Delhi High Court Monthly Digest: January 2025 [Citations 1 - 118]

Bonanza Enterprises v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Customs & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 8

Aditya Kumar Mallick vs Union of India and Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 9

Mr. Pawan Gupta & Anr. vs. Miton Credentia Trusteeship Services Limited & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 10

Akhil Bhartiya Dharma Prasar Samiti v. UOI & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 11

FMI Limited vs. Midas Touch Metalloys Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 12

Rajeev Shukla vs. Gopal Krishna Shukla 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 13

Rajasthan Equestrian Association vs.Union Of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 14

Anahita Chaudhary Union Of India & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 15

SHWETA CHOWDHERY v. HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 16

MD HEYDAITULLAH v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 17

TEFCIL BREWERIES LIMITED v. ALFA LAVAL (INDIA) LIMITED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 18

ATS Township Pvt Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 1(1) Delhi & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 19

Abhishek Bansal v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 58(3), Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 21

Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India vs. Akshay Kumar Malhotra 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 22

Late Sh. Lal Chand Verma Through His Legal Heir v. Union Of India & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 23

Novartis Ag & Anr. vs. Natco Pharma Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 24

Amar Singh And Sons Tree Nuts LLP v. The Superintendent Of Customs, Epm, Import & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 25

Gautam Thadani v. Director Income Tax (Investigation) And Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 26

Sonansh Creations Pvt Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 27

ZAFAR ABBAS @ JAFFAR v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 28

Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 29

Babrey Singh versus Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 30

X v. Y 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 31

TAEKWONDO FEDERATION OF INDIA v. INDIAN OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION & ORS and other connected matter 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 32

ALEMLA JAMIR v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 33

X v. Y 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 34

Sonansh Creations Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 35

Tahir Hussain v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 36

Rashtravadi Adharsh Mahasangh v. ECI & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 37

Sanjeev Jain v. UOI & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 38

KULDEEP SINGH versus DIRECTOR GENERAL CRPF AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 39

NEERAJ SEHRAWAT @ NEERAJ BAWANIYA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 40

MACLEODS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 41

CENTER FOR RESEARCH PLANNING AND ACTION v. NATIONAL MEDICINAL PLANTS BOARD MINISTRY OF AYUSH GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 42

Ajit Kumar versus Union Of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 43

MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD v. MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISE FACILITATION COUNCIL AND OTHERS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 44

Rohit Kumar v. Income Tax Officer Ward 54 (1), Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 45

Central Electricity Regulatory Commission v. The Additional Director Directorate General Of Gst Intelligence (Dggi) & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 46

Rohit Kumar v. Income Tax Officer Ward 54 (1), Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 47

Aptec Advanced Protective Technologies AG vs. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 48

The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 49

Qamar Jahan v. Union Of India, Represented By Secretary, Ministry Of Finance & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 50

Divine Infracon Pvt Ltd v. Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax 3 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 51

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 9 v. M/S Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S North Delhi Power Limited) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 52

SHIKHAR DHAWAN v. DB DIXON BATTERY PRIVATE LIMITED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 53

Janta Party through its President v. Election Commission of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 54

BILAL ANSARI v. STATE 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 55

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. Delhi Vedanta Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 56

Rohit Kumar v. Income Tax Officer Ward 54 (1), Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 57

Grid Solutions OY (Ltd) v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 58

KULDEEP SINGH v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 59

VIKRAMJIT SINGH v. NCB 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 60

Kamal Envirotech Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Gst And Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 61

Commissioner Of Customs Air Chennai-Vii Commissionerate v. M/S. Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 62

KRBL LIMITED v. PRAVEEN KUMAR BUYYANI & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 63

Synergies Casting Ltd. vs. National Research Development Corporation & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 64

SOHAM BHATTACHARYA AND OTHERS v. THE FACULTY OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF DELHI THROUGH ITS DEAN AND ANOTHER 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 65

M/s Jaiprakash Associates Limited v. M/s NHPC Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 66

KBS Industries Ltd & Anr. v. The Customs Central Excise And Service Tax Settlement Commission Principal Bench New Delhi & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 67

Sanjay Kumar v. SEBI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 68

Ramesh Chander Vs Election Commission Of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 69

AIZAZ KILICHEVA @ AZIZA @ MAYA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 70

MANDIR PUJARI SH ABHIMANYU SHARMA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 71

Roppen Transportation Services Private Limited Vs.Nipun Gupta & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 72

Kuldeep Singh Sengar v. CBI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 73

SUDHIR KUMAR v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 74

JOGINDER SINGH @ JOGINDER RANA v. NIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 75

RK Yadav Through Director Of Income Tax Inv-II And Ors v. Dinesh Kumar 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 76

REKHA KAKKAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 77

Broad Peak Investment Holdings Ltd. And Anr vs. Broad Peak Capital Advisors LLP And Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 78

ZAKIR HUSSAIN v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 79

MUMTIYAJ ALI v. SDM KARAWAL NAGAR & ANR and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 80

DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION v. RAMJAS SCHOOL 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 81

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Usha Gupta & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 82

WTC NOIDA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PVT. LTD V. MS. ARTI KHATTAR & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 83

Vijay Enterprises & Anr v. The Principal Commissioner Of Customs & Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 84

M/S Om Gems And Jewellery v. Deputy Commissioner Of Customs (Import) Air Cargo Complex Nscbi Airport & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 85

JYOTI ALIAS KITTU v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 86

DR. PUSHPALATA AND ANR v. RAM DAS HUF & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 87

TIRUPATI NARASHIMA MURARI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 88

Dr. S.R. Sharan v. Election Commission of India & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 90

VIJENDER GUPTA & ORS v. GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 91

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1, New Delhi v. DCM Shriram Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 92

SAIF ALI @ SOHAN v. THE STATE GNCT OF DELHI and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 93

KGF COTTONS PVT LTD v. HALDIRAM SNACKS PVT LTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 94

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

Customs Dept Should Serve Notices By Email In Addition To Post, Will Prevent Delay And Non-Appearances: Delhi High Court

Case title: Bonanza Enterprises v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Customs & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 8

The Delhi High Court recently called upon the Customs Department to make use of Section 153(c) of the Customs Act, 1962 which empowers it to serve notices through email.

A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Amit Sharma said such an approach will prevent delay and non-appearances, leading to expeditious disposal of matters.

Delhi High Court Rejects Plea Challenging CAT 2024 Results

Title: Aditya Kumar Mallick vs Union of India and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 9

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the results of Common Admission Test (CAT) 2024 for admissions in top management institutes.

Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju rejected the plea moved by a candidate, Aditya Kumar Mallick, who was aggrieved with an incorrect answer to Question No. 18 from Verbal Ability and Reading Comprehension Portion, thereby affecting the exam results.

No Bar To Avail Remedy U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act Even Against Non-Parties To Subject Matter Of Dispute: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Mr. Pawan Gupta & Anr. vs. Miton Credentia Trusteeship Services Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 10

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has held that the Plaintiffs are not barred from availing the remedy under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 even against individual(s)/entities who are not party to the Family Settlement out of which the dispute arose.

The application for ad interim injunction was held to be not maintainable due to pending Arbitration proceedings in regard to the Family Settlement and a pending Application under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.

'Policy Matter': Delhi High Court Refuses To Order 'Rehabilitation Package' For Pakistan Migrants Under CAA

Title: Akhil Bhartiya Dharma Prasar Samiti v. UOI & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 11

The Delhi High Court has refused to pass directions to the Central Government on a petition seeking “comprehensive rehabilitation package” for Pakistan migrants who have obtained citizenship under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said that rehabilitation package was purely a matter of policy of the Government.

Structural, Phonetic Similarity: Delhi High Court Grants Relief To 'INDI' Measuring Tapes Manufacturer Against 'INDEED' Mark

Case title: FMI Limited vs. Midas Touch Metalloys Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 12

The Delhi High Court has made a temporary injunction absolute in favour of the measuring tapes manufacturer, FMI Limited, against passing off of its 'INDI' tapes by a business dealing in identical goods.

The plaintiff FMI Limited, submitted that it is the largest manufacturer of measuring tapes, spirit levels measuring wheels in the Indian sub-continent and also that is well-established in over 60 countries.

FMI stated that it adopted the trademark 'INDI' in 2015 and has registered other formative marks. It stated that it advertises its goods in various e-commerce websites such as Amazon and IndiaMart. It stated that its sales figures for FY 2022-23 and 2023-24 was Rs.67.85 crore, 76.63 crore respectively.

Application Mentioning Wrong Section Of Law Not Fatal If It Doesn't Cause Prejudice To Court Or Opposite Party: Delhi High Court

Case title: Rajeev Shukla vs. Gopal Krishna Shukla

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 13

The Delhi High Court has observed that mentioning a wrong section of law in an application would not considered fatal to case if the substance of application was clear and no prejudice would be caused to the opposite party.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja remarked, “Procedural errors, including mentioning incorrect provision of law should not override the substantive justice. The Court has enough powers under Section 151 CPC to ensure that justice is served.”

Delhi High Court Constitutes Fact-Finding Committee To Investigate Governance Issues In Equestrian Sports

Case title: Rajasthan Equestrian Association vs.Union Of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 14

The Delhi High Court has constituted a 5-member Fact-Finding Committee to conduct a detailed investigation into the ground level realities of Equestrian sports in India, focusing on issues including assessment of infrastructure, participation and representation of athletes, and the role of clubs in the development of the sport.

The Committee would function under the chairmanship of Retired Judge of the Delhi High Court Justice Najmi Waziri. The other members include representatives from the Union Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Sports Authority of India (SAI), nominee from the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) and two Equestrian sportspersons from Equestrian sports–Ms. Divyakriti Singh and Ms. Shruti Vora, who represented India at national and international championships.

MEA Informs Delhi High Court Of Documents Required For Gender Change Recognition In Passports After Surgery Abroad

Case title: Anahita Chaudhary Union Of India & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 15

The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has recently informed the Delhi High Court about the documents that an individual who has undergone a gender change abroad can submit upon returning to India, in order to reflect the change of gender in the passport.

The Court disposed of a plea moved by a transgender woman–petitioner, whose grievance raised in the plea had been redressed inasmuch as the petitioner had been issued a passport with the changed name, gender marker, and appearance, as requested in the petitioner's January 2023 application.

DHJS 2024: Delhi High Court Refuses To Modify Cut Off Date For Candidates' Age

Title: SHWETA CHOWDHERY v. HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 16

The Delhi High Court has refused to modify the criteria according to which candidates appearing in Delhi Higher Judicial Services (DHJS) 2024 examination must have attained the age of 35 years on January 01, 2024.

A division bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Amit Mahajan rejected the plea filed by a candidate, Shweta Chowdhery, who challenged the one of the conditions mentioned in the public notice issued on December 27 last year by the High Court stipulating January 01, 2024 as the date by which the candidates had to have attained the age of 35.

Delhi High Court Denies Bail To 'ISIS Associate' In UAPA Case, Says He Was Advocating 'Jihad' To Establish Caliphate

Title: MD HEYDAITULLAH v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 17

The Delhi High Court has recently denied bail to an alleged member of ISIS in a case registered by National Investigation Agency (NIA) accusing him of radicalising youths using cyber space.

A division bench comprising of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma dismissed the plea moved by MD Heydaitullah, observing that the mandate of Section 43(D)(5) of UAPA was clearly applicable in the case.

“ISIS had been declared to be a terrorist organisation and judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the world at large knows about the activities of ISIS. The aforesaid chats further reflect the intention of the Appellant to join ISIS (Dawlah) and was ready to perform Hijrah (travel) for the same,” the Court said.

Date Of Receipt Of Corrected Award Would Be Taken As Disposal Date U/S 34(3) Of Arbitration Act, Even When Application U/S 33 Has Been Filed: Delhi HC

Case Title: TEFCIL BREWERIES LIMITED v. ALFA LAVAL (INDIA) LIMITED

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 18

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that taking the date of receipt of the corrected award as the starting point and not as the date of disposal would actually go contrary to the plain reading of Section 34(3) of the Act. This will apply even in cases where an application under Section 33 of the Act has been filed.

Uploading Information On Insight Portal Not A Substitute For Handing Over Material To AO For Non-Searched Entity U/S 153C Of IT Act: Delhi HC

Case title: ATS Township Pvt Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 1(1) Delhi & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 19

The Delhi High Court has held that the provision under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessing officer of a searched person to record 'satisfaction' and handover documents regarding undisclosed income of another person cannot be substituted by merely uploading such information on the Department's insight portal.

Assessee Must Clearly Establish 'Movement Of Goods' To Defend Allegations Of Accommodation Entries: Delhi HC

Case title: Abhishek Bansal v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 58(3), Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 21

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that merely producing transaction documents to establish that payments were made to an entity is not sufficient to defend the allegations of accommodation entries.

TRAI's Obligations Don't Extend To Seeking Info Under RTI Act On Status Of Complaints Lodged With Telecom Service Providers: Delhi HC

Case title: Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India vs. Akshay Kumar Malhotra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 22

The Delhi High Court has observed that the regulatory functions of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) does not encompass seeking or requisitioning information about individual complaints from a Telecom Service Provider for the purpose of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act).

Income Tax Dept Can Invoke S.159 When Reassessment Notice Was Issued During Lifetime Of Deceased Assessee: Delhi HC

Case title: Late Sh. Lal Chand Verma Through His Legal Heir v. Union Of India & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 23

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 159 of the Income Tax Act can be invoked to proceed against the legal representative of an assessee, only in cases where the reassessment notice was issued to the assessee during his lifetime, not after.

Commercial Court Act Doesn't Prevent Applicability Of Order 8 Rule 9 CPC For Filing Additional Written Statement After 120 Days: Delhi HC

Case title: Novartis Ag & Anr. vs. Natco Pharma Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 24

In relation to commercial disputes, the Delhi High Court has observed that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 does not prevent the application of Order 8 Rule 9 CPC for filing additional written statement after the expiry of 120 days for filing the written statements.

Customs Dept Cannot Encash Bank Guarantee Furnished By Trader During Pendency Of Appeal If Pre-Deposit Is Made: Delhi HC Affirms

Case title: Amar Singh And Sons Tree Nuts LLP v. The Superintendent Of Customs, Epm, Import & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 25

Based on a circular issued by the Finance Ministry, the Delhi High Court has affirmed that the Customs Department cannot encash the bank guarantee furnished by a trader, whose import/export transactions are in dispute, if the latter has made a pre-deposit with his appeal against the demand and penalty.

Delay In Issuing Requisition U/S 132A Of Income Tax Act Due To Investigation By Department Can Be Condoned: Delhi HC

Case title: Gautam Thadani v. Director Income Tax (Investigation) And Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 26

The Delhi High Court has held that the delay in issuing requisition under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be condoned if the same is explained by the Authority concerned.

The provision contemplates powers to requisition books of account, etc. It stipulates that where a search has already been conducted by any authority under any other law, the Income Tax authority shall authorize the Assessing Officer to make requisition to that authority to deliver books of accounts and assets seized to the AO.

AO Bound To Ascertain 'Correctness' Of Information Available Against Assessee, 'Decide' Whether It Is Sufficient To Reopen Assessment: Delhi HC

Case title: Sonansh Creations Pvt Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 27

The Delhi High Court has turned down the contention that an Assessing Officer, at the stage of passing an order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for initiation of reassessment proceedings, is not required to form any opinion as to the genuineness or veracity of the information available against an assessee.

Supporting Terrorist Organization Either Monetarily Or Through Networking Prohibited Under UAPA: Delhi High Court

Title: ZAFAR ABBAS @ JAFFAR v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 28

The Delhi High Court has ruled that giving support to a terrorist organization either monetarily or in the form of networking or meetings is clearly prohibited under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1976.

A division bench comprising of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma said that UAPA permits various measures to be taken against terrorists and terrorist organisations, including freezing of assets, for protecting the country and for prevention of terrorist acts from taking place.

2018 Tweet Case: Delhi High Court Closes Mohammed Zubair's Plea To Return Devices Allegedly Seized Beyond Scope Of FIR

Title: Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 29

The Delhi High Court has disposed of a petition moved by Alt News Co Founder Mohammed Zubair, in connection with 2018 tweet case, seeking that any device or document seized by the Delhi Police, being beyond the allegation in FIR, be restored to him.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma closed the plea and asked Zubair to move an appropriate application before the concerned magistrate to seek the relief.

'Punishment Is Not Disproportionate When Officer Displays Negligent And Irresponsible Conduct', Delhi High Court

Case Title: Babrey Singh versus Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 30

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur dismissed a Petition challenging an order of punishment awarded to the Petitioner for being irresponsible while supervising an area he was assigned. The Court held that the punishment was not disproportionate as the Petitioner had been negligent in a similar incident in the past and had shown no signs of improvement leading in another such incident where criminals could steal under the supervision and watch of the Petitioner.

Living Together In Shared Household In A Relationship 'In Nature Of Marriage' Also Domestic Relationship Under DV Act: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 31

The Delhi High Court has held that two persons who lived together in a shared household through a relationship in the “nature of marriage” would also be called to be in a domestic relationship under the Domestic Violence Act.

“Even otherwise, in terms of Section 2 (f) of the Act, the relationship of parties living together through a relationship in the “nature of marriage” would also fall within the definition of domestic relationship,” Justice Amit Mahajan said.

Delhi High Court Directs Taekwondo Federation Of India To Conduct Fresh Open Selection Trials For 2025 National Games

Title: TAEKWONDO FEDERATION OF INDIA v. INDIAN OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION & ORS and other connected matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 32

The Delhi High Court has directed the Taekwondo Federation Of India (TFI) to conduct fresh open selection trials for selecting two players in each weight category for both male and female for upcoming National Games to be held at Uttarakhand commencing from January 28.

Justice Sachin Datta said that after the trials, two players shall be selected in each weight category who would be given a wild card entry to participate in the 38th National Games, 2025.

Terror Funding Case: Delhi High Court Dismisses Second Bail Plea Of NSCN(IM) Leader Alemla Jamir

Title: ALEMLA JAMIR v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 33

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the second regular bail appeal of Naga insurgent group National Socialist Council of Nagaland-Isak Muivah (NSCN (IM)) leader Alemla Jamir in relation to a terror funding case probed by National Investigation Agency.

A division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur found no merit in the appeal challenging dismissal of the bail by the trial court.

Interim Maintenance Order Can Be Granted Merely On Satisfaction That Wife's Application Prima Facie Discloses Domestic Violence: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 34

The Delhi High Court has observed that an order for interim maintenance can be granted merely upon the satisfaction of the Court that the application by the wife prima facie disclosed the commission of domestic violence.

“While the veracity of the case of the wife would be tested during the course of trial, interim relief can be granted merely upon the satisfaction that the application by the wife prima facie disclosed the commission of domestic violence,” Justice Amit Mahajan said.

If Assessee Produces Accounts, AO Must Be Satisfied That Accommodation Entries Exist Before Proceeding U/S 148 Of Income Tax Act: Delhi HC

Case title: Sonansh Creations Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 35

The Delhi High Court has held that an Assessing Officer is required to be satisfied that accommodation entries as alleged in show cause notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 exist, particularly where the assessee produces its accounts.

In doing so, a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma heavily relied on its recent ruling in Sonansh Creations Pvt Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr. where it was held that to initiate reassessment proceedings under the Act, the AO must conduct an enquiry with respect to the information that suggests escapement of income, to ascertain its correctness.

Delhi High Court Grants Custody Parole To Tahir Hussain For Filing Nomination Papers For Assembly Polls

Case Title: Tahir Hussain v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 36

The Delhi High Court has granted custody parole to former Aam Aadmi Party Councillor Tahir Hussain for subscribing Oath and for filing his nomination papers in the upcoming Assembly polls from Mustafabad constituency as a member of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) party.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna directed the State to facilitate filing of nomination papers on the concerned date and to provide the facility for completing the formalities before and after the filing of Nomination Papers for contesting the elections.

Consider Adopting Technological Tools To Eliminate Duplicate Names In Voters List: Delhi High Court To ECI

Title: Rashtravadi Adharsh Mahasangh v. ECI & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 37

The Delhi High Court has asked the Election Commission of India (ECI) to consider adopting technological tools that would assist it in eliminating duplicate names of individuals in the voters list.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela disposed of a public interest litigation seeking action against individual voters maintaining multiple entries in the voters list in the national capital.

Delhi High Court Rejects PIL Against CM Atishi For Allowing Manish Sisodia To Use Her Govt Bungalow

Title: Sanjeev Jain v. UOI & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 38

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking action against Chief Minister Atishi for allowing senior AAP leader and former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and his family members to use the government allotted bungalow.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela rejected the PIL filed by Sanjeev Jain, claiming to be a social worker and an RTI activist.

Disability Attributable To Service, Authorities Cannot Contradict Medical Proof, Delhi High Court Grants Disability Pension

Case Title: KULDEEP SINGH versus DIRECTOR GENERAL CRPF AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 39

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur while allowing a Petition of the Petitioner seeking disability pension held that in absence of reasons as to how the disability arose, it could be presumed that in cases where the personnel while being appointed to the post was declared fit, the disability having arisen later could be attributable to or aggravated by service.

Right To Speedy Trial Not A 'Free Pass' For Undertrial To Be Released On Bail: Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Neeraj Bawana In Murder Case

Title: NEERAJ SEHRAWAT @ NEERAJ BAWANIYA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 40

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the right to speedy trial derived from Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not a “free-pass” for every undertrial, demanding to be enlarged on bail regardless of the criminal antecedents and the nature of the offence.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said that where there are grave criminal antecedents, the larger interests of society must prevail over the individual rights of an undertrial.

Revocation Petition Can Be Filed Or Sustained After Expiry Of Term Of Patent: Delhi High Court

Title: MACLEODS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD v. THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 41

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a revocation petition can be filed or sustained after the expiry of the term of the patent.

While dealing with a patent infringement suit, Justice Amit Bansal observed that just because the term of the patent has expired, it would not mean that the suit has become infructuous, as the cause of action still survives.

Expert Tribunal's Award Did Not Suffer From Patent Illegality, Cannot Be Set Aside U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: CENTER FOR RESEARCH PLANNING AND ACTION v. NATIONAL MEDICINAL PLANTS BOARD MINISTRY OF AYUSH GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 42

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has held that the scope of interference by the Court with the arbitral award under Section 34 is very limited, and the Court is not supposed to travel beyond the aforesaid scope to determine whether the award is good or bad.

In the present case, the court held that the expert tribunals award did not suffer from patent illegality, and thus could not be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

'APAR Can't Be Interfered With If It Complies With Guidelines And Is Not Actuated By Malice', Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ajit Kumar versus Union Of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 43

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur dismissed a Writ Petition seeking to upgrade the Petitioner's Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) based on being graded as 'very good' and 'outstanding' in the previous years. The Court further held that the APAR could not be interfered with as the Reporting Officer had written the same considering the attitude and dealings of the Petitioner and no guidelines or rules were violated in doing so.

Arbitral Award Cannot Be Challenged In Writ Petition, Party Must Use Remedy U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD v. MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISE FACILITATION COUNCIL AND OTHERS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 44

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that it cannot entertain a writ petition challenging an arbitral award, and the petitioner should challenge the award by taking recourse to appropriate remedies under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

Absence Of Formal Communication U/S 148A Of Income Tax Act Not Fatal When Opportunity To Question Reassessment Had Been Provided: Delhi HC

Case title: Rohit Kumar v. Income Tax Officer Ward 54 (1), Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 45

The Delhi High Court observed that absence of a formal notice under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not fatal to reassessment proceedings initiated in the twilight zone when the inquiry provisions were introduced by the Finance Act, 2021.

A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma noted that the Department had provided an opportunity to the petitioner-assessee to question the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148, which was the “underlying principle” of Section 148A.

Tariff, License Fee Received By Electricity Regulatory Commissions Not Exigible To Tax: Delhi High Court

Case title: Central Electricity Regulatory Commission v. The Additional Director Directorate General Of Gst Intelligence (Dggi) & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 46

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that amounts received by the Electricity Regulatory Commissions under the heads of filing fee, tariff fee, license fee, annual registration fee and miscellaneous fee are not exigible to tax.

A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma thus allowed the petitions filed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission as well as the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission against the show cause notices issued to them by the GST Department.

S.149 IT Act | Additions Made During Reassessment Don't Validate Proceedings Initiated For Income Escapement Below ₹50 Lakh Threshold: Delhi HC

Case title: Rohit Kumar v. Income Tax Officer Ward 54 (1), Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 47

The Delhi High Court has held that the benchmark of minimum Rs. 50 lakh income escapement prescribed under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 must be met at the very initiation of reassessment proceedings.

A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma observed,

“Additions ultimately made in the course of reassessment would not validate the initiation of proceedings if founded on income of INR 46,17,000/- having escaped assessment and thus evidently below the threshold of INR 50 lakhs.”

Arbitrator's Order Determining Substantive Rights Of Parties Constitutes “Award”, Amenable To Challenge U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi HC

Case Title: Aptec Advanced Protective Technologies AG vs. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 48

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur has held that orders passed by the Arbitrator during the pendency of Arbitral proceedings, which finally determines any substantive rights of the parties, constitutes an interim Arbitral Award, and can be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Samsung India Electronics Not A 'Permanent Establishment' Of Samsung Korea, Cannot Be Taxed In India: Delhi High Court

Case title: The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 49

The Delhi High Court has held that Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd (SIEL), a wholly owned subsidiary of South Korea-based Samsung Electronics Co. is not its 'Permanent Establishment' (PE) in India, hence not exigible to tax here.

A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar agreed with ITAT's findings that the secondment of employees by Samsung Korea was merely with the objective of facilitating the activities of SIEL, not its own.

Baggage Rules Should Be Reviewed To Prevent Harassment Of Genuine Air Travellers Carrying Gold Jewellery To Attend Weddings: Delhi HC

Case title: Qamar Jahan v. Union Of India, Represented By Secretary, Ministry Of Finance & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 50

The Delhi High Court has urged the Central government as well as the Customs department to review the Baggage Rules, 2016 which regulate the amount of gold or gold jewellery that can be carried by a person travelling to India by air.

A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma observed,

“While, there is no doubt that any illegal smuggling of gold deserves to be curbed, at the same time, bona-fidely and genuine tourists/travellers, including people from Indian Origin such as the OCI Cardholders, PIOs etc., could be travelling for social engagements in India or social events such as marriages etc., with gold, which could be of a much higher value than the permissible limits.

ITAT Cannot Decide On Grounds Not Addressed By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals): Delhi High Court

Case title: Divine Infracon Pvt Ltd v. Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax 3

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 51

The Delhi High Court recently said aside an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, deciding grounds that did not arise from the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

[S.115JB Income Tax Act] Delhi HC Rejects Dept's Appeals Against Tata Power's Joint Venture With Delhi Govt For Supply Of Electricity

Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 9 v. M/S Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S North Delhi Power Limited)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 52

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it stood prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would be inapplicable to an electricity generation company.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma thus dismissed the Department's appeals against Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited, a joint venture of Tata Power with the Delhi government for purposes of power generation and distribution of electricity in two districts of Delhi.

Arbitration Dispute: Delhi High Court Restrains DB Dixon Battery From Using Images Of Shikhar Dhawan While Promoting Its Products

Title: SHIKHAR DHAWAN v. DB DIXON BATTERY PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 53

The Delhi High Court has restrained DB Dixon Battery Private Limited, manufacturer of lead acid storage batteries, from using the images of former cricketer of the India Men's National Cricket Team Shikhar Dhawan while promoting its products.

Justice Subramonium Prasad issued notice on a plea filed by Dhawan for interim injunction to restrain DB Dixon Battery Private Limited from using his images while promoting its lead acid storage batteries.

Justice Prasad also issued notice on another plea filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute.

Delhi High Court Rejects Janta Party's Plea Against Rule To Reserve Election Symbol Only For Recognised Political Parties

Title: Janta Party through its President v. Election Commission of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 54

The Delhi High Court has rejected a petition filed by Janta Party challenging the Election Symbol (Reservation & Allotment) Order, 1968, on reservation of election symbol only for recognised registered political parties.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed the plea, observing that the issue raised has been settled in various judgments.

Delhi HC Rejects Argument That Wife's Hospitalization Is Essential For Invoking S.498A, Says 'Narrow Interpretation' Will Silence Many Victims

Title: BILAL ANSARI v. STATE

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 55

The Delhi High Court has rejected a husband's argument that hospitalization of the wife is essential for establishing cruelty and harassment to her and for invoking Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

“Allowing such an argument to prevail – that hospitalization is a prerequisite for invoking Section 498A – would erode the very purpose of the provision. Section 498A of IPC was enacted to address the plight of women who suffer various forms of cruelty, not just physical abuse that results in visible injuries,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

Delhi High Court Distinguishes From SC's Sky Light Judgment, Declines Assessment Issued In Wrong Name After Entity's Merger

Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. Delhi Vedanta Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 56

The Delhi High Court on Friday declined the Income Tax Department's appeal to treat as 'curable', the error committed in naming the relevant entity while issuing reassessment notices.

A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma refused to grant the benefit which the Supreme Court had given to the Department in Sky Light Hospitality LLP v. Assistant commissioner of Income-tax (2018).

[S.151 IT Act] SC Judgment In Rajeev Bansal Doesn't Affirm Authority Of Joint Commissioner To Accord Approvals For Reassessment: Delhi HC

Case title: Rohit Kumar v. Income Tax Officer Ward 54 (1), Delhi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 57

The Delhi High Court has held that the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India and Ors. vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) did not affirm the authority of a Joint Commissioner to grant approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for initiation of reassessment proceedings.

The provision precludes the Assessing Officer from issuing notice for reassessment after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year, unless the Principal Chief Commissioner or Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the AO that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice.

Whether Entity Is 'Permanent Establishment' Is A Fact-Specific Issue, Must Be Examined Separately For Different Tax Periods: Delhi High Court

Case title: Grid Solutions OY (Ltd) v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 58

The Delhi High Court has held that whether an entity is a Permanent Establishment (PE) of a foreign company or not is a “fact-specific” issue which must be examined separately for different tax periods.

A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed,

“The position of a PE being a facts-specific issue and thus liable to be examined against the backdrop of what obtained in a particular tax period…”

Mindset That Women Should Endure Suffering In Matrimonial Homes Emboldens Perpetrators: Delhi High Court On Dowry Deaths

Title: KULDEEP SINGH v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 59

While denying bail to a husband in a dowry death case, the Delhi High Court has said that the mindset that women should continue to endure suffering in their matrimonial homes as it is the “right” thing to do after marriage “emboldens” perpetrators.

“This mindset emboldens, and is exploited by, perpetrators including a husband, who kills his wife, exploiting the situation that the victim wife has nowhere else to go, as her parental family is also advising her to live with him despite the torture and physical abuse. In cases such as the present one, granting bail liberally could encourage such practices and offences,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

NDPS Act | Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Former Punjab AAG Booked For Transporting Drugs, Says Twin Conditions U/S 37 Satisfied

Title: VIKRAMJIT SINGH v. NCB

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 60

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to lawyer and former Additional Advocate General for the State of Punjab in a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 last year.

Justice Jasmeet Singh granted relief to Vikramjit Singh, observing that the "twin conditions" given under section 37 of the NDPS Act were "satisfied" in the case. The court also noted that the petitioner had been in custody since February 26, 2024 and the chargesheet had already been filed showing that the investigation is complete.

Penalties Like Seizure, Detention Of Goods In Transit U/S 129 CGST Act Shouldn't Be Imposed To Penalise Minor Breaches: Delhi High Court

Case title: Kamal Envirotech Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Gst And Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 61

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 129 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 which pertains to detention, seizure and release of goods while in transit cannot be invoked for imposing penalties for minor breaches, like incomplete e-way bill.

Importation Of Wireless Access Points Which Operate Solely On MIMO Technology Exempt From Customs Duty: Delhi High Court

Case title: Commissioner Of Customs Air Chennai-Vii Commissionerate v. M/S. Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 62

Coming to the rescue of an IT distribution company, the Delhi High Court has held that the import of Wireless Access Points (WAPs), which operate on MIMO technology, are exempt from Customs duty.

In doing so, the division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that the word “and” used between 'MIMO and LTE Products', which are eligible for exemption under the relevant notification issued by the Centre, is disjunctive.

'Bharat Gate' Mark Infringes 'India Gate' Mark, Phonetically Similar: Delhi High Court Rules In Favour Of KRBL Rice Company

Title: KRBL LIMITED v. PRAVEEN KUMAR BUYYANI & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 63

The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of KRBL Limited, a company known for its India Gate brand of basmati rice, in a trademark infringement case against “Bharat Gate” brand selling basmati rice.

A division bench comprising of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul set aside a commercial court's order vacating the ad interim injunction granted in favour of India Gate, restraining Bharat Gare from using its trademark in respect of rice or any other associated or allied product.

Section 13 Of Commercial Courts Act Doesn't Provide Any Independent Right To Appeal In Arbitration Matters: Delhi High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Synergies Casting Ltd. vs. National Research Development Corporation & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 64

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur has held that an order which neither sets aside nor refuses to set aside the arbitral award, does not fall under the ambit of Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act and is not appealable.

The court observed that appeals in arbitration matters are maintainable only if expressly provided for in section 37/ 50 of the A&C Act. Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 does not confer an independent right to appeal.

High Court Asks Delhi University To Ensure Date-Sheets Are Issued At Least 15 Days Prior To Commencement Of Law Exams

Title: SOHAM BHATTACHARYA AND OTHERS v. THE FACULTY OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF DELHI THROUGH ITS DEAN AND ANOTHER

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 65

The Delhi High Court has asked the Dean and Head of Delhi University's Faculty of Law to ensure that future date-sheets are issued at least 15 days before the commencement of examinations.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma strongly urged the varsity's Dean of the Faculty of Law to take all administrative decisions, including the issuance of date-sheets, with due regard for the interests of students.

Referral Courts At Post-Award Stage Must Protect Parties From Being Forced To Arbitrate Non-Arbitrable Claims: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s Jaiprakash Associates Limited v. M/s NHPC Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 66

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad, while refusing to appoint an arbitrator in a Section 11 petition, has held that the referral court in a post-award stage must protect the parties from being forced to arbitrate when, after prime facie scrutiny of the facts the claims are found to be non-arbitrable. The court applied the 'eye of the needle' test, which allows the referral court to reject arbitration in exceptional circumstances where the claims are deadwood.

Trader Cannot Accept Settlement Commission's Order U/S 127C Of Customs Act 'In Parts': Delhi High Court

Case title: KBS Industries Ltd & Anr. v. The Customs Central Excise And Service Tax Settlement Commission Principal Bench New Delhi & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 67

The Delhi High Court has held that an order passed by the Settlement Commission under Section 127C of the Customs Act, 1962 is in the nature of a 'settlement' and cannot be accepted by a trader only in part.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “Given the nature of the order passed under Section 127C of the Act – which is in the nature of a settlement – it would not be permissible to dissect the same and accept that parts of the order which are favourable to the applicant while rejecting the other directions which are not. The order of Settlement Commission must be accepted in entirety. ”

Court Not Prohibited From Looking Into Material Considered By SEBI While Adjudicating Plea For Compounding Of Offence: Delhi High Court

Case title: Sanjay Kumar v. SEBI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 68

The Delhi High Court has held that the SEBI (Settlement Proceedings) Regulations, 2018, cannot prohibit any Court from looking into material which led the SEBI or its High Powered Advisory Committee (HPAC) to allow or reject a plea for compounding of offences alleged under the SEBI Act, 1992.

Regulation 29(2) of the Settlement Regulation provides that material placed before the HPAC or the Board cannot be used as evidence before any court or Tribunal.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking ECI To Specify Special Circumstances For Using EVMs In Each Constituency

Case title: Ramesh Chander Vs Election Commission Of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 69

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal seeking directions to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to comply with Section 61A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA) before proceeding with any elections through EVMs.

Section 61A RPA states that "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the rules made thereunder, the giving and recording of votes by voting machines in such manner as may be prescribed, may be adopted in such constituency or constituencies as the Election Commission may, having regard to the circumstances of each case, specify."

Foreign National Can't Seek Release From 'Executive Detention' Under Foreigners Act In Bail Proceedings: Delhi High Court

Title: AIZAZ KILICHEVA @ AZIZA @ MAYA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 70

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a foreign national cannot seek release from “executive detention” imposed by the Central Government by invoking Section 14 and Section 14A of the Foreigners Act under bail proceedings.

“Ergo, bail proceedings relate only to the release of a person from 'judicial custody' and cannot be employed to seek release from 'executive detention,” Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking To Prohibit Sale And Consumption Of Tobacco Near Temples

Title: MANDIR PUJARI SH ABHIMANYU SHARMA v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 71

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking to prohibit the sale and consumption of tobacco products near temples.

A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said that the authorities can take necessary action as per law if they find any violation.

“Needless to state that if the concerned authorities find any violation of the Cigarette and other Tobacco Product (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce Act), 2003 or any rules made thereunder, the authorities are required to take the necessary action in accordance with law,” the Court said while disposing of the plea.

Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Rapido Against Registration Of Its Trademark By Another Party

Case title: Roppen Transportation Services Private Limited Vs.Nipun Gupta & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 72

The Delhi High Court has allowed rectification petitions filed by Roppen Transportation Services, which runs Rapido bike/taxi services, against registration of 'RAPIDO' mark by another party.

Roppen Transportation Services (petitioner) submitted that it has multiple trademark registrations for its RAPIDO marks and the earliest registration was in November, 2017. It stated that it was incorporated in 2015 and has a presence in the pan-Indian market.

Unnao Rape: Delhi High Court Grants Interim Bail To Kuldeep Sengar For Undergoing Cataract Surgery At AIIMS

Case Title: Kuldeep Singh Sengar v. CBI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 73

The Delhi High Court has granted interim bail to expelled BJP leader Kuldeep Singh Sengar, convicted in the Unnao rape case, in order to undergo cataract surgery at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in the national capital.

A division bench comprising of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar ordered that Sengar be released on bail tomorrow (January 23, subject to him furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of like amount.

Woman's Consent For Sexual Relations Does Not Extend To Capturing Private Moments, Posting Them On Social Media: Delhi High Court

Title: SUDHIR KUMAR v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 74

The Delhi High Court has observed that the consent given by a woman for engaging in sexual relations with a man does not extend to capturing her private moments and posting inappropriate videos on social media.

“Even if the consent for sexual relations had been given at any point of time by the complainant, such consent cannot, in any manner, be construed as consent to capture and post her inappropriate videos on social media platforms,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

[UAPA] Long Incarceration Can't Lead To Bail When Case Involves Transnational Terrorism, Anti-National Activities: Delhi High Court

Title: JOGINDER SINGH @ JOGINDER RANA v. NIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 75

The Delhi High Court has observed that long incarceration in itself cannot lead to an accused being released on bail where the case involves transnational terrorism and anti-national activities.

“This Court while acknowledging that speedy trial is necessary as a Constitutional prescription, observes that in cases involving anti-national activities and terrorism on an international scale, long incarceration in itself ought not to lead to enlargement on bail when facts show involvement in such activities which can have a national and transnational impact,” a division bench comprising of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Dharmesh Sharma said.

Delhi HC Rejects Income Tax Director's Appeal U/S 19 Contempt Of Courts Act, Says Appeal Maintainable Only If Order Imposes Punishment

Case title: RK Yadav Through Director Of Income Tax Inv-II And Ors v. Dinesh Kumar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 76

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by a Director of Income Tax under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

A division bench of Justices Chandra Dhari Singh and Manoj Jain observed that in the absence of the contempt court recording a finding of guilt or imposing a punishment, the appeal preferred under Section 19 by an alleged contemnor, the Income Tax Director in this case, is not maintainable.

[CrPC] Subsequent Sanction After Cognizance Is Taken Won't Cure Initial Defect: Delhi High Court

Title: REKHA KAKKAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 77

The Delhi High Court has observed that the sanction to prosecute under Section 197 of CrPC obtained after cognizance is taken will not cure the initial defect in cognizance.

“It is settled law that the Sanction had to be obtained prior to taking of cognizance. Subsequent sanction would not cure the initial defect in cognizance,” Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.

Sporadic Use Of Trademark In India No Ground To Assume Goodwill Or Reputation: Delhi High Court

Case title: Broad Peak Investment Holdings Ltd. And Anr vs. Broad Peak Capital Advisors LLP And Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 78

The Delhi High Court has observed that sporadic use of a trademark in India cannot be a ground to assume that the said trademark has acquired reputation and goodwill of the mark in India.

Justice Amit Bansal also noted that an internationally well-known mark itself is not a ground to assume that there has been a spillover of its reputation and goodwill in India.

Accused's Rights Under Article 21 Prevail Over Restrictions On Grant Of Bail Under NDPS Act: Delhi High Court

Title: ZAKIR HUSSAIN v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 79

The Delhi High Court has observed that the rights of an accused enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India prevail over the restrictions on grant of bail mentioned under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

“I am of the view that the restrictions given under section 37 of NDPS Act cannot take precedence over the petitioner's rights guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India,” Justice Jasmeet Singh said.

Delhi Riots: High Court Directs Delhi Govt To Release Compensation Amount To Victims Based On Claims Commission Recommendations

Title: MUMTIYAJ ALI v. SDM KARAWAL NAGAR & ANR and other connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 80

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government to release compensation amount to various victims of the 2020 North-East Delhi riots based on the recommendations of the Claims Commission.

Justice Sachin Datta was dealing with a batch of 20 petitions moved by various victims of the riots seeking compensation in accordance with Delhi Government's “Assistance Scheme for the Help of Riot Victims.” Some of the petitioners seek enhanced compensation.

Briefing Standing Counsel, Obtaining Approvals From Officials Not 'Sufficient Cause' For Condoning Delay In Filing Appeal: Delhi High Court

Title: DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION v. RAMJAS SCHOOL

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 81

While rejecting an appeal moved by Delhi Government's Directorate of Education, the Delhi High Court has ruled that obtaining approvals from officials of its departments and briefing the standing counsel are not “sufficient cause” for application of condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

“In any event, in our considered view the aforesaid plea taken by the appellant in the said application qua obtaining approvals from various officials of its departments, briefing the learned Standing Counsel (Civil) for GNCTD as also preparing and perusing the appeal paper book cannot be said to be justifiable and treated as “sufficient cause” for the said application under Section 5 of the Act to be allowed. Thus, the same inspire no confidence in us,” a division bench comprising of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee said.

[MV Act] Family Pension Paid To Deceased's Family Can't Be Deducted While Calculating Compensation: Delhi High Court

Case title: Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Usha Gupta & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 82

The Delhi High Court has observed that the family pension being received by legal heirs of a deceased cannot be considered for calculating compensations towards 'Loss of Dependency' payable under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna was considering the appellant/Insurance Company's challenge to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award, which granted around Rs. 13.36 lakh of compensation to claimants (respondent nos. 1&2). The claimants are the wife and son of the deceased, who died in a road accident aged 80 years.

Issue Related To Existence Of Arbitration Agreement Cannot Be Decided Ex-Parte, Without Hearing Respondent: Delhi High Court

Case Title: WTC NOIDA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PVT. LTD V. MS. ARTI KHATTAR & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 83

A Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur held that the District Judge should not have decided the issue related to the existence of an arbitration agreement ex-parte, without calling upon the respondent to give its stand on the same.

Additionally, the court held that an arbitration agreement, by virtue of the presumption of separability, survives the principal contract in which it was contained.

Customs Dept Cannot Run Parallel Proceedings By Passing Penalty Order While Challenge To SCN Is Pending Before Court: Delhi HC

Case title: Vijay Enterprises & Anr v. The Principal Commissioner Of Customs & Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 84

The Delhi High Court has set aside a final order of penalty passed by the Customs Department against a paper trader for alleged undervaluation of imported goods, stating that the same was passed during pendency of challenge to the show cause notice (SCN) issued to the trader.

A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma observed, “passing of the impugned Order-in-Original while the impugned SCN was under challenge before this Court would amount to initiation of parallel proceedings rendering the scrutiny of the Court as infructuous.”

Once Court Orders Release Of Bank Guarantee Furnished By Trader, Customs Dept Can't Hold Back Compliance And Direct Adjustment In Demand Order: Delhi HC

Case title: M/S Om Gems And Jewellery v. Deputy Commissioner Of Customs (Import) Air Cargo Complex Nscbi Airport & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 85

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that once a court of law directs the Customs Department to release the bank guarantee furnished by a trader, the Department cannot turn around and say that the amount will be adjusted towards the final demand order.

A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma were dealing with the writ petition moved by a firm importing gold jewellery. The firm had availed the benefit of an exemption Notification, which it claimed granted the benefit of NIL rate of Basic Customs Duty.

Men Too Are Entitled To Same Protection From Cruelty And Violence As Women: Delhi High Court

Title: JYOTI ALIAS KITTU v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 86

The Delhi High Court has ruled that just as women deserve protection from cruelty and violence, men too are entitled to the same safeguards under the law.

Justice Swarana Kanta denied anticipatory bail to a wife who poured boiling water mixed with chilli powder on her husband resulting in burn injuries to him. She sought a lenient view in the case on the ground of being a woman.

Observing that empowerment of one gender and protection to it cannot come at the cost of fairness towards another, the Court said it cannot differentiate between genders when it comes to acts of physical violence or causing injuries.

Merely Marrying Muslim Man Doesn't Result In Automatic Conversion From Hinduism To Islam: Delhi High Court In Partition Suit

Title: DR. PUSHPALATA AND ANR v. RAM DAS HUF & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 87

While dealing with a partition suit, the Delhi High Court has observed that merely marrying a Muslim man does not result in an automatic conversion from Hinduism to Islam.

Justice Jasmeet Singh was dealing with a partition suit filed in 2007 by the eldest daughter of a man from his first wife against him as well as his two sons from the second wife.

Another daughter from the first wife was transposed as the second plaintiff. In December 2008, the father died during the pendency of the suit.

Delhi High Court Upholds Dismissal Of Plea Against ECI Registration Granted To AIMIM As Political Party

Title: TIRUPATI NARASHIMA MURARI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 88

The Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of a petition seeking quashing of the registration granted by Election Commission of India (ECI) to All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Musalimeen (AIMIM) as a political party.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela rejected the appeal moved by Tirupati Narashima Murari challenging the dismissal of the plea by a single judge in November last year.

Releasing Documents To Media Before Court's Consideration Not Acceptable: Delhi High Court In Criminal Contempt Case

Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. ROOP DARSHAN PANDEY AND ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 89

While dealing with a criminal contempt case, the Delhi High Court has observed that releasing documents and pleadings to media even before the Courts have considered them is not acceptable.

“The habit of releasing pleadings and documents to the media even before Courts have had the opportunity to consider the same is also not acceptable as it tends to prejudice the parties and influence independent decision-making by Courts,” a division bench comprising of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma said.

Delhi High Court Rejects Plea For Allotment Of Permanent Election Symbol To Rashtriya Bahujan Congress Party

Title: Dr. S.R. Sharan v. Election Commission of India & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 90

The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea seeking allotment of permanent election symbol of sewing machine to Rashtriya Bahujan Congress Party which should not be allotted to any other person or political party.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela refused to entertain an appeal filed by Dr. SR Saran- President of the political party.

Delhi High Court Refuses To Order Special Sitting Of Legislative Assembly To Table CAG Reports

Title: VIJENDER GUPTA & ORS v. GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 91

The Delhi High Court has refused to direct a special sitting of the Delhi Legislative Assembly to table 14 reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG).

Justice Sachin Datta said that the Court was not inclined to accept the prayer of seeking the special sitting to table the reports in question.

However, the Court directed that once the Legislative Assembly is constituted and summoned pursuant to upcoming elections, requisite steps shall be taken by the Delhi Government for laying the CAG Reports, as expeditiously as possible.

Rates Charged By Power Distribution Companies, State Board For Electricity Can Be Considered To Determine Its Market: Delhi HC

Case Title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1, New Delhi v. DCM Shriram Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 92

The Delhi High Court has held that the rate at which power is supplied by the State Electricity Board (SEB) or the Power Distribution Companies is an appropriate metric for determining the market price of electricity.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma further held that the rate at which electricity is sold on the Indian Energy Exchange (IEX) platform is not a 'comparable' and should not be considered to determine the market value of the power supplied by the Assessee to its industrial units.

Trial Courts' Obligation To Compute And Award Victim Compensation Can't Be Delegated To DSLSA U/S 357 CrPC: Delhi HC 5 Judge Bench

Title: SAIF ALI @ SOHAN v. THE STATE GNCT OF DELHI and other connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 93

A five judge bench of the Delhi High Court has ruled that the obligation and duty casted upon the trial courts to compute and award quantum of victim compensation cannot be delegated to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority Statutory Authority (DSLSA) as the same would run contrary to the scheme of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The full bench comprised Justice Rekha Palli, Justice Prathiba M Singh, Justice Subramonium Prasad, Justice Saurabh Banerjee and Justice Manoj Jain.

The larger bench was constituted after a single judge in 2021 took note of the inordinate delay in passing of orders on sentence as a result of the implementation of the directions issued by a Full Bench in Karan v. State of NCT of Delhi.

[Arbitration Act] Application U/S 34 Without Award Copy Or Vakalatnama Is Merely A 'Stack Of Papers' Filed To Save Limitation: Delhi HC

Case Title: KGF COTTONS PVT LTD v. HALDIRAM SNACKS PVT LTD

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 94

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, filed without the award itself, would not be a valid filing.

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.

When Counter-Claim Is Related To Primary Dispute, It Can Be Filed Before Tribunal U/S 23 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

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.

Sexual Assault Against Minors By Trusted Ones Magnify Betrayal, Leave Permanent Psychological Scars: Delhi High Court

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.

Delhi HC Grants Interim Relief To Family Seeking 'Postmortem Sperm Retrieval' Of Deceased Man For Potential Use In Assisted Reproductive Therapy

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).

Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking De-Recognition Of Aam Aadmi Party For Non-Disclosure Of Criminal Antecedents

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.

Time Spent To Defend Reassessment Notice Issued Without Following Procedure Doesn't Extend Limitation For Revenue When Issuing Fresh Notice: Delhi HC

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.”

Bar On Bail Under NDPS Act Not Attracted When No Contraband Recovered From Accused Who Was Merely In Contact With Co-Accused: Delhi HC

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.

Appointment Of Arbitrator In International Commercial Arbitration By HC Does Not Vitiate Award: Delhi High Court

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.

FIR Not Invalidated By Quashing Fraud Classification Of Bank Account If It Prima Facie Discloses Cognizable Offences: Delhi HC

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.

[SC/ST Act] Courts Duty To Ensure Social Welfare Legislations Are Not Misused & False Complaints Are Not Perpetuated: Delhi High Court

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.

Delhi High Court Closes PIL Against AAP's 'Spam' Calls On Freebies Amid Assembly Polls, Asks ECI To Ensure No Use Of Vilifying Material

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.

Denying Phone Call Access To Prisoners Involved In MCOCA, Terrorist Acts Not Arbitrary: Delhi High Court's Prima Facie View

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.

Moral Views Of Judge Have No Role In Adjudication But Courts Must Consider Social Background In Which Offences Take Place: Delhi HC

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.

S.479 BNSS | Trial Courts Must Not Mechanically Adjourn Bail Pleas Of Undertrials Who Completed One-Half Of Maximum Imprisonment: Delhi HC

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.

Co-Owner Of Property Not Receiving Income From It Not Liable To Pay Tax On Income From Such Property: Delhi High Court

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.”

Foreign Nationals Coming To India Not Required To Declare Personal Gold Jewellery To Customs: Delhi High Court

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.

'Not A Minor Offence, Part Of Crime Syndicate': Delhi HC Denies Bail To PMLA Accused Booked For Supplying Spurious Anti-Cancer Medicines

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".

Delhi High Court Asks DSLSA To Frame Mechanism To Monitor Appearance Of Legal Aid Counsels In District Courts

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.

'Composer Can't Assign Rights Of Movie Song' : Delhi High Court Rejects Ilaiyarajaa's Copyright Claim For 'En Iniya Pon Nilave' Song

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.