- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Delhi High Court
- /
- Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up:...
Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 20 To January 26, 2025
Nupur Thapliyal
26 Jan 2025 2:23 PM
Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 66 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 94NOMINAL INDEXM/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...
Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 66 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 94
NOMINAL INDEX
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
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.
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. ”
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.