Delhi High Court Monthly Digest: June 2025 [Citations 649
Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 649 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 719
NOMINAL INDEX
SADHGURU JAGADISH VASUDEV & ANR v. IGOR ISAKOV & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 649
MINOR S (THR. MOTHER M) v. STATE & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 650
The Ritz Hotel Limited & Ors. v. MS Hotel Ritz & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 651
Star India Pvt Ltd v. IPTV Smarter Pro & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 652
M/S Ambience Metcorp Private Limited Through Its Director Sh Sandeep Agarwal v. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs Through Its Chairman & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 653
AKSHITA SEHRAWAT (MINOR) REPRESENT BY HER FATHER SH. DEEPAK KUMAR v. DELHI TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY (DTU) & ORS and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 654
U.K. Paints (Overseas) Ltd v. Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle.8, & Ors. (and batch) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 655
ANIL v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 656
ZIHAD AHMED v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 657
LALIT SHARMA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 658
X v. Y 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 659
PRASHANT PAREEK v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 660
INDIAMART INTERMESH LTD v. PUMA SE 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 661
MS SADHANA YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 662
Sunaina Rao Kommineni v. Abhiram Balusu 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 663
Karan Kumar v. State & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 664
Delhi Public School Dwarka vs. National Commission For Protection Of Child Rights And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 665
IMRAN ALI @ SAMIR v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 666
ISHRAT JAHAN v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 667
Anam Khan v. Consortium of National Law Universities and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 668
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION v. PREMA EVELYN D CRUZ AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 669
Sanjay @ Sanju v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 670
Amanatullah Khan v. DDA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 671
Oswaal Books And Learnings Private Limited v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 672
Vikram Yadav v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 673
Shabir Ahmad Shah v NIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 674
Vikram Yadav v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 675
RSPL Health Pvt. Ltd. v. Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 676
Reliance Eminent Trading And Commercial Private Limited v. DDA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 677
State Of Madhya Pradesh v. KM Shukla & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 678
M/S. Jaiprakash Hyundai Consortium v. M/S. SJVN Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 679
Newgen IT Technologies Limited v. Newgen Software Technologies Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 680
HINDUSTAN HYDRAULICS PVT. LTD versus UNION OF INDIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 681
Manoj Saw v. Ramneek Sabarwal & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 682
INDRAPRASTHA GAS LIMITED versus M/S CHINTAMANI FOOD AND SNACKS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 683
Shakila v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 684
NKJ v. State NCT of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 685
Lovee Narula v. ED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 686
Barun Bhanot v. M/S Annie Impexpo Marketing Pvt Ltd & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 687
R. SANTOSH versus ONE97 COMMUNICATIONS LTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 688
Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd v. Dinesh Kumar Singh & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 689
Vineet Gupta v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 690
M/S Best Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. M/S R.D. Sales 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 691
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. JSIW Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 692
BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LIMITED versus SG ENTERPRISES & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 693
M/S Lala Shivnath Rai Sumerchand Confectioner Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner, Cgst Delhi-West, New Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 694
Union of India v. M/s Rajiv Aggarwal (Engineers and Contractors) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 695
LATA YADAV versus SHIVAKRITI AGRO PVT. LTD & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 696
Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. A.H. Multisoft Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 697
Jasleeniqbal Sidhu & Ors. v. Union of India& Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 698
HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED v/s RSPL LIMITED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 699
SH. RAJPAL NAURANG YADAV & ANR v. M/S. MURLI PROJECTS PVT. LTD & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 700
SHAILENDRA BHATNAGAR v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 701
Dominos IP Holder LLC & Anr. v. M/S. Domnics Pizza & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 702
Sanjay Kaul v. The Income Tax Officer Ward 24 (4), New Delhi & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 703
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. M/S K.R. Pulp And Papers Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 704
T.V. TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. GOOGLE LLC & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 705
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v. Shri Ganesh Motor Body Repairs & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 706
Varun Tyagi v. Daffodil Software Private Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 707
Dazn DAZN Limited v. Buffsports. Me & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 708
BHAVREEN KANDHARI v. SHRI C. D. SINGH AND ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 709
Suraj Kanojia v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 710
Sandeep Garg v. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii Avato Ward 66 Zone 4 Delhi2025 LiveLaw (Del) 711
Minor Victim Through Neetu Chadha v. Meta Platforms Inc & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 712
SS Enterprises Vs Office of the Commissioner, Central Tax Delhi West & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 713
Kushi v. State NCT of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 714
DIN DAYAL AGRAWAL HUF versus CAPRISO FINANCE LTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 715
M/s MAHAVIR PRASAD GUPTA AND SONS versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 716
Pret Study by Janak Fashions Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner, CGST 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 717
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
Title: MINOR S (THR. MOTHER M) v. STATE & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 650
The Delhi High Court has ruled that hospitals cannot insist on identification proof of minor rape victims for diagnostic purposes or ultrasound in medical termination of pregnancy (MTP) cases ordered by the Courts.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that hospitals and medical institutions must be sensitised that cases involving victims of sexual assault, especially minor girls, require a more responsive and sensitive approach.
Case title: The Ritz Hotel Limited & Ors. v. MS Hotel Ritz & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 651
The Delhi High Court has declared that ‘Ritz’ and ‘Ritz Carlton’ run by the Paris based Ritz Hotel Limited are “well-known” trademarks in India.
“The long duration for which the RITZ and RITZ-CARLTON marks have been in use by the plaintiffs, wide geographical area of their use, their knowledge among the general public and their goodwill and reputation due to the extensive promotion, publicity and extensive revenue generated by the plaintiffs, in India as well as other countries, the RITZ and RITZ CARLTON marks have achieved the status of well-known trademarks,” Justice Amit Bansal observed.
Case title: Star India Pvt Ltd v. IPTV Smarter Pro & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 652
In a first-of-its-kind order, the Delhi High Court has granted a limited-duration superlative injunction— an enhanced form of dynamic+ injunction— to tackle the unauthorised streaming of IPL, India’s England Tour by rogue apps and websites.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee restrained the defendants from infringing Star India’s exclusive streaming rights and ordered real-time relief against rogue websites and rogue mobile applications which may be discovered during the course.
Case title: M/S Ambience Metcorp Private Limited Through Its Director Sh Sandeep Agarwal v. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs Through Its Chairman & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 653
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an order in rectification proceedings must be reasoned, passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the party.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta made the observation while dealing with a petition against rejection of Petitioner’s application seeking rectification of impugned demand order.
Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Open School Students Left Out Of JEE Mains Counselling
Title: AKSHITA SEHRAWAT (MINOR) REPRESENT BY HER FATHER SH. DEEPAK KUMAR v. DELHI TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY (DTU) & ORS and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 654
The Delhi High Court has granted relief to various students who got registered with National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) and were left out of JEE-Mains 2025 counselling process as their result for class XII examination was not declared.
Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that students put hard labour for two to four years, or may be more, while preparing for JEE (Mains) and they should not get ousted from consideration in the counselling despite having attained good percentile and rank only on the ground that result of class XII has not been timely declared by the concerned education Board.
Case title: U.Okay. Paints (Abroad) Ltd v. Asstt.Commissioner Of Earnings Tax, Central Circle.8, & Ors. (and batch)
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 655
A bigger bench of the Delhi Excessive Courtroom will determine whether or not Part 149(1)(c) of the Earnings Tax Act 1961, inserted vide a 2012 modification to supply an prolonged interval of reassessment for instances involving international belongings, applies retrospectively.
Part 149(1)(c) prescribes that reassessment discover in respect of any revenue in relation to any asset situated exterior India, which had escaped evaluation, will not be proscribed for a interval of 16 years from the tip of the evaluation 12 months during which such revenue was chargeable to tax.
Title: ANIL v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 656
Whereas dismissing a plea alleging unlawful building at a property with Rs. 50,000 prices, the Delhi Excessive Courtroom has deprecated submitting of frivolous petitions with no direct curiosity within the matter.
Justice Mini Pushkarna noticed that the litigant had no reference to the property, was residing 10 kms away from it and the one floor for submitting the petition was that he had the identical road whereas coming and going to the workplace.
Title: ZIHAD AHMED v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 657
Whereas quashing a POCSO case, the Delhi Excessive Courtroom has directed the accused to do group service for a month at Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital whereas additionally asking him to pay Rs. 50,000 prices to be deposited in the direction of “Military Welfare Fund Battle Casualties.”
Title: LALIT SHARMA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 658
As elections to the Delhi Excessive Courtroom Bar Affiliation (DHCBA) and all bar associations within the nationwide capital have been efficiently concluded, the Delhi Excessive Courtroom has closed a petition on the problem.
A full bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh, Justice Navin Chawla and Justice C Hari Shankar disposed of a plea plea during which instructions had been issued every so often concerning conduct of elections to the Delhi Excessive Courtroom Bar Affiliation as additionally the varied Bar Associations within the District Courts.
Title: X v. Y
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 659
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has noticed that private loans or EMIs are voluntary obligations which can not override the duty of an incomes partner to keep up the opposite partner or the kid.
A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar mentioned that deductions akin to home lease, electrical energy costs, compensation of non-public loans, premiums in the direction of life insurance coverage, or EMIs for voluntary borrowings don’t qualify as reliable deductions for the aim of upkeep.
Title: PRASHANT PAREEK v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 660
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has quashed the FIR registered towards a person accused of inflicting discomfort to a fellow flight passenger by continuously observing her.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja famous {that a} settlement was reached between the events and the prosecution additionally had no objection to the identical.
Title: INDIAMART INTERMESH LTD v. PUMA SE
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 661
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has put aside a single choose ruling to the extent of restraining Indiamart from offering registered trademark “PUMA” in respect of the products as search choices in its drop down menu introduced to potential sellers on the time of their registration on the e-commerce platform.
Title: MS SADHANA YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 662
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has rejected a plea filed by a candidate who was unable to present Widespread College Entrance Take a look at (UG) Examination performed by Nationwide Testing Company (NTA) as she reached the examination centre past the gate closing timings, as prescribed within the admit card.
A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noticed that within the conduct of such a large-scale examination, leniency would result in chaos and the self-discipline of the examination must be maintained.
Case title: Sunaina Rao Kommineni v. Abhiram Balusu
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 663
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has made it clear that when a minor baby is forcefully shifted by one of many dad and mom warring for the kid’s custody, such shift wouldn’t grant territorial jurisdiction for granting guardianship to such mum or dad.
Case title: Karan Kumar v. State & Anr.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 664
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom granted aid to a POCSO convict, noting that the prosecution failed to ascertain past doubt that the survivor was a minor on the time of alleged offence.
Justice Amit Sharma noticed that the survivor’s date of beginning talked about in her faculty register was not on the premise of any proof of beginning doc issued by any Company or a Municipal Authority or a Panchayat. Slightly, the entry was made primarily based on what was conveyed by her dad and mom.
Case title: Delhi Public College Dwarka vs. Nationwide Fee For Safety Of Little one Rights And Ors
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 665
Calling it a reprehensible follow, the Delhi Excessive Courtroom expressed its dismay on the conduct of Delhi Public College (DPS) Dwarka participating “bouncers” to bodily block entry of scholars over the problem of price hike.
Justice Sachin Datta made the statement whereas disposing of an utility filed by dad and mom of assorted college students who had been expelled by the varsity for non fee of charges.
Delhi High Court Suggests Use Of Technology While Probing NDPS Cases, Says It Assures ‘Fairness’
Title: IMRAN ALI @ SAMIR v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 666
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has mooted the usage of expertise whereas investigating instances beneath the Narcotic Medication and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja mentioned that the usage of expertise in such instances enhances the efficacy and transparency of the police investigation and assures equity.
Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Widow, Orders Status Quo On Batla House Property Facing Demolition
Title: ISHRAT JAHAN v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 667
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has granted aid to a widow and ordered establishment on her property in metropolis’s Batla Home space going through demolition.
Trip choose, Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, listed the matter on July 10 whereas asking the authorities to keep up establishment on her property.
CLAT PG : Delhi High Court Finds Errors In Two Questions; Asks NLU Consortium To Revise Marks
Title: Anam Khan v. Consortium of Nationwide Legislation Universities and different related issues
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 668
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom requested the Consortium of Nationwide Legislation Universities (NLUs) to take steps to keep away from “extreme” price charged for elevating objections to questions for future examinations.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela disposed of the pleas difficult the outcomes of Widespread Legislation Admission Take a look at (CLAT) PG, 2025 held on December 01 final 12 months.
Title: CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION v. PREMA EVELYN D CRUZ AND ANR
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 669
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has noticed that the report of Central Board of Secondary Training (CBSE) can’t be at variance with the passport as it will create doubt within the thoughts of anybody concerning a person’s employment or immigration.
A division bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar mentioned that the citizen of the Nation is entitled to a real and proper narration of all vital and related particulars within the public paperwork that pertain to them.
Case title: Sanjay @ Sanju v. State
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 670
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom upheld the conviction and sentence imposed upon a 24 years outdated boy for committing rape upon a 60 years outdated girl.
In doing so, Justice Sanjeev Narula rejected the youth’s plea that within the absence of the “Electropherogram” report, the DNA proof was inadequate to corroborate the Prosecutrix’s model.
Batla House Demolitions : Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan’s PIL
Title: Amanatullah Khan v. DDA
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 671
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom refused to entertain Aam Aadmi Celebration MLA Amanatullah Khan’s PIL towards DDA’s proposed demolition motion within the metropolis’s Batla Home space.
A division bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia and Justice Tejas Karia expressed that solely particular person residents can declare that their property doesn’t fall inside specified space of proposed demolition web site.
It thus permitted Khan to withdraw the plea with liberty to tell the residents of their proper to maneuver the suitable discussion board, in 3 working days.
Can Commonly Used Slogans Like “One For All” Be Trademarked? Delhi High Court Answers
Case title: Oswaal Books And Learnings Non-public Restricted v. The Registrar Of Commerce Marks
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 672
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has held that slogans, notably these that are descriptive or generally used phrases, face a considerably excessive threshold for registration of trademark— until they’ve acquired a secondary that means.
Justice Mini Pushkarna held thus whereas denying aid to Oswaal Books, which publishes books for CBSE, ISC, ICSE Karnataka Board, JEE – Mains & Superior, NEET, CAT and CLAT, in its attraction towards rejection of Commerce Mark Utility for “ONE FOR ALL” mark.
Case title: Vikram Yadav v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 673
Citing Kautilya’s Arthshastra which makes references to the factor of reformatory coverage of sentencing, the Delhi Excessive Courtroom directed the federal government to think about afresh the appliance for untimely launch of a life convict who had jumped parole.
Justice Girish Kathpali additionally made reference to the Vth pillar edict of Delhi Topra which refers to an announcement of the emperor Asoka that he had let off prisoners 25 instances throughout a span of 26 years.
Case Title: Shabir Ahmad Shah v NIA
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 674
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom dismissed an attraction moved by Kashmiri Separatist Chief Shabir Ahmed Shah difficult an NIA court docket’s order denying bail in an alleged case of terror funding.
NIA has alleged that varied accused individuals conspired for elevating and amassing funds for inflicting disruption within the Kashmir valley and to wage battle towards the federal government of India. Shah was arrested in June 2019 and he was arrayed as an accused within the second supplementary chargesheet filed by NIA on October 04, 2019.
The allegations towards him are that he performed a key position in constructing a separatist motion in Jammu and Kashmir, paying tribute to household of slain terrorists, receiving cash by means of hawala transactions and elevating funds by means of LOC commerce used to “fule subversive and militant actions.”
Case title: Vikram Yadav v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 675
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom took exception to the follow of members of Sentence Overview Board (SRB), appointed of their official capability, not personally attending SRB conferences and slightly sending their representatives.
Justice Girish Kathpali was coping with the case of a life convict, whose successive functions for untimely launch had been rejected by the SRB
Case title: RSPL Well being Pvt. Ltd. v. Solar Pharma Laboratories Restricted & Anr
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 676
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has rejected an attraction most popular by RSPL Well being Non-public Restricted, alleging that Solar Pharma had adopted a trademark for its medicinal merchandise, which is deceptively just like RSPL’s menstrual product line.
Rejecting the attraction towards denial of interim injunction by a single choose, the division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur noticed,
“there is no such thing as a dispute that the appellant is utilizing its Topic Mark for items like sanitary napkins, sanitary towels, pads and so on., whereas the respondents are utilizing their Impugned Mark for medication claimed to be giving aid towards constipation. The 2 items are neither allied nor cognate…the character of products, their commerce channel, their goal, and the meant shoppers are distinct, and there’s no chance of confusion being brought on by way of the marks for such items.”
Case title: Reliance Eminent Buying and selling And Industrial Non-public Restricted v. DDA
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 677
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom refused to move a abstract judgment in a swimsuit moved by Reliance Eminent Buying and selling And Industrial Non-public Restricted towards DDA, searching for a cash decree of ₹4,59,73,61,098/- together with pendente lite and future curiosity over an public sale property.
Justice Vikas Mahajan noticed that since land acquisition proceedings qua the mentioned property had been declared ‘lapsed’ by a judicial order, the corporate must have first proven that the rightful proprietor is already in possession of the property, to assert refund of consideration quantity paid by it.
Case title: State Of Madhya Pradesh v. KM Shukla & Anr.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 678
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom expressed shock on the conduct of Madhya Pradesh authorities in “victimising” a deceased IAS cadre officer by withholding his retiral advantages of just about 7 years.
A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar noticed that the officer was first victimized again within the 12 months 2000, when he was misallocated Chhattisgarh cadre upon reorganization of MP.
Case Title: M/S. Jaiprakash Hyundai Consortium v. M/S. SJVN Restricted
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 679
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia has held that the suggestions of the Dispute Overview Board (DRB) rendered beneath a contract represent an arbitral award which is enforceable as a decree beneath Part 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court docket additional held that the limitation for enforcement begins from the date of the award, not from the date of the judgment declaring it as an ‘award’.
Case title: Newgen IT Applied sciences Restricted v. Newgen Software program Applied sciences Restricted
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 680
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has made it clear that an entity can not search to put aside an interim injunction handed towards it in a trademark infringement swimsuit, merely as a result of its enterprise or IPO launch is jeopardized resulting from such injunction.
Case Title: HINDUSTAN HYDRAULICS PVT. LTD versus UNION OF INDIA
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 681
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom Bench of Justice Manoj Kunar Ohri has held that the petitioner can not benefit from obvious inconsequential errors and fumbles to problem the award. Inconsequential errors within the award can’t be a floor to problem in any other case even handed and reasoned award.
Case title: Manoj Noticed v. Ramneek Sabarwal & Anr.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 682
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has reiterated {that a} pedestrian in an accident can’t be held answerable for contributory negligence merely as a result of he was crossing the highway from a spot apart from the Zebra crossing.
In doing so, Justice Amit Mahajan relied on Gaytri Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2024) the place a coordinate bench held that “even when there was no Zebra Crossing, there may be no presumption of negligence on the a part of the pedestrian…The motive force of the automobile has to recognise the primary proper of the pedestrian and to keep away from any one who could also be crossing the highway.”
Case Title: INDRAPRASTHA GAS LIMITED versus M/S CHINTAMANI FOOD AND SNACKS
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 683
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that contentions concerning the applicability and relevance of an arbitration settlement are to be handled by the arbitrator and can’t be gone into on the stage of part 11 petition. As soon as the existence of arbitration settlement will not be disputed, any dispute associated to the applicability of the settlement must be dealt by the arbitrator.
Case title: Shakila v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 684
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has made it clear that siblings, married or single or the youngsters of such siblings, will not be ipso facto disentitled from claiming compensation beneath the Delhi Victims Compensation Scheme, 2018 (DVCS).
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that although the definition of “Dependent” beneath Clause 2(b) of the DVCS doesn’t embody “siblings” nevertheless, given the inclusive terminology employed within the definition, non-inclusion of the time period “sibling”, can not ipso facto exclude them from the advantages of the Scheme.
Case title: NKJ v. State NCT of Delhi
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 685
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has refused to grant bail to a person booked for compelling and swapping his spouse together with his mates for sexual actions.
Stating that the case doesn’t mirror “stereotyped matrimonial dispute allegations”, Justice Girish Kathpalia denied the aid in a 2024 FIR lodged beneath Sections 498A (Cruelty), 406 (Felony Breach of Belief), 376 (Rape), 328 (Inflicting damage by stupefying),354A (sexual harassment) and 376D (Gang rape) and beneath Part 6 POCSO Act.
Case title: Lovee Narula v. ED
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 686
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom granted interim bail to an accused beneath the Prevention of Cash Laundering Act 2002 to take care of his critically in poor health mom and to make vital preparations for her continued medical therapy.
Although the Enforcement Directorate submitted that the bottom of sickness of a member of the family of the accused will not be obtainable beneath Part 45 of PMLA, Justice Tejas Karia granted the aid on humanitarian grounds.
Case title: Barun Bhanot v. M/S Annie Impexpo Advertising and marketing Pvt Ltd & Anr
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 687
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has made it clear that the authorized discover despatched to a cheque drawer over dishonor of the instrument, should particularly demand the fee of ‘cheque quantity’.
Within the absence of such demand, the preconditions to institute proceedings beneath Part 138 of the Negotiable Devices Act 1881 don’t stand fulfilled.
Case Title: R. SANTOSH versus ONE97 COMMUNICATIONS LTD
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 688
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom bench of Justices Shalinder Kaur and Navin Chawla has held that after the proper to file a written assertion is closed, an utility beneath Part 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act searching for reference to arbitration will not be maintainable.
Case title: Common Sompo Normal Insurance coverage Firm Ltd v. Dinesh Kumar Singh & Ors.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 689
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has held that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal should deduct the revenue tax and different statutory obligations from the revenue of the deceased, for figuring out the compensation payable to the kin.
Justice Amit Mahajan relied on Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Company and Anr.: (2009) the place the Sypreme Courtroom held that for calculating compensation, the revenue of the sufferer much less the revenue tax needs to be handled because the precise revenue.
Case title: Vineet Gupta v. Union of India
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 690
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom permitted two individuals, allegedly concerned in Rs.1626.74 crore financial institution fraud, to go to their kids within the USA.
In doing so, Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar not solely cited the elemental proper to journey beneath Article 21 of the Structure but additionally famous that the LOC towards them stood suspended.
Furthermore, although the Supreme Courtroom had directed the Punjab & Haryana Excessive Courtroom to rethink its order setting apart the declaration of Fraud, the HC order was not stayed and as such, the declaration of fraud stays put aside.
Case title: M/S Greatest Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. M/S R.D. Gross sales
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 691
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom granted aid to an entity being prosecuted beneath Part 138 of the Negotiable Devices Act 1881, for dishonor of a cheque issued by it— resulting from subsequent freezing of its checking account.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja noticed that beneath Part 138 of the NI Act, an offence is dedicated when a cheque is returned unpaid resulting from inadequate funds within the account “maintained by the drawer”.
Case Title: Oil and Pure Gasoline Company Ltd. v. JSIW Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 692
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia has held that when the language of the contract is apparent, clear and unambiguous, recourse to inside aids of interpretation or extraneous supplies akin to negotiations and correspondence is impermissible. “Ignoring an express clause of the contract or performing opposite to the phrases of the contract quantities to patent illegality.”, the court docket held.
Case Title: BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LIMITED versus SG ENTERPRISES & ORS.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 693
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom bench of Justice Jyoti Singh has held that the clause in query certainly contemplates the appointment of an Arbitrator by mutual consent; nevertheless, within the occasion of failure, it vests the ability of appointing a Sole Arbitrator with the Managing Director of Respondent No. 1.
It additional held that the Firm performing by means of its Managing Director could have curiosity within the final result of the dispute and due to this fact, appointment of Sole Arbitrator shall be immediately hit by the regulation laid down by the Supreme Courtroom. Celebration autonomy as additionally impartiality and independence of the Arbitrator appointed to adjudicate inter se disputes between the events are the foundational pillars of arbitration.
Case title: M/S Lala Shivnath Rai Sumerchand Confectioner Non-public Restricted v. Extra Commissioner, Cgst Delhi-West, New Delhi
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 694
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has noticed that demand raised towards an assessee qua reversal of availed Enter Tax Credit score (ITC) and qua utilisation of ITC prima facie constitutes double demand.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta thus granted liberty to the Petitioner-assessee to method the Appellate Authority towards such demand, and waived predeposit qua demand of ineligible ITC.
Case Title: Union of India v. M/s Rajiv Aggarwal (Engineers and Contractors)
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 695
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta has held that mere motion of file and alter in counsel resulting from administrative points doesn’t represent “ample trigger” to condone inordinate delay in submitting an attraction beneath Part 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court docket reiterated that for appeals beneath Part 37 which can be ruled by Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act or Part 13(1-A) of the Industrial Courts Act, a delay past 90 days, 30 days or 60 days, respectively, is to be condoned by means of exception and never by means of rule.
Case Title: LATA YADAV versus SHIVAKRITI AGRO PVT. LTD & ORS.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 696
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom bench of Justice Amit Mahajan has held that the mere reference to sure belongings in a provisional attachment order doesn’t, by itself, oust the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. Equally, the pendency of parallel investigations by the CBI or ED into allegations of fraud doesn’t bar the arbitrator from adjudicating the dispute. Arbitration proceedings can proceed independently, even when some facets of the subject material are beneath prison investigation.
Case title: Principal Chief Commissioner Of Earnings Tax-1 v. A.H. Multisoft Pvt. Ltd.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 697
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom rejected the attraction most popular by the Earnings Tax Division towards an ITAT order permitting the valuation of a software program firm’s unquoted fairness shares by discounted money circulation [DCF] methodology.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia held that DCF methodology “is likely one of the strategies that may be adopted by the Assessee beneath Rule 11UA(2)(b) of the [Income Tax] Guidelines for figuring out the FMV of unquoted fairness shares in an organization during which public will not be considerably .”
Case title: Jasleeniqbal Sidhu & Ors. v. Union of India& Ors.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 698
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom got here to the rescue of an Australia-based couple, who had been precluded from taking their adopted son again to the nation for over 4 years, resulting from inaction of CARA (Central Adoption Useful resource Authority).
Justice Sachin Datta noticed that the Adoption Deed was executed in 2020 and thus directed the Authority to forthwith subject a NOC enabling the Petitioner-couple to take the kid with them.
Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of Phrases ‘Derogatory’ To Surf Excel From Ghadi Detergent’s Ads
Case Title: HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED v/s RSPL LIMITED
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 699
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom in an interim order has ordered removing of phrases that are “derogatory” to Surf Excel detergent from the ads issued by Ghadi detergent powder.
Trip choose Justice Prathiba M Singh noticed that although comparative promoting by itself could possibly be wholesome, remarks which can be derogatory and defamatory, wouldn’t be permissible.
Title: SH. RAJPAL NAURANG YADAV & ANR v. M/S. MURLI PROJECTS PVT. LTD & ANR
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 700
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom alowed Bollywood actor Rajpal Naurang Yadav to journey overseas to Melbourne, Australia between June 27 to July 5 for attending promotional occasions of the movie “Mera Kale Rang Da Yaar”.
Trip choose Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta permitted Yadav to journey overseas from June 27 to July 05, topic to him furnishing an FDR of Rs. 1 lakh which shall be deposited with the Courtroom’s Registry.
Title: SHAILENDRA BHATNAGAR v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 701
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has issued instructions for laying down a brand new sewer line throughout AIIMS premises to manage the waterlogging in Inexperienced Park Extension and surrounding areas within the nationwide capital.
A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora noticed that the brand new sewer line is required to be laid throughout AIIMS Residential advanced, contemplating the required extent of land and the overarching public curiosity concerned within the matter.
Case title: Dominos IP Holder LLC & Anr. v. M/S. Domnics Pizza & Ors.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 702
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has restrained fifteen entities from infringing the trademark of well-known pizza chain Domino’s or its erstwhile commerce title Dominick’s Pizza, through the use of deceptively related marks.
In doing so, Justice Saurabh Banerjee noticed that in disputes involving edible merchandise, the edge for establishing misleading similarity is decrease than that utilized in different instances.
Case title: Sanjay Kaul v. The Earnings Tax Officer Ward 24 (4), New Delhi & Ors.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 703
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has made it clear that the Earnings Tax Division can not subject reassessment discover to an assessee primarily based on basic data shared by its Investigation Wing, till the Assessing Officer kinds particular ‘motive to imagine’ escapement of revenue.
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Earnings Tax (Central)-2 v. M/S Okay.R. Pulp And Papers Ltd.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 704
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom rejected Income’s attraction towards deletion of additives made to the revenue of an assessee-company alleged to have evaded tax, observing that the AO had already scrutinised the id and creditworthiness of the shareholders and within the absence of any further materials coming to mild, reassessment motion couldn’t have been initiated.
Title: T.V. TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. GOOGLE LLC & ORS
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 705
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has ordered Google LLC to take down a “pretend” YouTube channel utilizing information clipping, movies and deepfake impersonations of Anjana Om Kashyap, anchor and Managing Editor (Particular Tasks) of Aaj Tak information channel.
Trip choose Justice Prathiba M Singh noticed that such pretend YouTube pages or pretend profiles being made utilizing the goodwill of Kashyap and the information channel, together with their, fame and character can be opposite to regulation.
Case title: Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v. Shri Ganesh Motor Physique Repairs & Ors.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 706
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom issued an ex-parte advert interim injunction restraining a bus producer and two inter-city bus service suppliers, from infringing the ‘grille slash’ trademark of Sweden-based famend Volvo buses.
Justice Amit Bansal famous that the Defendants intentionally and dishonestly created buses bearing lookalike of Volvo’s trademark to encash upon the corporate’s goodwill.
Case title: Varun Tyagi v. Daffodil Software program Non-public Restricted
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 707
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom held that phrases of an employment contract that imposes a restriction on proper of the worker to get employed post-termination of the contract are ‘void’, for opposite to Part 27 of the Indian Contract Act.
Justice Tejas Karia held that after termination of employment, the non-compete clause may be invoked solely to guard the confidential and proprietary data of the employer or to restrain the worker from soliciting the purchasers of the employer.
Case title: Dazn DAZN Restricted v. Buffsports. Me & Ors.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 708
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has granted Dynamic+ injunction in favour of British over-the-top sports activities streaming and leisure platform Dazn Restricted, restraining rogue web sites from infringing its unique rights to air FIFA Membership World Cup 2025, being performed in america from June 14 to July 13, 2025.
A Dynamic+ injunction is granted not solely in respect of content material/work current on the time of submitting of swimsuit, but additionally future works of the plaintiffs during which their copyright exists and is violated by rogue web sites.
Title: BHAVREEN KANDHARI v. SHRI C. D. SINGH AND ORS.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 709
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom issued varied instructions to make sure that the usual working process (SOP) on felling or transplantation of timber within the nationwide capital be “carried out in an efficient method to attain the specified goal”.
Issuing a slew of instructions Justice Jasmeet Singh ordered that the DCF or Tree Officer shall be concerned on the very stage of planning of a mission which entails felling or transplantation of timber.
Case title:Suraj Kanojia v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 710
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has made it clear that an accused beneath the Arms Act, 1959 can not search default bail beneath Part 187(3) of the Bhartiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 merely on the bottom that the chargesheet filed towards him by way of Part 193(3) BNSS, lacks the sanction to prosecute.
Sanction beneath Part 39 of the Arms Act is obligatory to prosecute an individual for offences beneath Sections 25/ 27.
Case title: Sandeep Garg v. Gross sales Tax Officer Class Ii Avato Ward 66 Zone 4 Delhi
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 711
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has made it clear that if an assessee fails to answer a present trigger discover duly communicated to it on the GST portal, the Division can’t be blamed for passing an order elevating demand, with out listening to the assessee.
Delhi High Court Directs Meta To Pull Down Fake Instagram Accounts Posting Obscene Photos Of Minor
Case title: Minor Sufferer By means of Neetu Chadha v. Meta Platforms Inc & Ors.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 712
Coming to the rescue of a 15-year-old minor lady, the Delhi Excessive Courtroom directed Meta, which owns social media platform Instagram, to take motion towards pretend accounts posting her obscene photographs.
Justice Manoj Jain additional directed the platform to reveal particulars of the individuals behind the pretend accounts.
Case title: SS Enterprises Vs Workplace of the Commissioner, Central Tax Delhi West & Anr.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 713
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has held that the supply of most three adjournments that may be granted to a taxpayer through the course of adjudication proceedings, can’t be construed to imply that the taxpayer have to be given a minimal of three hearings.
Delhi High Court Grants 90 Days Interim Bail To Woman Booked Under POCSO Act To Care For Her Newborn
Case title: Kushi v. State NCT of Delhi
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 714
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has ordered an interim launch of a girl, languishing in jail for about six months in reference to a POCSO case, to allow her to maintain her new born baby.
The girl was arrested on December 12 final 12 months. She was anticipating on the time and delivered a boy baby in custody, on Could 12.
In the meantime, chargesheet got here to be filed towards her alleging offences beneath Sections 363/366/370/376/354A IPC, Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act and Part 81 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
Case Title: DIN DAYAL AGRAWAL HUF versus CAPRISO FINANCE LTD
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 715
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja has held that if a correct utility is filed beneath Part 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Courtroom should refer the events to arbitration and should reject the plaint beneath Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Process Code, 1908 (CPC) as barred by regulation. Nevertheless, if no such utility is filed and no prayer is made for reference to arbitration, the mere existence of an arbitration clause will not be ample to reject the plaint beneath Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Case Title: M/s MAHAVIR PRASAD GUPTA AND SONS versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 716
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom bench of Justice Tejas Karia and Justice Vibhu Bakhru has held {that a} get together that unilaterally appoints an arbitrator will not be prohibited from difficult the award on the bottom that it violates Part 12(5) learn with the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration Act. Mere train of the ability to make such an appointment doesn’t represent an categorical written waiver as required beneath the proviso to Part 12(5) of the Arbitration Act.
Case title: Pret Examine by Janak Fashions Non-public Restricted Vs Assistant Commissioner, CGST
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 717
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has refused to intrude with a requirement order handed by the GST Division with out listening to the assessee, after noting that the assessee itself was not diligent in responding to the present trigger discover or attending the private listening to regardless of discover.
Title: JIOSTAR INDIA PVT. LTD. FORMERLY KNOWN AS STAR INDIA PVT. LTD v. HTTPS//CRICLK.COM & ORS
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 718
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has handed a dynamic+ injunction in favour of JioStar India Non-public Restricted and restrained the unlawful and unauthorised streaming of India Tour of England 2025.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee handed the dynamic+ injunction order to guard the copyrighted works of JioStar, as quickly as they’re infringed or created.
Title: GAMESKRAFT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR v. JOHN DOE AND ORS
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 719
Ruling in favour of Gameskraft Applied sciences, the Delhi Excessive Courtroom has restrained varied rogue web sites, cell functions and area entities from utilizing the registered logos “Playship”, “Plego”, “Ludo Choose”, “Pocket 52”, “Rummy”, “Rummy Tradition”, “Gameskraft” and “Tradition of Champions.”
Justice Amit Bansal additional restrained the defendant entities from infringing on the copyright vested with Gameskraft within the distinctive content material 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 beneath the names “Rummy Tradition”, “Gamezy Poker”, “Playship Rummy”, “Rummy Prime” and “Pocket52”.
