Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 30 To July 06, 2025

Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 718 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 759

NOMINAL INDEX

JIOSTAR INDIA PVT. LTD. FORMERLY KNOWN AS STAR INDIA PVT. LTD v. HTTPS//CRICLK.COM & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 718

GAMESKRAFT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR v. JOHN DOE AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 719

MINOR A THR HER MOTHER S v. STATE & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 720

SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE (GOVT. OF THE NCT) OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 721

Amazon Technologies Inc v. Lifestyle Equities 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 722

Rasiklal Mohanlal Gangani v. State & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 723

SHANKESH MUTHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 724

NK v. K 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 725

Neelam Azad v. State and other connected matter 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 726

MM DHONCHAK v. UNION OF INDIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 727

Anish Sharma v. DOE GNCTD & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 728

VIP Industries Ltd v. Carlton Shoes Ltd & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 729

RAJDEEP SARDESAI & ORS. V/s SHAZIA ILMI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 730

M/S Crocs Inc USA v. M/S Bata India & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 731

Jitendra Chouksey v. Union of India & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 732

Aditya Chauhan & Anr v. Union of India & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 733

X v. Y 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 734

M/S Products And Ideas (India) Pvt. Ltd v. Nilkamal Limited And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 735

AADRITI PATHAK THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL MOTHER MRS. SADHANA SHARMA v. GD GOENKA PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 736

Dabur India Limited v. Patanjali Ayurved 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 737

INSPECTOR MIN GAJENDRA KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 738

UNION OF INDIA & ORS v. COL. BALBIR SINGH (RETD.) and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 739

BELVEDERE RESOURCES DMCC v. OCL IRON AND STEEL LTD & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 740

VINOD v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 741

JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 742

AIIMS v. Minor A & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 743

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs AMAZON WEB SERVICES 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 744

Modi Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd v. Speciality Meditech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 745

Modi Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd v. Speciality Meditech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 746

PRANAV PANDEY v. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 747

Commissioner Of Service Tax Delhi v. Shyam Spectra Private Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 748

M/S Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assessing Officer, Circle 10(1) & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 749

M/S Shreehari Ananta Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner Of Customs Icd Patparganj 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 750

DAZN LIMITED & ANR vs BUFFSPORTS. ME & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 751

CONQUEROR INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR v. XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 752

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-7 v. M/S Thomson Press (India) Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 753

GNCTD v. Jyoti 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 754

M/S Viva Infraventure Pvt. Ltd. vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 755

Nand Lal Luhar And Ors v. Western Railway And Ors (and batch) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 756

Mrs Madhurbhashani & Ors v. Ranjit Singh (and connected matter) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 757

ROSHAN REAL ESTATES PVT LTD versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 758

Amrit Pal Singh v. ED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 759

Delhi High Court Passes Dynamic+ Injunction In Favour Of JioHotstar, Restrains Illegal Streaming Of India Tour Of England 2025

Title: JIOSTAR INDIA PVT. LTD. FORMERLY KNOWN AS STAR INDIA PVT. LTD v. HTTPS//CRICLK.COM & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 718 

The Delhi High Court has passed a dynamic+ injunction in favour of JioStar India Private Limited and restrained the illegal and unauthorised streaming of India Tour of England 2025.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee passed the dynamic+ injunction order to protect the copyrighted works of JioStar, as soon as they are infringed or created.

Delhi High Court Rules In Favour Of Gameskraft; Restrains Rogue Websites From Using 'Rummy Culture', 'Ludo Select' Marks

Title: GAMESKRAFT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR v. JOHN DOE AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 719

Ruling in favour of Gameskraft Technologies, the Delhi High Court has restrained various rogue websites, mobile applications and domain entities from using the registered trademarks “Playship”, “Plego”, “Ludo Select”, “Pocket 52”, “Rummy”, “Rummy Culture”, “Gameskraft” and “Culture of Champions.”

Justice Amit Bansal further restrained the defendant entities from infringing on the copyright vested with Gameskraft in the unique content of its websites- www.rummyculture.com, www.gamezy.com, www.playship.com, www.rummyprime.com, and www.pocket52.com or the apps hosted by it under the names “Rummy Culture”, “Gamezy Poker”, “Playship Rummy”, “Rummy Prime” and “Pocket52”.

Delhi High Court Allows Minor Rape Survivor To Terminate 27-Week Pregnancy

Title: MINOR A THR HER MOTHER S v. STATE & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 720

The Delhi High Court has allowed a minor rape survivor to terminate her pregnancy of approximately 27-weeks gestational period and directed the Medical Superintendent of AIIMS to make necessary arrangement for the same.

Vacation judge Justice Manoj Jain noted that the 16-year-old girl was a victim of sexual assault and was not interested in continuing with the pregnancy.

Priyadarshini Mattoo Case: Delhi High Court Finds 'Element Of Reformation' In Life Convict, Orders Review Of Plea For Early Release

Title: SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE (GOVT. OF THE NCT) OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 721

The Delhi High Court set aside a decision of the Sentence Review Board (SRB) of Delhi Prisons denying the request for premature release made by Santosh Kumar Singh, convicted in the 1996 rape and murder case of law student Priyadarshini Mattoo in the national capital.

Singh is serving life imprisonment in the case.

Delhi High Court Stays Ruling Asking Amazon To Pay ₹339.25 Crore To 'Beverly Hills Polo Club' Over Trademark Infringement

Title: Amazon Technologies Inc v. Lifestyle Equities

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 722

The Delhi High Court stayed a single judge ruling asking Amazon Technologies Inc to pay Rs. 339.25 crore damages and costs for trademark infringement of the luxury lifestyle brand, Beverly Hills Polo Club.

“The considerations outlined herein above make out, in our considered opinion, an exceptional case, in which it would be a complete travesty of justice to require the Appellant Amazon Tech to deposit, or secure, any part of the amount decreed by the impugned judgment, in order to maintain its appeal,” the Bench said .

Trial Court Cannot Issue Summons To Accused Without Assigning Proper Reasons: Delhi High Court

Case title: Rasiklal Mohanlal Gangani v. State & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 723

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a trial court cannot issue a summons to an accused person without assigning proper reasons for the same.

Justice Amit Mahajan observed, “Merely taking note of the facts of the case and recording prima facie satisfaction, without giving any reasons for the same, is insufficient.”

[Extradition Act] Anticipatory Bail Available To Indian Citizen Apprehending Arrest For Alleged Offence Committed Abroad: Delhi High Court

Title: SHANKESH MUTHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 724

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC can be invoked by a 'fugitive criminal' facing proceedings under the Extradition Act, 1962.

Justice Sanjeev Narula held that an Indian citizen who apprehends arrest in India for an alleged offence committed abroad is not stripped of the protection guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Ad-Interim Maintenance Can Be Granted Without Filing Of Specific Application, Is Payable From Date Of Order: Delhi High Court

Title: NK v. K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 725

Distinguishing between interim maintenance and ad-interim maintenance, the Delhi High Court has held that the latter can be granted without filing of a specific application by the concerned party and is payable from the date of the order passed by the Court and not from the date of filing of maintenance application or petition.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that Court can grant ad-interim maintenance to alleviate the hardship of the claimant, pending its decision on the grant of interim maintenance and determination of its quantum.

Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Two Accused In 2023 Parliament Security Breach UAPA Case, Bars Them From Giving Interviews

Case Title: Neelam Azad v. State and other connected matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 726

The Delhi High Court granted bail to Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat, accused in the Parliament security breach case which happened on December 13, 2023.

A division bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar granted bail to the two subject to them furnishing bail bond of Rs. 50,000 each and two sureties of like amount.

Delhi High Court Rejects Retired Judge MM Dhonchak's Appeal, Upholds Extension Of Suspension From Chandigarh DRT

Title: MM DHONCHAK v. UNION OF INDIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 727

The Delhi High Court upheld a single judge ruling upholding the extension of suspension of MM Dhonchak, a retired judicial officer and former Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Chandigarh.

A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar dismissed Dhonchak's appeal against the single judge order of March 03 dismissing his petition against the second order of extension of suspension.

'Policy Decision': Delhi High Court Asks Litigant Seeking Special Syllabus For Autistic Children To Approach Concerned Authorities

Title: Anish Sharma v. DOE GNCTD & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 728

The Delhi High Court closed a PIL seeking special syllabus for children suffering from autism observing that it is a policy decision which has to be taken by the concerned authorities.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela asked the litigant, Anish Sharma, to file an appropriate representation to the authorities- Union Government, Delhi Government, CBSE, education boards and other relevant authority.

Goodwill Lies In 'Mark' Itself, Not In Particular Category: Delhi High Court In VIP v. Carlton London

Case title: VIP Industries Ltd v. Carlton Shoes Ltd & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 729

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that goodwill, for the purposes of a passing off action, is to be shown in respect of a mark and not in respect of particular goods or a category of goods.

In stating so, a division bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul upheld a single judge order restraining luggage and travel accessories manufacturer VIP from making use of the mark 'CARLTON' with respect to any kind of bags.

After Delhi High Court Shows Reluctance Rajdeep Sardesai Withdraws Appeal Challenging Partial Relief To BJP's Shazia Ilmi In Defamation Case

Case title: RAJDEEP SARDESAI & ORS. V/s SHAZIA ILMI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 730

Journalist Rajdeep Sardesai withdrew his appeal from the Delhi High Court which was filed against a single judge ruling granting partial relief to BJP leader Shazia Ilmi in her defamation case over a video posted by Sardesai on 'X'— alleging that she abused a video journalist of India Today during a televised debate.

The single judge had confirmed an interim order passed in August last year, directing Sardesai to remove the video.

After a division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar showed reluctance to interfere in the matter, Sardesai withdrew the appeal.

Passing Off Action For Product Registered Under Design Act Maintainable: Delhi High Court Restores Crocs' Pleas Against Liberty, Bata, Relaxo

Case title: M/S Crocs Inc USA v. M/S Bata India & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 731

The Delhi High Court has restored the suits filed by Crocs USA against Indian footwear brands Liberty, Bata, Relaxo, Aqualite and others for copying its distinctive clog design.

The suits were dismissed earlier by a single judge by holding that no passing off action can be found on a trade dress which is registered as a design under the Designs Act.

Delhi High Court Orders DCGI Intervention On Plea Concerning Approval Of Weight Loss Drugs, Directs Stakeholders Consultation

Title: Jitendra Chouksey v. Union of India & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 732

The Delhi High Court ordered intervention of the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) on a plea filed concerning the issue of approval of drug combinations sold in the market for weight loss treatment.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela directed the DCGI to consult experts and stakeholders, including the manufacturers of the drugs, on the issue.

Ensure RTI Information Is Provided In Modes Sought, With Adequate Safety Measures: Delhi High Court To Centre

Title: Aditya Chauhan & Anr v. Union of India & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 733

The Delhi High Court directed the competent authority of the Union Government to take measures and issue directions of frame Rules to ensure that the information under the Right to Information Act (2005) is provided in the mode sought by the information seeker, while also ensuring adequate safety measures.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela directed the competent authority of the Government of India to take a decision on the issue within three months.

Dignity Of Dependent Wife & Child Is Denied When Financial Support Is Delayed By Husband: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 734

The Delhi High Court has observed that the dignity of a dependent wife and child is denied when the financial support is delayed by the husband, underscoring that even a day's lapse defeats the very purpose of maintenance.

“The very object of maintenance is defeated if its disbursal is left at the convenience of the earning spouse. Financial support delayed is dignity denied, and this Court is conscious of the fact that timely maintenance is integral to safeguarding not only subsistence but the basic dignity of those who are legally entitled to such support,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

Dealer Importing & Selling Trademarked Goods Cannot Sue Authorised Distributor For Infringement: Delhi High Court

Case title: M/S Products And Ideas (India) Pvt. Ltd v. Nilkamal Limited And Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 735

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that when a trader imports and sells goods bearing the trademark of another company, such trader cannot sue another authorized dealer of the trademark holder for infringement.

Inclusive Education Not Merely About Access, It Is About Belongingness: Delhi High Court Relief To Child With 'Mild Autism'

Title: AADRITI PATHAK THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL MOTHER MRS. SADHANA SHARMA v. GD GOENKA PUBLIC SCHOOL & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 736

While granting relief to a child with “mild autism”, the Delhi High Court has observed that “inclusive education‟ is not merely about access to education but it is about belongingness.

“It is also about recognising that every child has a place in the classroom not because they are the same, but because they are different, and that difference enriches the learning environment for all,” Justice Vikas Mahajan observed.

Delhi High Court Restrains Patanjali Ayurved From Running Ads Allegedly Disparaging To Dabur's Chyavanprash Product

Title: Dabur India Limited v. Patanjali Ayurved

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 737

he Delhi High Court restrained Patanjali Ayurved from running advertisements allegedly disparaging to Dabur's Chyavanprash product.

The Court noted that Patanjali's TVC portrayed that the existing Chyawanprash in the market are ordinary and consumers ought not to settle for ordinary products, which are not prepared in accordance with ayurvedic knowledge as they are not manufactured as per ancient ayurvedic texts and tradition.

Delhi High Court Upholds Rule Restricting Retention Of General Pool Residential Accommodation By CAPF Personnel To Max Three Years

Title: INSPECTOR MIN GAJENDRA KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 738

The Delhi High Court has upheld a rule placing restriction on the retention of General Pool Residential Accommodation (GPRA) by Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) personnel to a maximum of three years at the last place of posting, when a personnel is thereafter posted to a Non-Family Station.

Disability Pension Can Be Granted For Disease Suffered By Armed Forces Personnel After Joining Service: Delhi High Court

Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS v. COL. BALBIR SINGH (RETD.) and other connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 739

The Delhi High Court has ruled that grant of disability pension to Indian Armed Forces personnel is "not an act of generosity" but a rightful "acknowledgement of their sacrifices which manifest in the form of disabilities or disorders" suffered during the course of their military service.

WhatsApp, Email Communications Between Parties Can Constitute Valid Arbitration Agreement: Delhi High Court

Title: BELVEDERE RESOURCES DMCC v. OCL IRON AND STEEL LTD & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 740

The Delhi High Court has ruled that communications between the parties through WhatsApp and emails can constitute a valid arbitration agreement.

Justice Jasmeet Singh perused Section 7(4)(b) of the Arbitration Act and said that it is not necessary for a concluded contract to be in existence for a valid arbitration agreement to be existing between the parties.

Unduly Harsh To Reject Furlough Applications On Ground Of Delay In Surrender During COVID-19: Delhi High Court

Title: VINOD v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 741

The Delhi High Court has ruled that it is unduly harsh of the prison authorities to reject the furlough applications of convicts on the ground of delay in surrender by a few says during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma said that courts and prison authorities must also remain mindful of the exceptional and unprecedented circumstances that prevailed during the pandemic.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Bollywood Actor Jacqueline Fernandez's Plea To Quash Rs. 200 Crore Money Laundering Case

Title: JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 742

The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea moved by Bollywood actress Jacqueline Fernandez seeking quashing of Rs. 200 crores money laundering case involving alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar.

Justice Anish Dayal said that her apprehension that any evidence would be self-incriminating cannot lead to quashing of the ECIR as statutory and constitutional protections are already provided and will have to be assessed in that rubric. 

Delhi High Court Modifies MTP Order After Minor Rape Survivor Agrees To Carry Pregnancy, Orders Free Medical & Psychological Help By AIIMS

Title: AIIMS v. Minor A & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 743

A minor rape survivor, who had sought termination of her 27-week pregnancy, agreed before the Delhi High Court to carry the child after AIIMS's medical board opined that the pregnancy be prolonged to 34 weeks of gestational period for the best interest of the girl as well as the baby.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal modified a single judge's order which had earlier allowed the 16-year-old girl to terminate her pregnancy which was at 26 weeks and six days as on June 30.

Payments Made To AWS For Cloud Computing Services Not Taxable: Delhi High Court

Case Title:THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs AMAZON WEB SERVICES

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 744

The Delhi High Court has held that payments made to Amazon Web Services (AWS) for cloud computing services do not qualify as “royalty.”

The bench, comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia, upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT) decision which held that such payments are not taxable as royalties or fees for technical services (FTS). 

Can't Reject Claim Of Infringement Merely Because Defendant Could Seek Removal Of Plaintiff's Trademark Due To 'Non-Use': Delhi High Court

Case title: Modi Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd v. Speciality Meditech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 745

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a registered trademark owner's claim against infringement cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the defendant could have sought removal of the mark from the trademark's register under Section 47 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 on grounds of 'non-use'.

'Family Of Marks' Concept Not Expressly Recognised Under Trademarks Act, But Can Be Applied To Injunct Specific Marks: Delhi High Court

Case title: Modi Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd v. Speciality Meditech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 746

The Delhi High Court has held that though the Trade Marks Act 1999 does not expressly recognise the concept of a 'family of marks' however, the same is judicially developed and can be invoked by a registered trademark owner to seek injunction against specific marks.

Delhi High Court Rejects Plea Against Civil Services Exam 2023, Says It Can't Suggest Manner In Which Questions Are Framed In Paper

Title: PRANAV PANDEY v. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 747

Rejecting a plea challenging Paper I and Paper II of Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2023, the Delhi High Court has observed that it cannot suggest the manner in which questions are framed in a question paper, so long as there is no ambiguity in the question or the answers provided.

Appeal On Taxability Including Point Of Limitation Doesn't Lie Before HC U/S 35G Of Central Excise Act: Delhi High Court

Case title: Commissioner Of Service Tax Delhi v. Shyam Spectra Private Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 748

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that an appeal from CESTAT under the Central Excise Act 1944 involving the issue of taxability will lie before the Supreme Court under Section 35L.

Delhi HC Sets Aside Income Tax Action Against Rajat Sharma-Owned India TV's Parent Company Over Alleged Unaccounted Foreign Remittances

Case title: M/S Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assessing Officer, Circle 10(1) & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 749

The Delhi High Court set aside the reassessment action initiated against journalist Rajat Sharma's company, M/S Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd., which owns and runs the India TV channel, over alleged foreign remittances.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside ₹10 Crore Security Demanded By Customs For Provisional Release Of Seized Goods, Calls It 'Onerous'

Case title: M/S Shreehari Ananta Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner Of Customs Icd Patparganj

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 750

Coming to the rescue of an importer, the Delhi High Court has set aside the security of ₹10 crore (approx) demanded by the Customs Department for provisional release of its perishable goods.

Calling the condition 'onerous', a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta ordered provisional release of Petitioner's imported Roasted Areca Nuts on furnishing bond of Rs.4.10 crore along with a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 50 lakh.

Delhi High Court Grants Exparte Injunction To Dazn india Against Websites Illegaly Streaming FIFA 25

Case Title: DAZN LIMITED & ANR vs BUFFSPORTS. ME & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 751

The Delhi High court has granted ex parte dynamic injunction to DAZN Ltd.the official broadcasters of the FIFA World Cup 2025 against illegal streaming rogue website.A single bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee has allowed immediate blocking of rogue websites following an ex-parte order

Delhi High Court Refuses To Injunct Xiaomi From Using 'Find Device' Technology Over Alleged Patent Infringement

Title: CONQUEROR INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR v. XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 752

The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited in a patent infringement suit filed against its “find device” technology, which helps users to locate, lock or erase data from their lost or stolen devices.

Delhi High Court Rejects Income Tax Department's Appeal Against Thomson Press Over Alleged Transaction Of Property Below Circle Rate

Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-7 v. M/S Thomson Press (India) Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 753

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal preferred by the Income Tax Department against Thomson Press (India) over the sale of a property in Noida back in 2013, allegedly at a price much lower than the prevailing circle rate.

OBC Certificate Issued Only For Applying To Posts Under Govt Of India Can't Be Used To Claim Reservation To Delhi Govt Posts: High Court

Case title: GNCTD v. Jyoti

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 754

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that where the OBC certificate is issued to a person from a backward community only for applying to posts under the Central government, such a certificate cannot be used to claim reservation to posts notified by the Delhi government.

Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause Prevails Over Arbitrator's Procedural Order In Determining 'Seat' Of Arbitration: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Viva Infraventure Pvt. Ltd. vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 755

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that an 'exclusive jurisdiction clause' in the arbitration agreement unequivocally denotes the 'seat' of arbitration. The court observed that any contrary determination made by the Arbitrator without the express written consent of the parties only relates to a 'venue' under Section 20(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court therefore dismissed the Section 29A(5) petition due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Rights Must Be Balanced With Public Interest: Delhi High Court Upholds Division Of Railway Posts Between Low Vision & Blind Aspirants

Case title: Nand Lal Luhar And Ors v. Western Railway And Ors (and batch)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 756

The Delhi High Court recently upheld the action of Railways in bifurcating the posts reserved for visually impaired candidates into two categories— one which could be held by both low vision (LV) and blind candidates and the other which could be held only by LV but not blind candidates.

Delhi High Court Flags Trend Of Rich Tenants Occupying Landlord's Property On 'Paltry' Rate In Dispute Over ₹40 Rent In Sadar Bazar Area

Case title: Mrs Madhurbhashani & Ors v. Ranjit Singh (and connected matter)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 757

The Delhi High Court raised concerns over the trend of financially well-off tenants continuing to occupy the landlord's property for decades altogether, while parting with a very meagre rent.

Irked by mere ₹40 rent paid by the Respondent-tenants in Delhi's Sadar Bazar area, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani ordered their eviction.

Past Professional Relationship Creates Enough Bias To Terminate Arbitrator's Mandate U/S 14 Of A&C Act, Duration Is Immaterial: Delhi HC

Case Title: ROSHAN REAL ESTATES PVT LTD versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 758

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that if any person had any professional or supervisory relationship with the party to the Arbitration, such person cannot be appointed as an Arbitrator as per Entry 1 of the Seventh Schedule. It does not matter whether such a relationship existed over 17 years ago but the real test is whether such a relationship created a reasonable apprehension of bias. Accordingly, the mandate of the Arbitrator was terminated in the present case.

SC's Vijay Madanlal Judgment Doesn't Exempt Foreign Recipients Of Proceeds Of Crime From Scrutiny On Mere Contractual Legitimacy Of Transaction: Delhi HC

Case title: Amrit Pal Singh v. ED

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 759

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that foreign recipients of proceeds of crime are not exempted from scrutiny under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, on a mere ground of 'contractual legitimacy' of transactions.