Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 95 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 121NOMINAL INDEXParvinder Singh v CBI and other cases 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 95 M/S. Akn Developers Private Limited Versus M/S. Premsons Southend 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 96 SUBHAN ALI v. THE STATE NCT OF DELH I AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 97 HEENA & ORS v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 98 Ashwani Mudgal v. UOI &...
Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 95 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 121
NOMINAL INDEX
Parvinder Singh v CBI and other cases 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 95
M/S. Akn Developers Private Limited Versus M/S. Premsons Southend 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 96
SUBHAN ALI v. THE STATE NCT OF DELH I AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 97
HEENA & ORS v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 98
Ashwani Mudgal v. UOI & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 99
Abhinav Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 52 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 100
ABDUL RAB v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 101
HALA KAMEL ZABAL versus ARYA TRADING LTD. & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 102
Rangoli International Pvt Ltd & Ors. vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 103
SANJEEV GUPTA v. REGISTRAR GENERAL DELHI HIGH COURT 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 104
Deepak Chaudhary vs. State & Anr and Connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 105
KIRAN SINGH v. NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 106
Kalu Ram Saini versus Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 107
Dhrone Diwan & Ors v. ECI & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 108
Naresh Balyan v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 109
SYED AHMAD SHAKEEL v. CENTRAL JAIL NO. 8, TIHAR JAIL & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 110
HIMANSHU SINGLA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 111
SULEMAN SAMAD v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 112
Shivani Madan v. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-01 & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 113
Anjali Pandey v. Union Of India And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 114
Lovee Narula vs.Directorate Of Enforcement 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 115
BACHITTAR SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 116
NBCC (INDIA) LIMITED v. AMAN LEKHI & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 117
Saregama India Limited vs. Vels Film International Limited & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 118
Seema Jamwal vs. Union of India and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 119
SHARJEEL IMAM v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matter 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 120
Sandeep Gupta v. Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 121
Case title: Parvinder Singh v CBI and other cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 95
The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to four co-owners of basement of a coaching centre in city's Old Rajinder Nagar area– Rau's IAS, where three civil services aspirants had died after drowning in July last year.
Justice Sanjeev Narula granted bail to Parvinder Singh, Tajinder Singh, Harvinder Singh and Sarbjit Singh and asked them to deposit Rs. 5 lakh with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority towards the welfare of the families of the deceased.
This was after the Court was informed that s directed by the Supreme Court, the accused were willing to make a voluntarily donation of Rs. 5 lakh, in aggregate, in the corpus.
Case Title: M/S. Akn Developers Private Limited Versus M/S. Premsons Southend
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 96
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Jain has held that while any counter-claim may relate to a different cause of action, it can still stem from a primary dispute between the parties. Thus, the court held that the governing factor would be to see whether it has any connection with the original dispute or is isolated and separable.
For all purposes, the court observed that the counter-claim in this case was, directly or indirectly, related to the primary dispute between the parties and the claim in question.
Title: SUBHAN ALI v. THE STATE NCT OF DELH I AND ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 97
The Delhi High Court has observed that sexual assault committed against minors by those who occupy positions of trust or confidence magnify the betrayal and leave permanent psychological scars in the lives of the victims.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma denied bail to a man in a POCSO case accusing him of sexually assaulting a minor girl who called him “chachu”. The man was the father of the minor's friend and was her neighbour.
Title: HEENA & ORS v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 98
The Delhi High Court has ordered that Postmortem Sperm Retrieval (PMSR) procedure be conducted on a man who committed suicide in the national capital on January 22.
Justice Sachin Datta was dealing with a plea moved by the parents and sister of the deceased seeking that his semen be preserved through PMSR, a process which allows retrieval of viable sperm from a deceased individual for potential future use in Assisted Reproductive Therapy (ART).
Title: Ashwani Mudgal v. UOI & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 99
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking de-recognition of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) alleging that it violated a Supreme Court ruling mandating publishing of criminal antecedents by candidates and political parties.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela rejected the plea moved by one Ashwani Mudgal who contended that there was a violation of the judgment as the AAP and its candidates failed to disclose the criminal antecedents i.e. being accused in the alleged liquor scam.
Case title: Abhinav Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 52
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 100
The Delhi High Court has held that if the Revenue issues a reassessment notice to an assessee under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without following due procedure, it cannot later issue fresh reassessment notice beyond the prescribed period, claiming that time spent on earlier litigation is to be excluded for the purposes of computing limitation.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “Notice issued under Section 148 of the Act in the earlier round was set aside on the ground that the AO had not followed the mandatory requirement of seeking an approval from the competent authority…The fact that the Revenue had not taken the steps in accordance with law cannot possibly be construed as a factor in favour of the Revenue for extending the limitation.”
Title: ABDUL RAB v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 101
The Delhi High Court has held that mere contact with co-accused person found in possession of a contraband cannot be treated to be corroborative material in absence of substantive material found against such an accused.
Justice Amit Mahajan said that when no recovery is affected from an accused, merely because such an accused was allegedly in touch with the co-accused persons, the bar on grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not be attracted.
Case Title: HALA KAMEL ZABAL versus ARYA TRADING LTD. & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 102
The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that the appointment of the Arbitrator in an International Commercial Arbitration (“ICA”) by the Chief Justice of the High Court, does not vitiate the impugned award.
The bench held that the objection to the appointment of the arbitrator should have been raised during the arbitration proceedings. Since the parties failed to do so, they were deemed to have waived their right to object.
Case title: Rangoli International Pvt Ltd & Ors. vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 103
In a plea for quashing an FIR against a company accused of allegedly committing fraudulent transactions, the Delhi High Court observed that quashing of a fraud classification of a bank account does not in itself vitiate the First Information Report (FIR) lodged on the basis of such classification if the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offence.
Justice Sanjeev Narula stated, “The procedural irregularities in the fraud classification process do not ipso facto vitiate the criminal investigation unless it is shown that the FIR is malicious or lacks a legal foundation altogether. There may be an overlap in the two issues, however, both are yet separate and distinct for the purpose of the investigation in the impugned FIR/RC.
Delhi High Court Closes PIL Seeking Time Bound Scrutiny, Curing Defects Of Fresh Matters For Listing
Title: SANJEEV GUPTA v. REGISTRAR GENERAL DELHI HIGH COURT
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 104
The Delhi High Court has closed a public interest litigation seeking a time bound scrutiny and raising of defects of fresh matters for listing before the Court.
A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said that the issues, if found to be relevant, would be taken up on the administrative side of this Court.
“We do not find it apposite to issue any notice on the judicial side in the present PIL whereby the petitioner seeks to draw attention to certain purported deficiencies and lacunae in the filing/raising of defects, clearing of such defects and the listing of matters thereafter before the Court,” the Bench said.
Case title: Deepak Chaudhary vs. State & Anr and Connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 105
While quashing a First Information Report (FIR) under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('PoA Act'), the Delhi High Court remarked that such welfare legislations should not be misused for ulterior motives and that the court has to ensure that false complaints are not allowed to continue.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma commented, “The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has been enacted with the purpose of safeguarding vulnerable sections of society from humiliation and harassment and ensuring that perpetrators of such offences are brought to book and subjected to harsh punishment.
Human Rights Commissions Not 'Toothless Tigers', Their Recommendations Are Binding: Delhi High Court
Title: KIRAN SINGH v. NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 106
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the recommendations of the State or National Human Rights Commissions are binding in nature and the purpose of enactment of the Human Rights Act would be nullified if they are held to be mere recommendatory bodies.
A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma said that holding that Human Rights Commissions can only make recommendations which are not binding would render them completely toothless and nullify the object of India ratifying the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Two Candidates Secure Same Marks, Age Determines Selection: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Kalu Ram Saini versus Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 107
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur reiterated that in cases where two candidates secure the same marks, age should determine the selection of such candidates. The Bench allowed a Writ Petition wherein the Petitioner sought appointment based on having secured the same marks as that of another candidate who was appointed to the post.
Title: Dhrone Diwan & Ors v. ECI & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 108
The Delhi High Court has directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to ensure that political parties and their candidates do not use any vilifying material during elections which vitiates the atmosphere.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela disposed of a PIL alleging that the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) was making “spam calls” on a daily basis to the public to publicise “freebies” and to disseminate hatred, biases and vilifying material in the wake of upcoming Assembly polls.
Delhi High Court Refuses Custody Parole To AAP MLA Naresh Balyan Booked In MCOCA Case
Case Title: Naresh Balyan v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 109
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant custody parole to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Naresh Balyan who has been booked in a case registered under the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, related to an alleged organised crime.
Balyan had sought custody parole on the ground that his wife was contesting the upcoming Delhi Legislative Assembly elections without any prior experience in politics.
Title: SYED AHMAD SHAKEEL v. CENTRAL JAIL NO. 8, TIHAR JAIL & ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 110
The Delhi High Court has observed that prima facie, denial of telephonic calls to prisoners involved in terrorist activities and offences under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA) and Public Safety Act is not arbitrary.
“Prima facie, the denial of regular telephonic and electronic communication to a prisoner who is involved in terrorist activities and offences such as under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime l Act and Public Safety Act without adequate safeguards, cannot be considered as arbitrary or unreasonable,” a division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said.
Title: HIMANSHU SINGLA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 111
The Delhi High Court has observed that while moral views of a judge has no role to play in adjudication of cases but Courts must consider the social background in which the offences take place.
“While the moral views of the judge or a particular segment of society should have no role in such adjudication, courts must consider the social background and circumstances in which incidents or offenses take place,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
The Court dismissed a plea moved by an accused challenging the trial court order framing charges against him in a rape case. The complainant-woman alleged that accused had established sexual relations with her on multiple occasions on false pretext of marriage.
Title: SULEMAN SAMAD v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 112
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the trial courts must promptly pass orders and must not mechanically adjourn bail applications moved in cases covered by Section 479 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, where the undertrial prisoners have already undergone one half of the maximum imprisonment.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that in case a judge proceeds on leave, it must be brought to the notice of the concerned Link Judge that such cases are to be taken up on priority, either on the next date or at the shortest possible date.
Case title: Smt. Shivani Madan v. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-01 & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 113
The Delhi High Court has held that where a property is held jointly but only one co-owner reaps the benefit of income from such property, the other co-owner cannot be held liable to pay tax merely by virtue of co-ownership.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, “the [Income Tax] Act fails to raise any presumption in law, of income necessarily arising or being liable to be assessed in the hands of an individual merely because it be a signatory to an instrument of conveyance. In our considered opinion, the question of taxability would necessarily have to be answered bearing in mind the individual who had in fact obtained benefits from the property.”
Case title: Anjali Pandey v. Union Of India And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 114
The Delhi High Court has held that foreign nationals coming to India need not declare to the Customs Department their gold jewellery which they are carrying for bonafide personal use.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma further held that the Customs Department must make a distinction between 'jewellery' and 'personal jewellery', while seizing items for violation of the Baggage Rules, 2016 which are framed under the Customs Act, 1962.
Case title: Lovee Narula vs.Directorate Of Enforcement
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 115
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to an accused/applicant booked under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) for his alleged involvement in the illegal procurement of empty vials and raw materials of anti-cancer drugs.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh in his order said, "In the present case, the applicant has not been charged for some minor offence that has simple economic ramifications, rather he has been charged for supplying and selling of spurious life saving anti-cancer medicines and that he is part of an established crime syndicate. This factual position does not satisfy the consciousness of this Court and there are considerable reasons to believe that there is likelihood that the applicant might commit offence while on bail as the applicant does not have clean criminal antecedents. Thus, the said argument stands rejected".
Case Title: BACHITTAR SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 116
The Delhi High Court has directed the Secretary of Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to ensure that an appropriate mechanism is put in place to monitor the appearance of legal aid counsels in cases where they have been appointed in all the District Courts in the national capital.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that it must be ensured that legal aid counsels duly inform the Secretary of the concerned DLSA about their regular appearances in the cases assigned to them.
Dariya Khan Tomb's Protected Area To Be Treated As 1.25 Acres: Delhi High Court Clarifies
Title: NBCC (INDIA) LIMITED v. AMAN LEKHI & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 117
The Delhi High Court has clarified that the protected area of the Dariya Khan Tomb, situated in city's east Kidwai Nagar, would be treated as 1.25 acres.
A division bench comprising Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee was dealing with an appeal filed by NBCC (India) Limited challenging a single judge order rejecting its application seeking correction of a purported factual error in a ruling wherein was recorded that the Dariya Khan Tomb was located in an area of 14 acres.
Case title: Saregama India Limited vs. Vels Film International Limited & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 118
In a copyright infringement suit filed by Saregama India Limited against Vels Film International Limited concerning the song 'Iniya Pon Nilave', the Delhi High Court has ruled that Saregama is the owner of the song. However, the Court allowed Vels Film to use the song in its film 'Aghathiyaa', following Saregama's acceptance of a license fee of Rs.30 lakh from Vels Film.
Justice Mini Pushkarna further observed that the music composer of the original song Ilaiyaraja had no right to assign the right in the lyrics of the song to Vels as he is not its owner.
Case Name : Seema Jamwal vs. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 119
A division judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Navin Chawla & Justice Shalinder Kaur held that deceased employee entitled to extraordinary pension and ex-gratia compensation, if death was attributable to or aggravated by government service conditions, such as exposure to hostile work environments or extreme weather conditions.
Title: SHARJEEL IMAM v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 120
The Delhi High Court has said it is “premature” to examine the objections raised against “2020 Delhi” movie, which is based on 2020 North-East Delhi riots, noting that film's certification is pending consideration before the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
“Thus, at this stage, when the request for the requisite certification is still pending consideration by the CBFC, it is premature for this Court to examine the objections of the petitioners in respect of the Movie,” Justice Sachin Datta said.
Employer Cannot Indefinitely Withhold Voluntary Retirement Without Valid Grounds: Delhi HC
Title: Sandeep Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 121
A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur ruled that an employer cannot indefinitely withhold voluntary retirement under Rule 56(k) of the Fundamental Rules. The court held that pending vigilance clearance or mere potential inquiries are not valid grounds for withholding retirement. It further clarified that the employer must communicate any rejection before the notice period expires; else, it would amount to deemed acceptance.
