- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Delhi High Court
- /
- Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up:...
Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 13 To January 19, 2025
Nupur Thapliyal
20 Jan 2025 7:25 AM
Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 28 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 65NOMINAL INDEXZAFAR 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...
Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 28 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 65
NOMINAL INDEX
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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…”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.