Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 03 To February 09, 2025

Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 122 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 152

NOMINAL INDEX

Sunil Kumar Singh v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 122

LALIT SHARMA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 123

NEERAJ SHARMA v. PIO MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS JKL DIV AYODHYA SECTION AND ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 124

Divyansh Bajpai vs. State (Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi) And Anr 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 125

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -21 v. M/S.Remfry & Sagar 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 126

M/S Vishal Video And Appliances Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner Of Customs Acc(Import) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 127

DR. RAJEEV AGGARWAL v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 128

X v. STATE & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 129

Property Plus Realtors v. Union Of India & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 130

ISHAN TIWARI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 131

MARFING TAMANG @ MAAINA TAMANG v. STATE 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 132

Udaiveer & Ors. vs. Union Of India & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 133

Public Information Officer Office Of District vs. Harish Lamba 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 134

DEEPAK JAIN & ORS v. BASKETBALL FEDERATION OF INDIA & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 135

M/S SMEC India (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 136

DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD versus VOESTALPINE SCHIENEN GMBH, AUSTRIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 137

Ajabs Academy Pvt Ltd vs. Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. (W.P.(C) 702/2025) & Connected Matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 138

The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 v. Adobe Systems Software Ireland Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 139

ISAR ENGINEERS PRIVATE LTD. versus NTPC-SAIL POWER COMPANY LTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 140

Kanwaljeet Kaur v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle (34) 1 Delhi & Ors. and batch 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 141

GOODAI GLOBAL INC v. SHAHNAWAZ SIDDIQU & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 142

PRAVENDRA PRATAP SINGH NATIONAL PRESIDENT (BAHUJAN MUKTI PARTY) v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 143

RAMESH KUMAR KHATRI v. DURGESH PATHAK and other connected matter 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 144

JOHNSON & JOHNSON PTE. LTD v. MR. ABBIREDDI SATISH KUMAR & ORS2025 LiveLaw (Del) 145

Bhushan Power & Steel Limited vs. Union Of India & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 146

Jagdish Chandra vs. State Trading Corporation Of India Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 147

Bhushan Power & Steel Limited vs. Union of India & Anr.m2025 LiveLaw (Del) 148

The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 v. Standard Chartered Grindlays Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 149

DELOITTE HASKINS & SELLS LLP v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 150

ADITYA BIRLA FASHION AND RETAIL LIMITED v. FRIENDS INC & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 151

Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer And Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 152

Financial Misconduct In Government Service Warrants Dismissal; No Compassionate Allowance For Acts Of Moral Turpitude: Delhi HC

Title: Sunil Kumar Singh v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 122

Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur upheld the dismissal of a Pay Clerk (Central Reserve Police Force) who was charged with financial misconduct and forgery. The court found that tampering with government records and misappropriation of funds constituted grave offenses that warranted his dismissal from service. The court also rejected the plea for compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. It held that acts involving moral turpitude disqualified the employee from such benefits.

Delhi High Court Reschedules Date Of Elections To All Bar Associations To February 28

Title: LALIT SHARMA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 123

The Delhi High Court has rescheduled the date of elections to all Bar Associations in the national capital from February 07 to February 28, 2025.

A full bench comprising Justice Yashwant Varma, Justice Rekha Palli and Justice C Hari Shankar noted that in a resolution passed by the High Court's Security Committee last year, it was resolved that all the Election Commissioners, Returning Officers together with the Presidents or Secretaries of all the Bar Associations would make necessary arrangements for procurement of EVMs or Ballot Papers and will coordinate for setting up card reader machines and other equipments well in time.

Delhi High Court Asks CIC To Decide If 'Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra' Trust Is Public Authority Under RTI Act

Title: NEERAJ SHARMA v. PIO MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS JKL DIV AYODHYA SECTION AND ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 124

The Delhi High Court has directed the Central Information Commission (CIC) to decide whether “Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra” trust is a public authority under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Justice Sanjeev Narula directed the CIC to decide the question after affording opportunity of hearing to the RTI applicant Neeraj Sharma as well as the Public Information Officer (PIO) of Union Ministry of Home Affairs, as expeditiously as possible.

Familial Relationship Between Prosecutrix And Accused Doesn't Negate Possibility Of 'Promise Of Marriage': Delhi HC Refuses To Quash Rape FIR

Case title: Divyansh Bajpai vs. State (Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi) And Anr

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 125

While refusing to quash an FIR under Section 376 IPC for false promise of marriage, the Delhi High Court observed that the nature of the relationship between the parties is a crucial factor in determining whether there was any promise of marriage and whether the consent was vitiated by a misconception of fact.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was considering the petitioner's plea to quash FIR under Section 376 IPC lodged by his distant relative/prosecutrix.

Fees Paid By Law Firm Remfry & Sagar To Use Name & Goodwill Of Founder Is Business Expense, Deductible U/S 37 Of Income Tax Act: Delhi HC

Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -21 v. M/S.Remfry & Sagar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 126

The Delhi High Court has held that the fees paid by IPR law firm Remfry & Sagar to acquire the goodwill vested in a company run by the family members of its deceased founder, is a business expense deductible under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.

A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja observed, “the primary, nay, sole purpose for incurring expenditure towards license fee was to use the words “Remfry & Sagar” and derive benefit of the goodwill attached to it. The appellant do not dispute that Dr. Sagar had validly acquired the goodwill and that the same constituted a valuable asset which was transferable.”

Ensure Counsel Appearing On Advance Service Are Instructed Properly: Delhi HC Asks Customs, GST Department, DRI And DGGI To Frame SOP

Case title: M/S Vishal Video And Appliances Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner Of Customs Acc(Import)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 127

The Delhi High Court has asked the Customs Department, the Central GST Department, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Directorate of General GST Intelligence (DGGI) to make sure that counsel representing them on advance service are instructed properly.

A bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma ordered the Commissioner of Customs to prepare an SOP as to the manner in which the Department shall ensure that instructions are given to the nominated Counsels in the matter when advance copies are served.

Delhi High Court Orders Inspection On 'Dummy Schools' Allowing Students To Take Exams Without Attending Classes

Title: DR. RAJEEV AGGARWAL v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 128

The Delhi High Court has directed that an inspection be conducted on “dummy schools” in the national capital which are providing the facility of allowing the students to take the examination without attending the classes.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela directed the Delhi Government and Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to conduct the survey or inspection and also to take permissible action on the issue.

Mere Threats Without Intention To Cause Alarm To Complainant Not Criminal Intimidation: Delhi High Court

Title: X v. STATE & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 129

The Delhi High Court has observed that mere threats by the accused without any intention to cause alarm to the complainant does not constitute the offence of criminal intimidation.

“A bare perusal of Section 506 of the IPC makes it clear that before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that an accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant. Mere threats given by the accused not with an intention to cause alarm to the complainant would not constitute an offence of criminal intimidation,” Justice Amit Mahajan said.

Date Of Assessment Order Recommending Penalty For Accepting Cash Above ₹2 Lakh Not Relevant For Determining Limitation U/S 275 Of Income Tax Act: Delhi HC

Case title: Property Plus Realtors v. Union Of India & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 130

The Delhi High Court has held that the date of the assessment order, wherein an Assessing Officer recommended separate penalty proceedings against the assessee under Section 271DA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for accepting more than ₹2 lakh in cash, is not relevant for determining the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c).

Delhi High Court's Administrative Side To Consider Amending Or Framing Rules To Expedite Proceedings Before Family Courts

Title: ISHAN TIWARI v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 131

The Delhi High Court's administrative side is set to consider framing appropriate rules or amending the existing rules to streamline the procedure to expedite proceedings before the Family Courts in the national capital.

The development ensued after a division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed an order while disposing of a PIL on the issue.

Furnishing Grounds Of Arrest Just An Hour Before Remand Hearing Not Compliance Of Section 50 CrPC: Delhi High Court

Title: MARFING TAMANG @ MAAINA TAMANG v. STATE

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 132

The Delhi High Court has observed that furnishing grounds of arrest in writing to an arrestee just about an hour before the remand hearing cannot be due or adequate compliance of the requirements of Section 50 of CrPC.

The provision mandates that grounds of arrest must be communicated to an arrestee “forthwith” upon the arrest of a person.

Encroachment Delaying DDA's Yamuna River Restoration Work: Delhi HC Rejects Farmers' Plea For Occupation In Flood Plain, Imposes ₹5K Cost

Case title: Udaiveer & Ors. vs. Union Of India & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 133

In a plea for a restrain on Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and other authorities from disturbing the possession of land located on the Yamuna river bank by certain farmers, the Delhi High Court said that it appeared that the petitioners had encroached upon the land which falls in the flood plain area.

The court further said that this had also delayed the implementation of public project–'Restoration and Rejuvenation of River Yamuna Project' causing huge nation costs and loss to revenue of the State. The court also said that the "mischief" by the petitioners was apparent as after the demolition for removal of unauthorized encroachment and construction, the petitioners had tried to reclaim the property by carrying on cultivation of vegetables.

Info Requiring Analysis Of Legal Proceedings Outside Purview Of RTI Act: Delhi HC Quashes Order To Inform On Ex-Parte Injunctions Given By ADJ

Case title: Public Information Officer Office Of District vs. Harish Lamba

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 134

Setting aside CIC's order directing Patiala House Court PIO to furnish information on the number of cases in which a judge granted ex-parte injunction in relation to cases represented by a particular advocate and in suits filed by a particular company, the Delhi High Court observed such queries require an analysis of the relevant judicial proceedings.

It further said that such an analysis sought for in the present case, falls under the Delhi District Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2008, which exempts disclosure of information when such information does not exist or when it amounts to analyzing the information for the applicant which does not form part of any existing record. 

Not Having Birth Certificate Due To Socio-Economic Backwardness No Ground To Deny Participation In Sport Events: Delhi High Court

Title: DEEPAK JAIN & ORS v. BASKETBALL FEDERATION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 135

he Delhi High Court has observed that not having a birth certificate evidencing age of an individual due to socio-economic backwardness is no ground to deny the opportunity to compete or participate in sport events.

“This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that on account of socio- economic backwardness, it may not have been feasible in some cases, to obtain the birth certificates/other documents evidencing the age of the person within certain years from the date of birth. However, merely for this reason such persons cannot be denied the opportunity of competing in sporting events,” Justice Sachin Datta said.

Suo Moto Disallowance Made By Assessee Under Bonafide Belief Of Tax Liability Can Be Rectified U/S 264 Of Income Tax Act Without Amending ITR: Delhi HC

Case title: M/S SMEC India (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 136

The Delhi High Court has held that an application for revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be preferred by an assessee who makes suo motu disallowance in its Return of Income (RoI/ ITR), under a bonafide yet mistaken belief that the same was liable to be offered for taxation.

A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar added that the assessee cannot be denied relief merely on the ground that the application was moved without amending the RoI.

Construction Of Terms Of Contract Must Be Primarily Decided By Arbitrator, Not Court U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: 'DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD versus VOESTALPINE SCHIENEN GMBH, AUSTRIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 137

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that Construction of the terms of the contract is primarily for the arbitrator to decide, unless it is found that such a construction is not at all possible.

Delhi High Court Disposes Pleas For Release Of Payment To Coaching Institutes Under 'Jai Bhim Mukhyamantri Pratibha Vikas Yojna'

Case title: Ajabs Academy Pvt Ltd vs. Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. (W.P.(C) 702/2025) & Connected Matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 138

The Delhi High Court has disposed of petitions where various coaching institutes sought directions to the Delhi government to implement 'Jai Bhim Mukhyamantri Pratibha Vikas Yojna', after taking note of the steps being taken by the Special Secretary of the Department for the Welfare of SC/ST/OBC (DSCST) to resolve the issue concerning payment to coaching institutes under the said scheme.

The yojna/scheme was introduced to provide quality coaching in competitive examinations for selection in various government services for economically disadvantaged SC/ST/OBC/EWS candidates. The Delhi government's order dated 09 September 2019 fixed the duration of the coaching and a maximum ceiling of coaching fee to which the institution would be entitled per candidate.

Adobe India Is Not Dependent Agent PE Of Adobe Ireland: Delhi High Court Negates Attribution Of Further Profits

Case title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 v. Adobe Systems Software Ireland Ltd

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 139

The Delhi High Court has upheld an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to the effect that Adobe Systems India Pvt. Ltd is not a dependent agent permanent establishment (DAPE) of Adobe Systems Software Ireland Ltd.

In doing so, a division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar affirmed that no further attribution of profit can be made as Adobe India was remunerated at arm's length.

Award Passed By Improperly Appointed Arbitrator Is Non-Est In Law And Invalid: Delhi High Court

Case Title: ISAR ENGINEERS PRIVATE LTD. versus NTPC-SAIL POWER COMPANY LTD

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 140

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that it is settled law that the Arbitrator is a creature of the contract and has to function within four corners of contract. If a particular mechanism is contemplated for his appointment, the same must be followed in its true letter, spirit and intent, failing which the Arbitrator is without jurisdiction and the appointment is non-est and invalid.

What Is The Time Period Surviving U/S 149 Of Income Tax Act For Issuing Reassessment Notices: Delhi High Court Explains

Case title: Kanwaljeet Kaur v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle (34) 1 Delhi & Ors. and batch

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 141

The Delhi High Court has interpreted the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal to elucidate the time period surviving under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for issuing reassessment notices.

A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar concluded that the period between 20 March 2020 to 30 June 2021 would be excluded from limitation, in view of Section 3(1) of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020.

Delhi High Court Rules In Favour Of Korean Brand 'Beauty Of Joseon', Orders Cancellation Of Identical Trademark

Title: GOODAI GLOBAL INC v. SHAHNAWAZ SIDDIQU & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 142

The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of “Beauty of Joseon”, a Korean beauty brand, while ordering cancellation of an identical trademark registered in favour of a man on “proposed to be used basis.”

Justice Amit Bansal allowed the plea moved by Goodai Global Inc, the parent company which owns Beauty of Joseon brand.

ECI Can't Supervise Internal Elections Of Political Parties Under Section 29A Of Representation Of People Act: Delhi High Court

Title: PRAVENDRA PRATAP SINGH NATIONAL PRESIDENT (BAHUJAN MUKTI PARTY) v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 143

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Election Commission of India (ECI) does not have supervisory jurisdiction regarding internal matters of elections of political parties under Section 29A of Representation of People Act, 1951.

Section 29A deals with registration of associations and bodies as political parties with ECI. The provision states that any association or body of individuals calling itself a political party shall make an application to the Commission for its registration as a political party.

Not Maintaining Proper Accounts Of Election Expenditure Not 'Corrupt Practice' Under RP Act: Delhi HC Rejects Plea Against AAP Candidate

Title: RAMESH KUMAR KHATRI v. DURGESH PATHAK and other connected matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 144

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a candidate not maintaining proper accounts of election expenditure or not accurately disclosing the expenditure undertaken by him does not constitute “corrupt practice” under Section 123 of Representation of People Act, 1951.

Court Has Jurisdiction In Trademark Suits If Goods Marketed Online Can Be Accessed In Their Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

Title: JOHNSON & JOHNSON PTE. LTD v. MR. ABBIREDDI SATISH KUMAR & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 145

The Delhi High Court has observed in a case of trademark infringement, even if a party is not physically selling impugned goods in a specific territory, but is offering them for sale through a website accessible in that territory, the Court where the goods are sold online would have jurisdiction to try the matter.

Delhi High Court Quashes PMLA Proceedings Against BPSL In ₹47,000 Crore Bank Fraud Case Due To Successful CIRP

Case title: Bhushan Power & Steel Limited vs. Union Of India & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 146

The Delhi High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against Bhushan Power & Steel Limited (BPSL) in relation to a complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) in view of Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

Delhi High Court Directs State Trading Corporation Of India To Fully Reimburse Medical Expenses Of ₹23.79 Lakhs To Its Retired Employee

Case title: Jagdish Chandra vs. State Trading Corporation Of India Ltd

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 147

The Delhi High Court has directed the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd (STC) to reimburse medical expenses of Rs.23.79 lakh to one of its former employees, incurred by him due to the hospitalization of his wife.

Corporate Debtor Immune From Prosecution Under PMLA Post Approval Of Resolution Plan: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Bhushan Power & Steel Limited vs. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 148

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has held that in accordance with Section 32A(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), a Corporate Debtor that has successfully undergone a resolution process under Section 31 of the IBC shall not be prosecuted for offences committed prior to the commencement of the CIRP.

Superannuation Fund | Limit On Deduction Of Employer's Contribution Applies To Initial/ Annual Contribution, Not Additional Payments: Delhi HC

Case title: The Commissioner Of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 v. Standard Chartered Grindlays Ltd

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 149

The Delhi High Court has held that the limit prescribed under Section 36(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act 1961, on deductions that an employer can seek for contributions made towards superannuation funds, applies only at the stage of setting up the fund or making ordinary annual payments.

A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said any contribution made additionally in discharge of an overarching obligation would not be rendered as a disallowable expense.

Delhi High Court Upholds Validity Of S.132 Of Companies Act Establishing National Financial Reporting Authority, NFRA Rules

Title: DELOITTE HASKINS & SELLS LLP v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. and other connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 150

The Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 132 of the Companies Act, 2013, and Rules 3, 8, 10 and 11 of the National Financial Reporting Authority Rules, 2018.

Section 132 of the Companies Act states: (1) The Central Government may, by notification, constitute a National Financial Reporting Authority to provide for matters relating to accounting and auditing standards under this Act.

Delhi High Court Declares 'Peter England' As Well Known Trademark, Says Public Figures Regularly Acted As Brand Ambassadors

Title: ADITYA BIRLA FASHION AND RETAIL LIMITED v. FRIENDS INC & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 151

The Delhi High Court has declared “Peter England”, an international menswear brand, as a well-known trademark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The Court noted that the brand has spent huge amount on the endorsement of its products by various actors like Ayushman Khurrana as well as players of Chennai Super Kings Cricket Team.

Not An Enabling Provision, Proscribes Reassessment Action Beyond Limitation: Delhi HC Explains Timelines U/S 149 Of Income Tax Act

Case title: Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer And Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 152

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, which prescribes a limitation period for initiating reassessment against an assessee, is not an enabling provision but rather a proscription on the Assessing Officer's powers.