Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 14 To July 20, 2025

Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 784 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 825

NOMINAL INDEX

Baba Global Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 29 & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 784

TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR v. JOHN DOE AND 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 785

UMESH VERMA v. STATE 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 786

Kroll Information Assurance LLC v. The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 787

PUMA SE v. HIMANSHU SHARMA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 788

TIPS FILMS LIMITED v. HTTPS//0GOMOVIES.COM.TR/ & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 789

SARVINDER SINGH & ANR v. VIPUL TANDON 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 790

M/S MJ Bizcrafts LLP Through Partner Rajender Kumar v. Central Goods And Services Tax Delhi South Commissionerate Through Its Commissioner & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 791

UNION OF INDIA versus VEDANTA LIMITED & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 792

BUDHI SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 793

ARSALAN FEROZE AHENGER v. NIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 794

Reliance Industries Limited v. Pawan Kumar Gupta & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 795

Johnson & Johnson Pte Ltd v. Mr. Abbireddi Satish Kumar & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 796

ANWAR KHAN @ CHACHA & ORS v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 797

X v. Y 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 798

A v. B 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 799

SAMIR @ AZHAR v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 800

DR. SUBHASH VIJAYRAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 801

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 802

Bhupender Kumar v. Additional Commissioner Adjudication CGST Delhi North & Ors.2025 LiveLaw (Del) 803

ABHIJIT MISHRA v. WIPRO LIMITED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 804

Tungsten Automation England Limited (Formerly Known As Tungsten Network Limited) v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 3(1)(1) New Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 805

Principal Commissioner Of Customs (ACC Imports) Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 806

ANIL VERMA v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 807

Exclusive Motors Pvt Ltd v. CBI & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 808

ANKIT v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 809

Reliance Retail Limited v. Ashok Kumar & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 810

MOHD ANWAR & ORS. v. STATE NCT OF DELHI and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 811

Dolby International AB & Anr. v. Lava International Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 812

Ability Dodzi @ Chinazom Ability v. State NCT Of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 813

Arpit Mishra v. State2025 LiveLaw (Del) 814

National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) vs. South Indian Bank Ltd and Union Bank of India Ltd. & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 815

BALBIR MEENA v. STATE GOVT NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 816

Neeraj Bharadwaj v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(2) & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 818

CANARA BANK versus SANJEEV SHARMA & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 819

Ms. X v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 820

THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI v. MUKESH & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 821

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI v. JAWAHAR SINGH 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 822

Bhadra International India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Punjab national Bank & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 823

Amit Jain & Ors. v. Anila Jain & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 824

E. R. SQUIBB AND SONS, LLC & ORS v. ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 825

AO Is 'Deciding Authority' U/S 148A Income Tax Act, Can't Revise Decision At Instance Of Principal Commissioner: Delhi High Court

Case title: Baba Global Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 29 & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 784

The Delhi High Court has held that the Assessing Officer is the “authority” to decide whether a reassessment action under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 should be initiated against an assessee and his stance can't be revised at the instance of another authority.

Delhi High Court Passes John Doe Order, Restrains Infringement Of 'Tata' Trademarks

Title: TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR v. JOHN DOE AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 785

The Delhi High Court has passed a john doe order restraining the infringement of “Tata” trademarks, observing that repeated instances of duping of customers had occurred through domains that have claimed to offer fake dealerships or distributorships.

Cryptocurrency Has Profound Implications On Country's Economy, Dissolves Money: Delhi High Court Denies Bail In Fraud Case

Title: UMESH VERMA v. STATE

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 786

Denying bail to a man in a fraud case, the Delhi High Court has observed that cryptocurrency has profound implications on country's economy which dissolves recognized money into “dark unknown and untraceable money.”

S.3(k) Patents Act | Delhi High Court Declines Patent To US-Entity For System To Locate Users Sharing 'Sensitive Content' On P2P Networks

Case title: Kroll Information Assurance LLC v. The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks And Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 787

The Delhi High Court has declined a plea moved by US-based Kroll Information Assurance, seeking to patent 'System to locate users via a Peer to Peer Network'.

Justice Amit Bansal cited Section 3(k) of the Patents Act 1970 which declares inventions related to 'algorithm' and 'computer program per se' as non-patentable. 

Delhi High Court Awards ₹8 Lakh In Favour Of Puma In Trademark Infringement Suit Against Counterfeit Products

Title: PUMA SE v. HIMANSHU SHARMA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 788

The Delhi High Court has awarded Rs. 8 lakh in favour of footwear brand Puma in its trademark infringement suit against an individual manufacturing counterfeit products.

Delhi High Court Restrains Rogue Websites From Streaming Maalik, Sarbala Ji Movie Content

Title: TIPS FILMS LIMITED v. HTTPS//0GOMOVIES.COM.TR/ & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 789

The Delhi High Court has restrained 56 rogue websites from illegally and unauthorisedly streaming content of Maalik and Sarbala Ji movies.

Need Evidence To Ascertain Rent, Can't Do Guess Work To Calculate Mense Profit: Delhi High Court

Title: SARVINDER SINGH & ANR v. VIPUL TANDON

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 790

The Delhi High Court has held that coming to a figure which might be the rent of an area on its own, without any material, is not permissible in law.

Justice Subramonium Prasad said mere guess work in thin air is no evidence and cannot be used to ascertain rent.

S.107 GST Act | Impugned Order “Automatically Stayed” Once Appeal Is Filed & Pre-Deposit Is Made; No Attachment Of Bank Account: Delhi HC

Case title: M/S MJ Bizcrafts LLP Through Partner Rajender Kumar v. Central Goods And Services Tax Delhi South Commissionerate Through Its Commissioner & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 791

The Delhi High Court has observed that once an appeal is filed by the assessee under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 and pre-deposit is made, there is “automatic stay” of the impugned order raising demand.

Parties Can't Be Barred From Performing Contractual Obligations In Final Partial Award When It Remains In Force: Delhi HC

Case Title: UNION OF INDIA versus VEDANTA LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 792

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that parties cannot be prevented from performing their contractual obligations as interpreted in the Final Partial Award, especially when both the Final Partial Award as well as the contract interpreted therein have not been stayed and remain in force.

Applications For Furlough, Parole Can Be Considered During Pendency Of Appeal Against Conviction Before Supreme Court: Delhi High Court

Title: BUDHI SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 793

The Delhi High Court has ruled that applications for furlough and parole of a convict can be considered by the prison authorities during the pendency of their appeals against conviction before the Supreme Court.

Using Social Media For Disseminating Radical Ideology Attracts UAPA: Delhi High Court

Title: ARSALAN FEROZE AHENGER v. NIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 794

The Delhi High Court has observed that using social media for disseminating radical information or ideology attracts UAPA and that it is not necessary that such an act must be a physical activity.

Delhi High Court Provides Interim Relief To Jio & Reliance, Orders E-Commerce Platforms To Delist Counterfeit FMCG Goods

Case title: Reliance Industries Limited v. Pawan Kumar Gupta & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 795

The Delhi High Court has ordered e-commerce platforms like Amazon and Flipkart to temporarily delist pages of as many as 21 sellers offering counterfeit products in the FMCG sector by misusing Reliance and Jio trademarks.

'Triple Identity Test Satisfied': Delhi High Court Restrains Infringement Of Johnson & Johnson's ORSL Trademark, Awards ₹1.2 Cr Damages

Case title: Johnson & Johnson Pte Ltd v. Mr. Abbireddi Satish Kumar & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 796

The Delhi High Court awarded Rs. 1,21,56,864 cumulative damages to pharmaceutical multinational Johnson & Johnson over infringement of its ORSL trademark.

ORS-L (later changed to ORSL) is a range of flavoured electrolyte drinks first introduced by Jagdale Industries Limited in 2003.

No Bar On Re-Arrest Of Accused After Procedural Defects Of Prior 'Illegal Arrest' Are Cured: Delhi High Court

Title: ANWAR KHAN @ CHACHA & ORS v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 797

The Delhi High Court has ruled that there is no statutory or judicial bar on re-arrest of an accused after curing the procedural defects of a prior illegal arrest.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that a lapse or omission on the part of the investigating agency, whether inadvertent or deliberate, cannot result in a blanket immunity to the accused against any future arrest in the same case.

Domestic Violence Act Doesn't Distinguish Between First Or Subsequent Marriage For Maintenance: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 798

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Domestic Violence Act does not distinguish between a first or subsequent marriage for the purpose of entitlement to maintenance.

Self-Declared Information On Matrimonial Site Not Admissible Proof Of Income: Delhi High Court

Title: A v. B

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 799

The Delhi High Court has observed that any “self-declared information” made on a matrimonial portal, without verification or corroborative evidence, cannot be treated as reliable or admissible proof of income.

Delhi High Court Deprecates Investigating Officer Appearing Without Case Diaries, Grants Bail In Murder Case

Title: SAMIR @ AZHAR v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 800

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a man accused in a murder case while strongly deprecating the conduct of an investigating officer who appeared in Court without proper case file and diaries.

Frame SOP To Avoid Unnecessary References To Forensic Labs In Criminal Cases: High Court To Centre, Delhi Govt

Title: DR. SUBHASH VIJAYRAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 801

The Delhi High Court directed the Union and Delhi Governments to take a decision on framing a standard operating procedure (SOP) or guidelines to avoid unnecessary references being made to the forensic science laboratories (FSLs).

Make Ad-Hoc Appointments To Posts Of Public Prosecutors Pending Regular Recruitment: High Court To Delhi Govt

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 802

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to take steps to make ad-hoc appointments to the post of Additional Public Prosecutors or Assistant Public Prosecutors in the criminal courts, pending regular recruitment.

Penalty U/S 122(1A) GST Act Can Be Imposed Retrospectively Even If SCN Was Issued After Its Enactment: Delhi High Court

Case title: Bhupender Kumar v. Additional Commissioner Adjudication CGST Delhi North & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 803

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Section 122(1A) of the Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 can be imposed retrospectively, provided the show cause notice had been issued to the assessee when the provision was introduced.

Delhi High Court Orders Wipro To Pay ₹2 Lakh To Employee For Defamatory Remarks In Termination Letter

Title: ABHIJIT MISHRA v. WIPRO LIMITED

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 804

The Delhi High Court has expunged defamatory remarks made against the character of an employee working with Wipro Limited from his termination letter.

India-UK DTAA | Consideration For Availing Services That Require Technical Expertise Not FTS Unless Recipient Absorbs Technology: Delhi HC

Case title: Tungsten Automation England Limited (Formerly Known As Tungsten Network Limited) v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 3(1)(1) New Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 805

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that consideration paid for merely availing services that require technical expertise would not qualify as 'Fees for Technical Service' under Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA.

Customs Act | Adjudicating Authority Can't Decline Refund Of Excess Duty In Presence Of CA's Certificate: Delhi High Court

Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Customs (ACC Imports) Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 806

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Customs authority cannot, in absence of some evidence, decline refund of excess duty paid by a trader when the latter furnishes certificates from a qualified chartered accountant in support of its case.

Delhi High Court Imposes ₹20K Costs On Woman For 'Casually' Filing Sexual Assault Case Against Live-In Partner

Title: ANIL VERMA v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 807

The Delhi High Court has imposed Rs. 20,000 costs on a woman for filing a sexual assault case against her live-in partner, observing that such a complaint cannot be permitted to be filed in a casual or reckless manner.

CBI Can't Seek Demand Draft Of Suspected Proceeds Of Crime U/S 91 CrPC: Delhi High Court

Case title: Exclusive Motors Pvt Ltd v. CBI & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 808

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 91 of CrPC, which empowers the Police to seek production of 'any document or other thing' desirable for the purposes of investigation, cannot be used to seek a demand draft of the amount suspected to be proceeds of crime.

After High Court Rap, Delhi Police Assures Production Of Case Diaries By All Investigating Officers

Title: ANKIT v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 809

After Delhi High Court rap, the Delhi Police has assured the Court that henceforth all the investigating officers shall produce the case diaries of the case for judicial examination.

Delhi High Court Issues 'Real Time' Injunction Restraining Entities From Misusing Reliance's Tira Trademark To Commit Financial Scams

Case title: Reliance Retail Limited v. Ashok Kumar & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 810

The Delhi High Court has issued interim directions restraining infringement of Reliance Retail's Tira trademark in the beauty and personal care sector and its misuse to commit financial scams.

Delhi High Court Quashes Charges Against Indian Nationals For Sheltering Tablighi Jamaat Attendees During COVID-19

Case Title: MOHD ANWAR & ORS. v. STATE NCT OF DELHI and other connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 811

The Delhi High Court quashed 16 cases registered against 70 Indian nationals accused of sheltering attendees of Tablighi Jamaat congregation in their homes or mosques during COVID-19.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna quashed the chargesheets registered against the Indian nationals and disposed of their pleas seeking quashing of 16 FIRs registered against them.

Delhi High Court Explains Scope Of 'Pro Tem' Orders In Patent Infringement Suit Against Mobile Company 'Lava'

Case title: Dolby International AB & Anr. v. Lava International Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 812

The Delhi High Court had the occasion to discuss in detail the scope of a pro tem order, while dealing with Europe based audio/video processor Dolby International's suit against alleged patent infringement by Indian mobile phone company Lava.

Bar On Revision Of Interlocutory Order U/S 438(2) Of BNSS Can't Be Bypassed By Invoking Inherent Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

Case title: Ability Dodzi @ Chinazom Ability v. State NCT Of Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 813

The Delhi High Court has held that the bar prescribed under Section 438(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Surakhsha Sanhita 2023 against revision of interlocutory orders cannot be bypassed by invoking the High Court's inherent powers.

Complainant Declining Medical Examination Despite Alleging Sexual Assault Can Weaken Prosecution Case: Delhi High Court

Case title: Arpit Mishra v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 814

The Delhi High Court has observed that refusal of the prosecutrix to undergo medical examination despite alleging serious sexual assault can weaken the prosecution's case.

Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Of About ₹229.5 Crores Against NHAI As 'Termination Payment'

Case Title: National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) vs. South Indian Bank Ltd and Union Bank of India Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 815

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has upheld an Arbitral Award directing the National Highways Authority of India (“NHAI”/”Petitioner”) to deposit ₹229.50 crores as Termination Payment into the Escrow Account along with interest and costs. The court reiterated that the scope of judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is narrow and circumscribed. The Arbitral Award can be set aside on the ground, inter alia, being in conflict with the public policy of India, patent illegality, violation of principles of natural justice.

Delhi High Court Imposes Rs. 20K Costs On Litigant For 'Abusing' Victim Compensation Scheme Under SC/ST Act

Title: BALBIR MEENA v. STATE GOVT NCT OF DELHI AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 816

The Delhi High Court has imposed costs of Rs. 20,000 on a litigant for “misusing and abusing” the victim compensation scheme under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Notice U/S 153C Income Tax Act Can Be Issued Only If Incriminating Material Has 'Bearing On Total Income' Of Non-Searched Assessee: Delhi HC

Case title: Neeraj Bharadwaj v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(2) & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 818

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that assessments under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be made on a non-searched entity only when the Assessing Officer has incriminating material which “has a bearing” on its total income.

Arbitration Can't Be Restricted To Specific Respondents When Agreements Form Part Of Single Commercial Transaction: Delhi High Court

Case Title: CANARA BANK versus SANJEEV SHARMA & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 819

The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that when an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act is filed in opposition to a civil suit, a party cannot later object that the arbitration was intended to apply only to specific respondents, especially when the pleadings indicate that the agreements formed part of a single commercial transaction.

[S.53A CrPC] Almost Mandatory To Take Blood Samples For DNA Analysis In Rape Cases, Police Can Use Force If Needed: Delhi High Court

Case title: Ms. X v. State (NCT of Delhi)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 820

Stating that DNA testing is an “almost perfect science” to determine truthfulness of the allegations of rape, the Delhi High Court has held that Police is duty bound to take accused's blood sample for analysis in such cases.

Confinement In A Room Sufficient To Frame 'Wrongful Confinement' Charge, Tying Of Victim's Hands Not Necessary: Delhi High Court

Title: THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI v. MUKESH & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 821

The Delhi High Court has observed that confinement within a room is sufficient to make out a prima facie case for framing charge for the offence of wrongful confinement.

Mere Threats Without Intention To Cause Alarm Not Criminal Intimidation: Delhi High Court

Title: STATE OF NCT OF DELHI v. JAWAHAR SINGH

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 822

The Delhi High Court has observed that mere threats given by the accused, without an intention to cause alarm, would not constitute an offence of criminal intimidation.

Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked When Party Has Already Approached DRT Under SARFAESI Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Bhadra International India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Punjab national Bank & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 823

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition while upholding that if a borrower has already approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the SARFAESI Act, for a one-time settlement, a writ seeking the same relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable.

Monthly Rent Payment Cannot Be Accepted As Instalments Towards Sale Consideration Of Property: Delhi High Court

Case title: Amit Jain & Ors. v. Anila Jain & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 824

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that monthly payment of rent made under a registered lease deed cannot be construed as instalments towards the sale consideration of a property.

Patent Infringement: Delhi High Court Restrains Zydus From Manufacturing Biologic Similar To 'Nivolumab' Cancer Drug

Title: E. R. SQUIBB AND SONS, LLC & ORS v. ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 825

The Delhi High Court has restrained Zydus Lifesciences Limited from manufacturing, selling importing, exporting or dealing in any biologic which is similar to Nivolumab, a drug used to treat cancer, sold under the brand name “Opdivo.”