Recovery Of Excess Payments After 19 Years Is Not Permissible : Delhi High Court

Case Name : Asha Ram Nehra v. Commissioner of Police and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 234

A division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Manoj Jain held that reducing employee's pay retrospectively without prior notice and recovering excess payments after the period of 19 years is not permissible.

DTAA | Subsidiary Of A Company Does Not Ipso Facto Constitute Its Permanent Establishment: Delhi High Court

Case title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -2 v. Nokia Network OY

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 235

The Delhi High Court has held that a subsidiary or an entity which is substantially controlled by another entity in a contracting State does not by itself become a Permanent Establishment (PE) of that other entity.

Bank Account Frozen Over 'Suspicious Transaction' Of ₹200, Delhi HC Asks Probe Agencies To Show Compassion To Innocent Traders

Case title: Neelkanth Pharma Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 236

The Delhi High Court has expressed concern with investigating agencies freezing the bank accounts of innocent traders while probing cyber crimes.

It observed, “In such types of cyber-crimes, if any fraudster cheats a complainant and with the help of cheated money, when such fraudster buys something using such money, the police, chasing such money-trail, directs freezing the bank accounts of all concerned and in the process, many innocent recipients have to bear the brunt, for no fault of theirs.”

'Deliberate And Wilful Infringement' Of Trademark: Delhi HC Directs Amazon To Pay ₹339.25 Crore To Luxury Brand Beverly Hills Polo Club

Case title: LIFESTYLE EQUITIES CV & ANR. vs. AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 237

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has imposed hefty damages and costs totalling Rs. 339.25 crore on Amazon Technologies Inc for trademark infringement of the luxury lifestyle brand, Beverly Hills Polo Club.

Can't Presume Pending Investigation For Disqualification Under 'Sabka Vishwas Scheme' When Proof Of Service Of Notice Not Available: Delhi HC

Case title: Daljeet Singh Gill v. Union Of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 238

The Delhi High Court granted relief to a trader whose application for availing the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 over service tax dues was declined by the GST Department “without providing any reason”.

Deliberately Misled Consumers: Delhi HC Decrees Castrol Ltd's Trademark Infringement Suit Against Engine Oil Manufacturers, Awards ₹20 Lakh

Case title: CASTROL LIMITED vs. KAPIL & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 239

The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction in favour of the automobile lubricants manufacturer Castrol Limited, against trademark and trade dress/package infringement by businesses manufacturing, selling and advertising engine oils and lubricants.

Customs Department's Baggage Rules Have 'Limited Application' On Foreign Tourists: Delhi HC Orders Release Of Russian National's Gold Chain

Case title: MR Makhinder Chopra Commissioner Of Customs New Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 240

The Delhi High Court has held that the Baggage Rules 2016 which are framed under the Customs Act 1962 to ensure that every passenger entering India passes through a Customs check has limited application on foreign tourists coming to India.

Delhi High Court Rejects Plea By Maharaja Karni Singh's Heir Asking Central Govt To Clear Rent Arrears On Bikaner House

Title: ESTATE OF MAHARAJA DR KARNI SINGHJI OF BIKANER THROUGH EXECUTRIX v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 241

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by heir of Late Maharaja Dr. Karni Singh, the last one to hold the title of Maharaja of Bikaner, seeking arrears of rent from Central Government for the Bikaner House property in the national capital.

Delhi High Court Quashes IOA Order Appointing Ad-Hoc Committee To Look After Affairs Of Bihar Olympic Association

Title: BIHAR OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION v. PRESIDENT INDIAN OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 242

The Delhi High Court has quashed an order passed by the President of Indian Olympic Association (IOA) constituting a five member Ad-Hoc committee to look after the affairs of the Bihar Olympic Association.

Justice Sachin Datta said that the decision taken on January 01 did not satisfy the requirements of law and deserved to be set aside.

'Final Report-I' Confidential Document Of CBI But Can Be Produced Before Court At Cognizance Stage In Exceptional Circumstances: Delhi HC

Title: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THROUGH ITS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 243

The Delhi High Court has ruled that production of Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) final report for the perusal of the special court cannot be denied at the stage of cognizance, if exceptional circumstances are made out.

Delhi High Passes John Doe Order Restricting Domain Names From Infringing Burger King's Trademarks & Running Fake Franchise

Case title: Burger King Corporation vs. Swapnil Patil & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 244

The Delhi High Court has granted a temporary injunction in favour of the fast food chain, Burger King Corporation, and directed the suspension of domain names/websites infringing upon its 'BURGER KING' trademarks.

Burger King Corporation (plaintiff) sought an injunction against unknown defendants for running fake franchise/dealership websites using its trademarks. It is alleged that the operators of the domain names are collecting money from innocent and gullible consumers and customers.

Enterprise Manufacturing Specified Items In Designated States Can Seek Tax Deduction U/S 80IC Income Tax Act Without Agreement With Govt: Delhi HC

Case title: M/S Legacy Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 245

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which contemplates tax incentives for enterprises operating in specific industries and locations in India, does not require such enterprises to enter into an agreement with the Government.

[S.292B Income Tax Act] Inadvertent Mistakes In Reassessment Can Be Saved But Assessment Order Overlooking Apparent Error Cannot: Delhi HC

Case title: Monish Gajapati Raju Pusapati v. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 246

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be used to save an assessment order passed by overlooking errors apparent on face of the record.

Delhi High Court Upholds NHRC Order Directing Delhi Police Commissioner To Pay ₹50,000 Compensation To Doctor Over Non-Registration Of FIR

Case title: COMMISSIONER DELHI POLICE vs. NHRC

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 247

The Delhi High Court has upheld an order passed by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), which directed the Delhi Police Commissioner to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000 to a senior doctor for non-registration of an FIR.

Delhi HC Judges Recuse From Hearing Pleas Over Pay Commission Benefits After Lawyer Alleges They Are 'Choosing And Picking' Cases From List

Case Title: UNION OF INDIA & ANR v. ALL INDIA POSTAL ACCOUNTS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 248

Two judges of the Delhi High Court recused from hearing a batch of petitions concerning grant of benefits as per the Pay Commission recommendations, after one of the lawyers claimed that the division bench was “choosing and picking” cases to be heard.

A division bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul called the situation “deeply disturbing” and said that the matters be listed before another Bench subject to orders of the Chief Justice.

Arbitral Award Not Signed By All Members Of Tribunal Can Be Set Aside If Reasons For Omission Of Missing Signature Are Not Stated: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Isc Projects Private Limited v. Steel Authority of India Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 249

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has observed that the signature of all members of the arbitral tribunal should be available on the award as the signing of an award is not a ministerial act but a substantive requirement. It was further observed that if the signature of any member of the tribunal is omitted, then the reasons should be stated as this requirement is referable to the need to ensure that all members of the tribunal have has an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process.

Plaintiff Can't File Documents As Per Its Whims And Fancies At Any Stage Of Commercial Suit: Delhi High Court In Zee v. Saregama

Title: ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LTD v. SAREGAMA INDIA LTD

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 250

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a plaintiff cannot be permitted to file documents as per its whims and fancies at any stage of a commercial suit.

“The whole purpose of expeditious disposal of commercial suits would be frustrated if the parties are permitted to file additional documents at any stage of the suit,” Justice Amit Bansal said.

Woman's Plea For Right To Shared Household Maintainable Even In Absence Of Domestic Violence: Delhi High Court

Case title: SQN LDR PRABHAKAR BHATT vs. MAJ. ANNU LAMBA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 251

The Delhi High Court has observed that a woman's claim seeking right to shared household under Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 is valid even in the absence of domestic violence.

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.