Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 17 To March 23, 2025

Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 321 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 352

NOMINAL INDEX

Bentwood Seating System (P) Ltd. vs Airport Authority Of India & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 321

Mercedes Benz Group AG v. Minda Corporation Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 322

GOPAL MISHRA & ANR v. STATE 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 323

DOMINOS IP HOLDER LLC & ANR. v. M/S DOMINIC PIZZA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 324

M/S B Braun Medical India Pvt Ltd v. Union Of India & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 325

Gopika Vennankot Govind v. Union Of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 326

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. SHIVASHISH GUNWAL ADVOCATE 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 327

RAHUL KUMAR VERMA v. BADMINTON ASSOCIATION OF INDIA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 328

NTPC LIMITED versus STARCON INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 329

Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. & Anr vs. Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 330

Muhammad Nazim v. Commissioner Of Customs & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 331

Ircon International Limited vs M/S Pnc-Jain Construction Co (Jv) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 332

DIRECT NEWS PVT. LTD versus DTS TRAVELS PVT. LTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 333

NAMAHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 334

SUDESH CHHIKARA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 335

Kapil Mishra v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 336

KUNDAN KUMAR @ GORE vs. CBI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 337

M/S Saha Traders Zonal Joint Director General Of Foreign Trade(Cla) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 338

SHAHID NASIR v. NIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 339

THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LIMITED v. GAURAV ROY BHATT & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 340

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Delhi v. D Light Energy P. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 341

Anuj Ahuja vs. Sumitra Mittal 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 342

BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v. DEAYOUNG JUNG AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 343

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. M/S East Delhi Leasing Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 344

Amal Krishna v. Union Of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 345

X v. Y 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 346

Precitech Enclosures Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Rudrapur Precision Industries 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 347

MANNAT GROUP OF HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. M/S MANNAT DHABA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 348

Greesh Verma Jairath vs. State NCT Of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 349

RAMESH CHANDRA v. THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 350

SHAKTI PUMP INDIA LTD versus APEX BUILDSYS LTD and Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 351

M/S VALLABH CORPORATION versus SMS INDIA PVT LTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 352

Serious Allegations Of Fraud Constituting Criminal Offense Are Non-Arbitrable: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Bentwood Seating System (P) Ltd. vs Airport Authority Of India & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 321

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that the allegations of fraud which are extremely serious and potentially constitute a criminal offense are non-arbitrable. The court noted that the plea of fraud is of such a nature that it impacts the entire contract, including the arbitration agreement. Consequently, the court held that such a dispute is not arbitrable in nature.

Party Entering Settlement Agreement, Agreeing To Consent Award Cannot Later Object To Its Enforcement On Grounds Of Lack Of Knowledge: Delhi HC

Case Title: Mercedes Benz Group AG v. Minda Corporation Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 322

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anish Dayal has rejected an objection raised by the Award Debtor against the enforcement of an Award on the ground that it was contrary to public policy since it was not informed by the Award Holder about a previous settlement with the Judgment Debtor's subsidiary.

Accused Can't Be Denied Certified Copy Of Documents Forming Part Of Chargesheet After Commencement Of Trial: Delhi High Court

Title: GOPAL MISHRA & ANR v. STATE

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 323

The Delhi High Court has ruled that an accused cannot be denied the certified or attested copy of documents forming part of the chargesheet after commencement of trial.

“Even assuming that copy of the hard disk in question was supplied to the accused persons at the stage of Section 207 Cr. P.C. proceedings, still the right of the petitioner to ask for the certified copy of documents which form part of the chargesheet cannot be negated.”

Domino's Trademark Infringement: Delhi High Court Orders Delisting Of Dominic Pizza, Domindo Pizza From Zomato & Swiggy

Title: DOMINOS IP HOLDER LLC & ANR. v. M/S DOMINIC PIZZA & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 324

The Delhi High Court has restrained various restaurants from using the marks “Dominic Pizza” and “Domindo Pizza” while selling pizzas as well as in their packaging and menu cards in a trademark infringement suit filed by Domino's.

Error By Supplier In Mentioning GSTN Of Trader Can't Form Basis To Reject ITC On Purchases: Delhi High Court

Case title: M/S B Braun Medical India Pvt Ltd v. Union Of India & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 325

The Delhi High Court came to the rescue of a Company engaged in the sale of various pharmaceutical products and medical devices, holding that it could not be denied Input Tax Credit on purchases merely because its supplier had mentioned a wrong GST number on the invoices.

Delhi High Court Orders Customs Department To Release Arab Minor's Jewellery Which She Wore Since Childhood

Case title: Gopika Vennankot Govind v. Union Of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 326

The Delhi High Court has ordered the Customs Department to release the personal jewellery of a minor from UAE who had come to India to attend a relative's wedding.

Delhi High Court Discharges Lawyer Booked For Criminal Contempt Over Misbehaviour With Judge, Asks Him To Render Pro Bono Services

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. SHIVASHISH GUNWAL ADVOCATE

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 327

While discharging a lawyer in a criminal contempt case, the Delhi High Court has asked him to render pro bono services in at least two matters before Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO).

Ensure Parity In Participation Of Male, Female Athletes In Sporting Events Organized By National Sports Federations: Delhi High Court To Centre

Title: RAHUL KUMAR VERMA v. BADMINTON ASSOCIATION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 328

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports to make efforts to ensure that parity is maintained in the participation of male and female athletes in sporting events organized by the National Sports Federations (NSFs).

Order Passed U/S 23(3) Of Arbitration Act Is Procedural & Not An Interim Award, Cannot Be Challenged U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: NTPC LIMITED versus STARCON INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 329

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that an order dismissing an application under Section 23(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act is only a procedural order and does not qualify as an 'interim award' amenable to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act

Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains Infringement Of Himalaya's 'Liv.52' Trademark, Imposes ₹30.91 Lakh In Costs & Damages

Case title: Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. & Anr vs. Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 330

The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favour of the personal care and herbal health company Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd against trademark infringement of its 'Liv.52' products used for liver care by manufacturers and sellers of infringing 'Liv-333' goods.

Customs Dept Repeatedly Told To Serve Notices, Orders On Assessee Via Email: Delhi High Court Seeks Compliance

Case title: Muhammad Nazim v. Commissioner Of Customs & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 331

The Delhi High Court has asked the Customs Department to scrupulously comply with its “repeated” direction to serve notices, orders on an assessee under the Customs Act, 1962 via email.

Application U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act Not Maintainable If Not Filed With Copy Of Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ircon International Limited vs M/S Pnc-Jain Construction Co (Jv)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 332

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan has held that an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is non-maintainable if it is not accompanied by a copy of the impugned award. The court held that the filing of the award is not a mere procedural requirement but a mandatory prerequisite for invoking the court's jurisdiction under Section 34.

Arbitral Tribunal Is Sole Judge Of Evidence, Court Not Required To Re-Evaluate Evidence U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: DIRECT NEWS PVT. LTD versus DTS TRAVELS PVT. LTD

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 333

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia held that the arbitrator is the ultimate master of the quantity and quality of evidence to be relied upon when he delivers his arbitral award. An award would not be held invalid merely because the award is based on little evidence or on evidence which does not meet the quality of a trained legal mind.

Delhi High Court Asks Centre To Comply With Supreme Court Order Directing It To Decide Representation Seeking To Rename India As 'Bharat'

Title: NAMAHA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 334

The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to expeditiously comply with an order passed by the Supreme Court in 2020 directing that a petition seeking direction to change the name of the country as "Bharat" from "India" be treated as a representation.

S.450 BNSS | Court Of Chief Judicial Magistrate Can't Transfer A Case Either Suo Moto Or On Any Application: Delhi High Court

Title: SUDESH CHHIKARA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 335

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot transfer a case from one Court or another either suo moto or upon an application being moved to that effect.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Trial Of BJP Leader Kapil Mishra In 2020 FIR For Alleged Communal Tweets

Title: Kapil Mishra v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 336

The Delhi High Court refused to stay trial court proceedings against BJP Minister Kapil Mishra in relation to an FIR filed against him in 2020 over his tweets that the AAP and Congress parties had created a “mini Pakistan” at Shaheen Bagh and that the then Assembly polls would be a contest between “India and Pakistan”.

Delhi HC Flags CBI's Contradictory Approach, Highlights Difference Between Notice To Witness U/S 160 CrPC And Notice To Accused U/S 41A CrPC

Case title: KUNDAN KUMAR @ GORE vs. CBI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 337

While granting anticipatory bail to an individual accused of cheating and cyber fraud, the Delhi High Court observed that if the arrest of a person accused of a cognisable offence punishable for less than seven years is not required, the investigating agency has to issue a notice under Section 41A CrPC before the proceedings with the arrest.

Delhi High Court Slams Directorate General Of Foreign Trade For Cancelling Trader's DEPB License 15 Yrs After SCN Was Issued

Case title: M/S Saha Traders Zonal Joint Director General Of Foreign Trade(Cla)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 338

The Delhi High Court quashed a Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) communication cancelling the license issued to a trader involved in import and export of goods, citing almost fifteen years delay in culminating the show cause notice.

Delhi High Court Refuses Interim Bail To PFI Leader Shahid Nasir In UAPA Case, Asks Him To Move Special NIA Court

Title: SHAHID NASIR v. NIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 339

The Delhi High Court has refused to grant interim bail to Popular Front of India (PFI) leader Shahid Nasir in a case registered by NIA under UAPA.

Delhi High Court Declares 'Taj' As Well Known Trademark For Services In Hotel And Hospitality Industry

Title: THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LIMITED v. GAURAV ROY BHATT & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 340

The Delhi High Court has declared “Taj” a well known trademark in respect of hotels and other related services in the hospitality industry.

Transfer Pricing | 'Resale Price Method' Most Appropriate To Determine ALP Where Distributor Makes No Value Addition To Imported Products: Delhi HC

Case no.: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Delhi v. D Light Energy P. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 341

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that where the distributor of an imported product makes no value addition to it before sale, Resale Price Method is the most appropriate method to determine the arm's length price in relation to its business with an Associated Enterprise.

Cheque Dishonor | Conviction Alone Not Sufficient For Appellate Court To Seek 20% Deposit, Must Consider Attending Circumstances: Delhi HC

Case title: Anuj Ahuja vs. Sumitra Mittal

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 342

The Delhi High Court has observed that a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of cheque cannot itself qualify as a reason for an Appellate Court to direct the accused to deposit 20% of fine or compensation under Section 148 NI Act.

Delhi High Court Directs BCI To Enrol South Korean Citizen As Advocate Within Two Days

Title: BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v. DEAYOUNG JUNG AND ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 343

The Delhi High Court directed the Bar Council of India to enrol a South Korean citizen- Daeyoung Jung as an advocate within two days.

A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that withholding the enrolment would not be permissible since there was no stay of a single judge order which had quashed BCI's decision refusing to consider Jung as eligible for enrolment as an advocate.

'Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt' Is A Principle Of Criminal Law, Not Applicable To Tax Law: Delhi High Court

Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. M/S East Delhi Leasing Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 344

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the principle of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' cannot be made applicable to Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which enables an assessing officer to open an assessment if he has 'reason to believe' that an assessee's income escaped assessment.

NRI's Entitled To Benefits Provided To 'Eligible Passengers' Under 2016 Baggage Rules: Delhi High Court

Case title: Amal Krishna v. Union Of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 345

The Delhi High Court has held that a non-resident Indian is fully entitled to the benefit provided to an “eligible passenger” under the Baggage Rules, 2016 for the purposes of Customs on arrival to India.

Well-Educated Wife With Job Experience Must Not Remain Idle Solely To Gain Maintenance From Husband: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 346

The Delhi High Court has observed that a well educated wife with suitable job experience must not remain idle solely to gain maintenance from her husband.

Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause Prevails Over Seat Of Arbitration Clause If It Expressly Covers Proceedings Relating To Arbitration: Delhi HC

Case Title: Precitech Enclosures Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Rudrapur Precision Industries

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 347

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has observed that generally if an agreement contains both exclusive jurisdiction clause and seat of arbitration clause, then judicial proceedings relating to arbitration would lie only before the court having territorial jurisdiction over the arbitral seat/venue. However, as in the instant case, if the exclusive jurisdiction clause also covers proceedings relating to arbitration then it would prevail over the seat of arbitration clause.

Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains Local Dhabas From Using Registered Trademarks Of Popular Murthal Eatery 'Mannat Dhaba'

Title: MANNAT GROUP OF HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. M/S MANNAT DHABA & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 348

The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained various restaurants (local dhabas) situated on the Delhi-Dehradun highway from using the registered trademarks of popular Murthal based eatery “Mannat Dhaba.”

Can't Use S.482 CrPC To 'Short Circuit' Prosecution: Delhi HC Refuses To Quash FIRs Against Woman's Kin Accused Of Outraging Her Modesty

Case title: Greesh Verma Jairath vs. State NCT Of Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 349

While hearing petitions seeking quashing of FIRs filed by a relative of the accused, the Delhi High Court observed while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the high court would not normally determine whether evidence is reliable as that is the Trial Court's function.

S.45 PMLA | Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Unitech Founder Ramesh Chandra In Money Laundering Case On Account Of 'Age-Related Infirmities'

Title: RAMESH CHANDRA v. THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 350

The Delhi High Court granted bail to 86-year-old founder of Unitech Group Ramesh Chandra, in a money laundering case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

Participation In Arbitral Proceedings Does Not Imply Acceptance Of Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator Unless Objections Are Waived In Writing: Delhi HC

Case Title: SHAKTI PUMP INDIA LTD versus APEX BUILDSYS LTD and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 351

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that the mandate of the Arbitrator can be terminated under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) if the Arbitrator was appointed unilaterally, which is explicitly prohibited under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act unless the ineligibility is expressly waived through a written agreement.

Court Can Appoint Arbitrator U/S 11(6) Of Arbitration Act If MSME Council Fails To Initiate Mediation U/S 18 Of MSMED Act: Delhi HC

Case Title: M/S VALLABH CORPORATION versus SMS INDIA PVT LTD

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 352

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that When the Facilitation Council under the Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Development Act (MSMED Act) fails to initiate the mediation process under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, the court can appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act).