- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Delhi High Court
- /
- Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up:...
Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 24 To March 30, 2025
Nupur Thapliyal
31 March 2025 10:36 AM IST
Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 353 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 394NOMINAL INDEXFAITH CONSTRUCTIONS versus N.W.G.E.L CHURCH 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 353 F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE AG & ANR v. NATCO PHARMA LIMITED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 354 CREATIVELAND ADVERTISING PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. WINZO GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 355 SIDDHARTH SOOD versus MUNISH KUMAR AGGARWAL 2025 LiveLaw (Del)...
Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 353 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 394
NOMINAL INDEX
FAITH CONSTRUCTIONS versus N.W.G.E.L CHURCH 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 353
F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE AG & ANR v. NATCO PHARMA LIMITED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 354
CREATIVELAND ADVERTISING PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. WINZO GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 355
SIDDHARTH SOOD versus MUNISH KUMAR AGGARWAL 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 356
Bridgestone Corporation vs. M/S Merlin Rubber 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 357
Jai Durga Rubberised Fabrics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 358
Sai Kiran Goud Tirupathi v. Commissioner Of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 359
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 360
Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. Indian Broadcasting Foundation 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 361
ASHLOK v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matter 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 362
Paras Products v. Commissioner Central Gst, Delhi North (and batch) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 363
Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 364
Husky Injection Molding Systems Shanghai Ltd & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 365
Lavkush Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 366
SUNEHRI BAGH BUILDERS PVT LTD versus DELHI TOURISM AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 367
RADICO KHAITAN LIMITED versus HARISH CHOUHAN 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 368
APPLAUSE ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED v. WWW.9XMOVIES.COM.TW & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 369
Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Raj Belts & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 370
M/S GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD versus S.C WADHWA AND SONS (HUF) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 371
Ivy Entertainment Private Limited vs. HR Pictures 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 372
MS. RUCHI KALRA & Ors v. SLOWFORM MEDIA PVT. LTD & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 373
SH VIJAI PRATAP SINGH v. DELHI HIGH COURT, THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 374
RESILIENT INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/S BHARAT PAY AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 375
RAHUL SINGH versus BORDER SECURITY FORCE & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 376
Mohammad Arham v. Commissioner Of Customs 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 377
National Restaurant Association v. Union Of India & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 378
Ashow Swain v. Union of India & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 379
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA versus DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 380
Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 381
Huawei Telecommunications India Company Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 2 & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 382
Mohd. Salim Khan v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 383
Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. DRI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 384
Avika Shahi And Anr vs. Medical Counselling Committee And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 385
HOSHIAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 386
SANOJ KUMAR MISHRA VS. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 387
VIKAS CHAWLA @ VICKY v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 388
M/s Dewan Chand v. Chairman cum Managing Director and Another 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 389
RAMCHANDER versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 390
The Commissioner Of Central Tax, CGST Delhi East v. M/S Simplex Infrastructure Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 391
Vedanta Limited v. CBIC 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 392
Backbone Overseas v. Assistant Commissioner Of Customs, Foreign Post Office , New Delhi And Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 393
Shiv Parkash Bansal v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-14 Delhi & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 394
Case Title: FAITH CONSTRUCTIONS versus N.W.G.E.L CHURCH
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 353
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has held that in the absence of a specified seat or venue in the Arbitration Agreement, the court's jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) is determined by Sections 16 to 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). The relevant factors include where the respondent resides or conducts business and where the cause of action arose.
Title: F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE AG & ANR v. NATCO PHARMA LIMITED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 354
The Delhi High Court has observed that availability of a drug for treatment of rare diseases at economical and competitive prices is a material factor to be considered for grant of interim injunction in an intellectual property right (IPR) lawsuit.
Case Title: CREATIVELAND ADVERTISING PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. WINZO GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 355
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has upheld the findings of the Arbitrator, who refused to grant an injunction restraining Winzo Games Private Limited (“Respondent”) from using the tagline “Jeeto Har DinZo” developed by Creativeland Advertising Private Limited (“Appellant”).
Case Title: SIDDHARTH SOOD versus MUNISH KUMAR AGGARWAL
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 356
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has held that the execution of the Gift Deed by the petitioner after an arbitral award is passed suggests an attempt to frustrate the rights of the decree-holder.
Case title: Bridgestone Corporation vs. M/S Merlin Rubber
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 357
The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favour of the Japanese company, Bridgestone Corporation, against trademark infringement of its 'Bridgestone' mark by a similar business manufacturing tyres and tubes for automobiles under 'Brimestone' mark.
Case title: Jai Durga Rubberised Fabrics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 358
The Delhi High Court took a critical view of the Customs Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi for repeatedly passing contradictory orders in an appeal, which should have been dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.
Delhi High Court Orders Customs To Release 'Name Engraved' Gold Jewellery Of Indian Tourist
Case title: Sai Kiran Goud Tirupathi v. Commissioner Of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 359
The Delhi High Court has ordered the Customs Department to release the gold kada of an Indian tourist, which was seized upon his return to the country after a visit to the Republic of Mali.
Title: AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 360
The Delhi High Court has refused to disturb the allotment of a land measuring 2.0524 acres in city's Vasant Vihar area to three political parties, for construction of their party offices, which was earlier allotted to the Airports Authority of India (AAI) but was later cancelled in 2002 by the Union Government.
Case title: Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. Indian Broadcasting Foundation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 361
In an order bringing relief to the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), which was incorporated to protect the interests of various stakeholders in the field of television broadcasting, the Delhi High Court allowed the body to claim exemption from payment of tax under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Title: ASHLOK v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI and other connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 362
The Delhi High Court has observed that requests made by victims of sexual violence to exempt them from appearing in court cannot be treated at par with such requests of hardened criminals.
Case title: Paras Products v. Commissioner Central Gst, Delhi North (and batch)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 363
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 11A of the Central Excise Act 1944, which empowers taxing authorities to recover duties not levied/ short-levied or short-paid, is pari materia to corresponding provisions of the Customs Act, the Finance Act and the CGST Act.
Title: Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 364
The Delhi High Court has allowed jailed Jammu and Kashmir MP Engineer Rashid to attend the second part of the Parliamentary session from March 26 to April 04 “in-custody”.
Case title: Husky Injection Molding Systems Shanghai Ltd & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 365
The Delhi High Court has held that writ petitions challenging the determination of anti-dumping duties by Directorate General of Trade Remedies are maintainable however, since the determination is a time bound process, Courts will not readily interfere in the process.
Title: Lavkush Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 366
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) against singer Honey Singh's latest song “Maniac”, alleging that it portrays women as “sexual objects” and uses vulgar words.
Case Title: SUNEHRI BAGH BUILDERS PVT LTD versus DELHI TOURISM AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 367
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Jain has upheld the order passed by the Arbitrator whereby an application seeking production of certain documents has been dismissed. The court held that sufficient opportunity had been given to the claimant, but he didn't avail that opportunity. Thus, the court cannot interfere with the order of the arbitrator at the final stage.
Case Title: RADICO KHAITAN LIMITED versus HARISH CHOUHAN
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 368
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has held that the arbitration clause contained in the tax invoice itself is clear to the extent that acceptance of subject goods delivered under the invoice would amount to accepting the terms governing it, including the arbitration clause contained therein.
Title: APPLAUSE ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED v. WWW.9XMOVIES.COM.TW & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 369
The Delhi High Court has issued a dynamic injunction in favour of Applause Entertainment Private Limited and restrained various rogue websites illegally streaming and making available to public “Undekhi” series premiered on the digital platform 'SonyLIV'.
Case title: Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Raj Belts & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 370
The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favour of the French fashion brand Louis Vuitton Malletier, against trademark infringement by shop owners located in Karol Bagh.
Case Title: M/S GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD versus S.C WADHWA AND SONS (HUF)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 371
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia held that the powers of the court to order interim measures of protection under Section 9 of the Act are wide and are not confined solely to orders that can be passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, the court would be guided by the principles underlying the Code. Clearly, such orders would also extend to granting the relief, if such relief is admissible on admitted facts.
Case title: Ivy Entertainment Private Limited vs. HR Pictures
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 372
The Delhi High Court deferred the release of Tamil film starring Vikram, 'Veera Deera Sooran' by four weeks–slated to be released, over a breach of an assignment agreement by the film's producer.
After the Court granted ad-interim injunction, both the parties amicably settled the matter and filed the settlement agreement on the same day. In view of the settlement agreement, the ad-interim injunction granted on release of the film was discharged and the film was released in afternoon of 27.03.2025.
Title: MS. RUCHI KALRA & Ors v. SLOWFORM MEDIA PVT. LTD & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 373
The Delhi High Court has passed a ruling adjudicating the question as to when will hyperlinking of a publication would amount to republication.
The Court said that the mode, manner and context of hyperlinking must reveal an element of independent expression, even if subtle, in addition to the mere act of hyperlinking, for it to constitute republication. “However, there can be no straight jacket formula to determine whether the hyperlink is just a reference or it is a republication. The same would have to be seen bearing in mind the facts and context of each case,” the Court said.
Title: SH VIJAI PRATAP SINGH v. DELHI HIGH COURT, THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 374
The Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the rule prohibiting retired judges of other States to apply for senior advocate designation in Delhi.
Delhi High Court Grants Relief To BharatPe, Restrains Use Of 'Bharatpay' Mark And Website
Title: RESILIENT INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/S BHARAT PAY AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 375
The Delhi High Court has granted relief to fintech company “BharatPe” and restrained the use of “Bharatpay” mark as well as the domain name used for payment of utility bills, data recharge services, insurance and financial services.
Recovery Of Excess Amount Can't Be Permitted If Officer Is Not At Fault: Delhi High Court
Case Title: RAHUL SINGH versus BORDER SECURITY FORCE & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 376
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur observed that if an Officer was granted training allowance for the period he was not working as an Instructor, recovery for an excess amount at a later stage could not be permitted as it was undeniably not his fault. The Bench held that any amount recovered from the Petitioner should be refunded to him within a period of eight weeks.
Case title: Mohammad Arham v. Commissioner Of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 377
The Delhi High Court has held that detention of goods by the Customs Department cannot continue beyond a period of one year, if a show cause notice was not issued to the assessee within such period.
Case Title: National Restaurant Association v. Union Of India & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 378
The Delhi High Court held that service charge and tips are voluntary payments by consumers and cannot be made compulsory or mandatory on food bills by restaurants or hotels.
Justice Prathiba M Singh thus rejected two petitions filed by Federation of Hotels and Restaurant Associations of India (FHRAI) and National Restaurant Association of India (NRAI), challenging CCPA guidelines of 2022 prohibiting hotels and restaurants from levying service charges “automatically or by default” on food bills.
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Centre's Order Cancelling Academic Ashok Swain's OCI Card
Case Title: Ashow Swain v. Union of India & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 379
The Delhi High Court set aside an order issued by the Central Government cancelling the OCI card of academic and writer Ashok Swain.
However, the high court has granted liberty to the Central Government to issue fresh show cause notice to Swain.
Case Title: AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA versus DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED & ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 380
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that while deciding a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, courts cannot adopt the approach of one-size-fit-for-all. Courts can interfere into the award only if it shocks the conscience of the court and is prone to adversely affect the administration of justice.
Title: Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 381
The Delhi High Court ordered jailed Jammu and Kashmir MP Engineer Rashid to deposit ₹4 lakh (approx) with the jail authorities, so as to attend the second part of the Parliamentary session which ends on April 04.
The figure is 50% of the total amount demanded by the jail authorities (₹8.74 lakhs) to enable his Parliament visit 'in-custody', which was ordered by the High Court on March 25.
Case title: Huawei Telecommunications India Company Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 2 & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 382
The Delhi High Court has held that when an appellate authority has asked the Income Tax Department to not take any coercive steps against an assessee for recovery of outstanding demands, the same can in some cases interdict the Department from adjusting the outstanding amount from refunds due to the assessee.
High Court Grants Interim Bail To Delhi Riots Accused To Arrange Funds For Daughter's Academic Fee
Title: Mohd. Salim Khan v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 383
The Delhi High Court granted interim bail to Mohd. Salim Khan, accused in the UAPA case alleging a larger conspiracy in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.
A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur ordered Khan's release on interim bail for 10 days in order to permit him to arrange funds for payment of academic fees of his daughter who is pursuing law from Jamia Hamdard University.
Case title: Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. DRI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 384
The Delhi High Court has called upon the Customs Department to clone the required data from seized electronic devices of persons allegedly involved in smuggling and other violations under the Act, instead of retaining such devices throughout prosecutions.
Case title: Avika Shahi And Anr vs. Medical Counselling Committee And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 385
Refusing to grant relief to NEET-UG candidate who could not secure admission to MBBS course, the Delhi High Court observed that the correction of a legal error on reservation to align with constitutional principles before the commencement of the third round of counselling cannot be considered as a procedural breach or administrative fault on part of the authorities.
Title: HOSHIAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 386
The Delhi High Court has held that termination of service of Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) personnel on the ground of them being detected as HIV positive is discriminatory and prohibited under the HIV Act.
Case title: SANOJ KUMAR MISHRA VS. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 387
Refusing anticipatory bail to a rape accused, the Delhi High Court observed that granting anticipatory bail in a case where a film direction allegedly allured the victim on the pretext of making her a heroine and then sexually exploited her, would send wrong signals across the society.
Title: VIKAS CHAWLA @ VICKY v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 388
The Delhi High Court has observed that serving grounds of arrest to an arrestee as part of the remand application moved by the Police before the Magistrate is no compliance with the requirements of law.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that since grounds of arrest must exist before an arrest is made, there must be a contemporaneous record of the grounds of arrest in the police diary or other document.
Case Title: M/s Dewan Chand v. Chairman cum Managing Director and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 389
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has observed that if a petition for appointment of arbitrator is withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh petition, then by application of Order 23 Rule 1(4), CPC, a subsequent petition on the same cause of action would be barred.
Writ Petition Is Not An Appropriate Remedy To Seek Enforcement Of Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court
Case Title: RAMCHANDER versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 390
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jyoti Singh held that when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. The court found merit in the preliminary objection of the Railways that a writ is not the appropriate remedy for the petitioner to seek enforcement of the arbitral award.
Case title: The Commissioner Of Central Tax, CGST Delhi East v. M/S Simplex Infrastructure Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 391
The Delhi High Court has upheld an order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal interdicting the GST Department from invoking extended period of limitation for recovery action against a sub-contractor who did not pay service tax amid confusion as to his liability to pay the same.
Case title: Vedanta Limited v. CBIC
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 392
The Delhi High Court has asked the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to pass a “reasoned order” on Indian multinational mining company- Vedanata's plea claiming duty drawbacks on clean energy cess, paid between the year 2010-17.
Case title: Backbone Overseas v. Assistant Commissioner Of Customs, Foreign Post Office , New Delhi And Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 393
The Delhi High Court has criticised the Customs Department for acting against its own Circular for expeditious clearance of goods, by detaining the export goods of a trader for over two months.
Case title: Shiv Parkash Bansal v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-14 Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 394
The Delhi High Court has held that the statutory scheme of Sections 153A and 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not envisage the discovery of a connection or interrelationship between the searched and the non-searched entity.