June 16 To June 22, 2025
Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 682 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 695
NOMINAL INDEX
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
Case title: Manoj Saw v. Ramneek Sabarwal & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 682
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a pedestrian in an accident cannot be held responsible for contributory negligence merely because he was crossing the road from a place other than the Zebra crossing.
In doing so, Justice Amit Mahajan relied on Gaytri Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2024) where a coordinate bench held that “even if there was no Zebra Crossing, there can be no presumption of negligence on the part of the pedestrian…The driver of the vehicle has to recognise the first right of the pedestrian and to avoid any person who may be crossing the road.”
Case Title: INDRAPRASTHA GAS LIMITED versus M/S CHINTAMANI FOOD AND SNACKS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 683
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that contentions regarding the applicability and relevance of an arbitration agreement are to be dealt with by the arbitrator and cannot be gone into at the stage of section 11 petition. Once the existence of arbitration agreement is not disputed, any dispute related to the applicability of the agreement has to be dealt by the arbitrator.
Case title: Shakila v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 684
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that siblings, married or unmarried or the children of such siblings, are not ipso facto disentitled from claiming compensation under the Delhi Victims Compensation Scheme, 2018 (DVCS).
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that though the definition of “Dependent” under Clause 2(b) of the DVCS does not include “siblings” however, given the inclusive terminology employed in the definition, non-inclusion of the term “sibling”, cannot ipso facto exclude them from the benefits of the Scheme.
Case title: NKJ v. State NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 685
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant bail to a man booked for compelling and swapping his wife with his friends for sexual activities.
Stating that the case does not reflect “stereotyped matrimonial dispute allegations”, Justice Girish Kathpalia denied the relief in a 2024 FIR lodged under Sections 498A (Cruelty), 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust), 376 (Rape), 328 (Causing hurt by stupefying),354A (sexual harassment) and 376D (Gang rape) and under Section 6 POCSO Act.
Case title: Lovee Narula v. ED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 686
The Delhi High Court granted interim bail to an accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 to attend to his critically ill mother and to make necessary arrangements for her continued medical treatment.
Though the Enforcement Directorate submitted that the ground of illness of a family member of the accused is not available under Section 45 of PMLA, Justice Tejas Karia granted the relief on humanitarian grounds.
Case title: Barun Bhanot v. M/S Annie Impexpo Marketing Pvt Ltd & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 687
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the legal notice sent to a cheque drawer over dishonor of the instrument, must specifically demand the payment of ‘cheque amount’.
In the absence of such demand, the preconditions to institute proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 do not stand fulfilled.
Case Title: R. SANTOSH versus ONE97 COMMUNICATIONS LTD
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 688
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Shalinder Kaur and Navin Chawla has held that once the right to file a written statement is closed, an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking reference to arbitration is not maintainable.
Case title: Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd v. Dinesh Kumar Singh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 689
The Delhi High Court has held that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal must deduct the income tax and other statutory obligations from the income of the deceased, for determining the compensation payable to the kin.
Justice Amit Mahajan relied on Sarla Verma and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.: (2009) where the Sypreme Court held that for calculating compensation, the income of the victim less the income tax should be treated as the actual income.
Case title: Vineet Gupta v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 690
The Delhi High Court permitted two persons, allegedly involved in Rs.1626.74 crore bank fraud, to visit their children in the USA.
In doing so, Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar not only cited the fundamental right to travel under Article 21 of the Constitution but also noted that the LOC against them stood suspended.
Moreover, though the Supreme Court had directed the Punjab & Haryana High Court to reconsider its order setting aside the declaration of Fraud, the HC order was not stayed and as such, the declaration of fraud remains set aside.
Case title: M/S Best Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. M/S R.D. Sales
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 691
The Delhi High Court granted relief to an entity being prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, for dishonor of a cheque issued by it— due to subsequent freezing of its bank account.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed that under Section 138 of the NI Act, an offence is committed when a cheque is returned unpaid due to insufficient funds in the account “maintained by the drawer”.
Case Title: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. JSIW Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 692
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia has held that when the language of the contract is plain, clear and unambiguous, recourse to internal aids of interpretation or extraneous materials such as negotiations and correspondence is impermissible. “Ignoring an explicit clause of the contract or acting contrary to the terms of the contract amounts to patent illegality.”, the court held.
Case Title: BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LIMITED versus SG ENTERPRISES & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 693
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jyoti Singh has held that the clause in question indeed contemplates the appointment of an Arbitrator by mutual consent; however, in the event of failure, it vests the power of appointing a Sole Arbitrator with the Managing Director of Respondent No. 1.
It further held that the Company acting through its Managing Director will have interest in the outcome of the dispute and therefore, appointment of Sole Arbitrator will be directly hit by the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Party autonomy as also impartiality and independence of the Arbitrator appointed to adjudicate inter se disputes between the parties are the foundational pillars of arbitration.
Case title: M/S Lala Shivnath Rai Sumerchand Confectioner Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner, Cgst Delhi-West, New Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 694
The Delhi High Court has observed that demand raised against an assessee qua reversal of availed Input Tax Credit (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 approach the Appellate Authority against such demand, and waived predeposit qua demand of ineligible ITC.
Case Title: Union of India v. M/s Rajiv Aggarwal (Engineers and Contractors)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 695
The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta has held that mere movement of file and change in counsel due to administrative issues does not constitute “sufficient cause” to condone inordinate delay in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court reiterated that for appeals under Section 37 that are governed by Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act or Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, a delay beyond 90 days, 30 days or 60 days, respectively, is to be condoned by way of exception and not by way of rule.
