- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Delhi High Court
- /
- Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up:...
Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 21 To July 27, 2025
Nupur Thapliyal
29 July 2025 3:16 PM IST
Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 826 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 847NOMINAL INDEXYash Sharma and Ors vs. West Central Railway and Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 826 Teena Choudhary v. UPSC & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 827 Banti Kumar Mathur v. The State Of Nct Of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 828 X v. Y 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 829 SANEESH SOMAN v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 830 Anurag Dalmia v....
Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 826 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 847
NOMINAL INDEX
Yash Sharma and Ors vs. West Central Railway and Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 826
Teena Choudhary v. UPSC & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 827
Banti Kumar Mathur v. The State Of Nct Of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 828
X v. Y 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 829
SANEESH SOMAN v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 830
Anurag Dalmia v. Income Tax Office 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 831
Mold Tek Packaging Limited v. Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 832
MS VEERJI RESTAURANT PRIVATE LIMITED v. YASH RAI & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 833
Prabir Purkayastha v. ED and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 834
Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 835
Twenty-Four Frames Factory Private Limited v. John Doe & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 836
Naresh Kumar @ Pahelwan v. State Of Nct Of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 837
SKD v. MG & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 838
AS v. NKS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 839
MOHAMMAD SHAHID @ SAHID v. STATE OF (NCT) OF DELHI & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 840
MOHD RIZWAN ASHRAF v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 841
BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT. LTD v. ANIL KUMAR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 842
Mohd Alam v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 843
HARI SINGH v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2025LiveLaw (Del) 844
B.D. SHARMA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 845
X v. Y 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 846
DR AMIT KUMAR v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 847
Case Name: Yash Sharma and Ors vs. West Central Railway and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 826
A division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul held that identification of posts suitable only for low vision within the 1% reservation for visually impaired is valid, as post-wise identification within reserved vacancies based on the nature of duties and safety requirements is permissible, and blind candidates cannot claim posts not identified as suitable for them.
Case title: Teena Choudhary v. UPSC & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 827
The Delhi High Court has expressed its 'unhappiness' with the Union Public Service Commission for ousting an aspirant from the recruitment process to Central Armed Police Force, merely because she uploaded the caste certificate of an earlier date.
Case title: Banti Kumar Mathur v. The State Of Nct Of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 828
While dealing with the bail plea of a murder accused, the Delhi High Court was shocked to note that certain case diaries were missing from Police records.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 829
The Delhi High Court has observed that the child being in custody of the husband after matrimonial disputes arise between the parties is not cruelty or harassment under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
“…merely because the child was in the custody of the husband after disputes interse arose, cannot be equated with cruelty or harassment as envisaged under Section 498A IPC,” Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.
Title: SANEESH SOMAN v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 830
The Delhi High Court has ruled that merely receiving a package without the accused being aware of its illicit contents is not “conscious possession” under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
“The act of merely receiving a package, absent any material to suggest that the Applicant was aware of its illicit contents, prima facie, cannot by itself satisfy the legal threshold of “possession” under the NDPS Act,” Justice Sanjeev Narula said.
Case title: Anurag Dalmia v. Income Tax Office
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 831
The Delhi High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against an assessee under Section 276C, 276D and 277 of the Income Tax Act 1961 merely on the basis of some unauthorised documents alleging existence of an undisclosed Swiss Bank account in his name.
Case title: Mold Tek Packaging Limited v. Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 832
The Delhi High Court has suggested to the legislature to define what constitutes 'infringement' under the Patents Act 1970.
A division bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul noted that while other intellectual property statutes define what constitutes infringement therein, the Patent Act is 'peculiarly' silent on this aspect.
Title: MS VEERJI RESTAURANT PRIVATE LIMITED v. YASH RAI & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 833
The Delhi High Court has awarded Rs. 5 lakh as costs and damages to famous Veerji Malai Chaap Wale restaurant in its trademark infringement suit against various eateries and food delivery joints.
While the matter was settled with one of the defendant eateries, Justice Amit Bansal noted that the other five food joints did not appear before the Court and thus, their conduct not only warranted but also necessitated imposition of both costs and damages.
Title: Prabir Purkayastha v. ED and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 834
The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to Prabir Purkayastha, editor-in-chief and founder of news portal NewsClick, in Enforcement Directorate's money laundering case as well as Delhi Police's EOW FIR concerning allegations of foreign funding.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna pronounced the verdict and disposed of the pleas filed by Purkayastha in 2021.
Title: Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 835
The Delhi High Court said that it was not satisfied with the steps and measures taken by the Delhi Government and the Police in running one stop centres provide support for women and children facing violence in the national capital.
Issuing guidelines to the authorities, a division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that necessary steps and action which are required to be taken in the matter have not been taken by the Delhi Government and the Delhi Police.
Case title: Twenty-Four Frames Factory Private Limited v. John Doe & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 836
The Delhi High Court directed social media platforms Meta and X to take down pirated links of Vishnu Manchu starrer Telugu film 'Kannappa'.
Justice Jyoti Singh passed the interim order on a copyright infringement suit filed by the film production Twenty-Four Frames Factory Private Limited.
Case title: Naresh Kumar @ Pahelwan v. State Of Nct Of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 837
Reinforcing the principle of right to speedy trial, the Delhi High Court admitted on bail an accused under the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act 1999, citing prolonged incarceration of over 8 years.
Case title: SKD v. MG & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 838
Stating that “capability to earn and actual earnings are two separate things”, the Delhi High Court recently upheld the grant of maintenance to an MBA-qualified wife.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar observed that when the couple separated, their child was very young and in order to take care of the child, the wife may have left her job.
Case title: AS v. NKS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 839
The Delhi High Court has upheld a family court order dissolving the marriage of a couple on the grounds that the wife had subjected the husband to cruelty by making derogatory complaints to his employer.
A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar observed that marriage requires adjustment and parties may take a long time to adjust with each other but both husband and wife are expected to show due respect to each other.
Title: MOHAMMAD SHAHID @ SAHID v. STATE OF (NCT) OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 840
The Delhi High Court has observed that mere friendship cannot give liberty to a boy to indulge in sexual intercourse with a girl without her consent.
“….merely because a girl befriends a boy, the latter cannot be given liberty to indulge into sexual intercourse with her without her consent,” Justice Girish Kathpalia said.
Title: MOHD RIZWAN ASHRAF v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 841
The Delhi High Court denied default bail to a man accused of being an active member of the ISIS, procuring arms, ammunitions and explosives for the extremist armed group and radicalising impressionable youth.
A division bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed the appeal filed by Mohd. Rizwan Ashraf who was arrested in the UAPA case on October 01, 2023.
Title: BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT. LTD v. ANIL KUMAR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 842
Comparing the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the Delhi High Court has held that cognizance cannot be taken on a complaint before giving notice to the accused under the new law.
Title: Mohd Alam v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 843
The Delhi High Court has directed the jail authorities in the national capital to ensure that a written note of date of surrender is handed over to the convict at the time of releasing him or her on parole or furlough after taking their acknowledgement to avoid any ambiguity.
Justice Girish Kathpalia said that in various cases, it is seen that due to illiteracy and ignorance, the convict released on parole or furlough fails to surrender back in time and the delayed surrender leads to punishment.
Delhi High Court Grants Relief To 1993 Plane Hijacker In Plea Against Denial Of Premature Release
Title: HARI SINGH v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 844
The Delhi High Court has granted relief to a man, convicted for hijacking an Indian Airlines flight in 1993, in his plea against the decision of the authorities denying him premature release.
Justice Sanjeev Narula set aside the decision of the sentence review board (SRB) and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration, noting that the convict's conduct in jail indicated elements of reformation.
Title: B.D. SHARMA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 845
The Delhi High Court has directed that all the judges in the trial courts in the national capital shall pronounce orders or judgments in the reserved cases within two or three weeks after their transfer and that the same will not be listed before the subsequent judge for rehearing.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 846
The Delhi High Court has observed that a highly qualified wife, who is unemployed, has a right to be supported and managed by the husband till the time she is able to get gainful employment or develop the source of income.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna rejected a husband's plea challenging a family court order directing him to pay Rs. 1 lakh ad-interim maintenance monthly to the wife.
Delhi High Court Upholds ICC Verdict Finding DU Professor Guilty Of Sexual Harassment
Title: DR AMIT KUMAR v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 847
The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea filed by a professor of the Delhi University against the findings of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) holding him guilty over the allegations of sexual harassment made by various students and an alumnus, as well as the decision to compulsory retirement him.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that the Executive Authority gave a fair hearing to the professor and its failure to pass a speaking order did not pass the test of prejudice.