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

Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 254 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 298

NOMINAL INDEX

SHIVAM PANDEY v. STATE 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 254

Y V v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 256

HARIT NURSERIES WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.) & ANR. v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 257

Y S CHOWDARY v. ED and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 258

GOVIND YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 259

VAIBHAV KUMAR v. STATE THROUGH SHO RAJOURI GARDEN 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 260

Suparshva Swabs (I) v. National Faceless Appeal Centre & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 261

Flourish Hospitals Pvt. Ltd vs. Delhi Development Authority 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 262

CCL 'K' v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 263

Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nicenic International Group Company Limited & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 264

SHABBIR KHAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 265

Jayati Mozumdar v. Managing Committee Sri Sathya Sai Vidya Vihar & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 266

Rajbir Singh Sihmar And Ors v. Union Of India And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 267

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. Nagar Dairy Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 268

Saurabh Tripathi & Ors. v. Jamia Millia Islamia and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 269

Sushil Kumar v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 270

Phonographic Performance Limited vs. Azure Hospitality Private Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 271

GAGAN v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 272

Christian Michel James v. ED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 273

Interglobe Aviation Ltd v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs Acc (Import) New Custom House New Delhi & Ors. and batch 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 274

DHOBI GHAT JHUGGI ADHIKAR MANCH v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 275

Arth Vidhi v. Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 276

CBI v. MD. YASEEN WANI & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 277

Leelam v. Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 278

INCITE HOMECARE PRODUCTS PVT LTD versus R K SWAMY PVT LTD ERSTWHILE RK SWAMY BBDO PVT LTD 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 279

CBI vs. Neeraj Kumar 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 280

Sudesh Hans v. Gian Chand Hans and Another 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 281

RESCOM MINERAL TRADING FZE versus RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED RINL AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 282

Tata Teleservices Limited v. The Commissioner CGST Delhi East & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 283

PRAGYA SINGH versus DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 284

M/S DD Interiors v. Commissioner Of Service Tax & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 285

Ramesh Chander v. The Chairman Central Board Of Direct Taxes, & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 286

GE Grid (Switzerland) GMBH v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 287

Sentec India Company Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Customs, Delhi & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 288

Rahul Vattamparambil Remesh v. Union Of India & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 289

MRP (IDENTITY WITHHELD) v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 290

MEENU AGRAWAL v. BHARAT GOEL 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 291

Chotiwala Food And Hotels Private Limited vs. Chotiwala & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 292

C SHARMA v. NAVDEEP SINGH & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 293

M/S Kashish Optics Ltd. v. The Commissioner, CGST Delhi West & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 294

YASH RAJ FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 295

Fasttrack Tieup Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 296

Kiranakart Technologies Private Limited vs. Mohammad Arshad & Anr (C.O. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 297

Long Term Consensual Physical Relationship Doesn't Mean Consent Was Purely Based On Promise To Marry: Delhi HC Sets Aside Rape Conviction

Title: SHIVAM PANDEY v. STATE

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 254

The Delhi High Court has said that if a consensual physical relationship continues for a long period, it cannot be said that the woman's consent was purely based on the promise to marry.

Complete Ban On Students Using Smartphones In Schools 'Undesirable': Delhi High Court Issues Guidelines For Regulated Use

Title: Y V v. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 256

The Delhi High Court has observed that a “complete ban” on use of smartphones by students attending school is both an “undesirable and unworkable” approach.

Yamuna River Has Surpassed Threshold, Interference In Its Restoration Not Justified: Delhi HC Rejects Plea Against Uprooting Of Nurseries

Title: HARIT NURSERIES WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.) & ANR. v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 257

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Yamuna river in the national capital has surpassed the threshold and any interference in its restorative and rejuvenation is not justified.

Appellate Tribunal For Foreign Exchange Can't Pronounce Person 'Guilty' Of Offences Under FERA Act: Delhi High Court

Title: Y S CHOWDARY v. ED and other connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 258

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange cannot pronounce a person “guilty” of the offences under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Order Rejecting Challenge To JDU's Internal Elections Electing Nitish Kumar As President

Title: GOVIND YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 259

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Janata Dal United's (JDU) expelled member Govind Yadav against a single bench order, which dismissed his petition challenging the internal party elections held by JDU in 2016 electing Nitish Kumar as President of the political party.

Delhi High Court Issues Directions For Compliance Of Higher Courts' Orders To Conclude Trials Expeditiously

Title: VAIBHAV KUMAR v. STATE THROUGH SHO RAJOURI GARDEN

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 260

The Delhi High Court has issued directions to the trial courts in the national capital for compliance of higher courts' orders to conclude pending trials expeditiously in a time bound manner.

Delhi High Court Expresses Concern Over Delay In Disposal Of Matters Before National Faceless Appeal Centre

Case title: Suparshva Swabs (I) v. National Faceless Appeal Centre & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 261

The Delhi High Court has expressed grave concern over the pendency of over 5.4 Lakh appeals before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC).

Delhi High Court Rebukes DDA For Improper, Excess Demarcation Of Land For Hospital; Says Can't Demand Ground Rent On Ambiguous Boundaries

Case title: Flourish Hospitals Pvt. Ltd vs. Delhi Development Authority

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 262

The Delhi High Court has reprimanded the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for failing to properly demarcate a plot of land for constructing a hospital, leading to allotment of excess land to the lessee, non-execution of the lease deed and the demand for ground rent from the lessee before proper demarcation of the land.

Child In Conflict With Law Being Treated As Adult Can't Be Tried Jointly With Adult Offender: Delhi High Court

Title: CCL 'K' v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 263

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the trial proceedings of a child alleged to be in conflict with law and an adult offender cannot be held jointly after a preliminary assessment of Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) is done declaring the child in conflict with law to be psychologically and physically mature.

Delhi High Court Passes John Doe Order Against Extortion Threat Of Leaking Insurance Company's Confidential Customer Data

Case title: Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nicenic International Group Company Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 264

While granting temporary injunction in favour of Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company, the Delhi High Court restrained unknown entities from publishing, distributing or disclosing the company's confidential data pertaining to its customers, after the company received a ransomware threat.

UP Woman On Death Row In UAE For Infant's Murder Executed On February 15: Centre Informs Delhi High Court

Title: SHABBIR KHAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 265

The Union Government has informed the Delhi High Court that an Indian woman, resident of Uttar Pradesh, who was on death row in Abu Dhabi, UAE, for alleged murder of a four month old child, was executed on February 15.

Private Unaided Schools Are Subject To Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 If Service Conditions Are Governed By Statutory Provisions Like DSEAR, 1973 : Delhi HC

Case Name : Jayati Mozumdar v. Managing Committee Sri Sathya Sai Vidya Vihar & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 266

The Delhi High Court bench comprising of Justice Prateek Jalan held that a private unaided school is subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if its service conditions are governed by statutory provisions like the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 (DSEAR).

MACP Scheme Benefits Must Be Granted Along With Pension Benefits To Employees Who Got Deemed Extension Of Service Till 60 Years: Delhi HC

Case Name : Rajbir Singh Sihmar And Ors v. Union Of India And Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 267

A Division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Navin Chawla & Justice Shalinder Kaur held that MACP scheme benefits must be granted along with pension benefits to employees whose service is deemed to extend until 60 years.

Respondent Cannot File Cross-Objections To Appeal Before High Court U/S 260A Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court

Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. Nagar Dairy Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 268

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which pertains to appeals to High Courts, does not envisage the filing of cross-objections by the opposite party, unlike Order XLI Rule 22 CPC.

Jamia Protest: Delhi High Court Constitutes Committee To Calm Down Situation, Stays Suspension Of Students

Title: Saurabh Tripathi & Ors. v. Jamia Millia Islamia and other connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 269

The Delhi High Court has directed that a committee be constituted to “calm down” the situation amid recent students' protest in the Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI).

Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Wrestler Sushil Kumar In Sagar Dhankar Murder Case

Title: Sushil Kumar v. State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 270

The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to wrestler Sushil Kumar in relation to the case of murder of 27-year-old former junior national wrestling champion Sagar Dhankar in May 2021.

Delhi High Court Restrains Company Which Owns Mamagoto, Dhaba From Playing Phonographic Performance's Copyrighted Songs In Its Restaurants

Case title: Phonographic Performance Limited vs. Azure Hospitality Private Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 271

The Delhi High Court has granted a temporary injunction in favour of Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL), restraining Azure Hospitality Private Limited which runs several restaurants, from playing PPL's copyrighted songs at the premises of its restaurants.

Non Supply Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Either In Arrest Memo Or Separately To Accused Illegal: Delhi High Court In Abetment Of Suicide Case

Title: GAGAN v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 272

The Delhi High Court declared the arrest of a man as illegal, in an abetment of suicide case, after noting that neither “grounds of arrest” column was there in the arrest memo nor the grounds were separately served upon him at the time of his arrest.

Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Christian Michel Booked By ED In AgustaWestland Chopper Scam

Case Title: Christian Michel James v. ED

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 273

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to British Arms Counsultant Christian James Michel in the FIR registered by Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the Agusta Westland chopper scam.

Delhi High Court Allows Indigo Airlines' Plea, Holds Levy Of Additional IGST On Repaired & Re-Imported Aircraft Parts To Be Unconstitutional

Case title: Interglobe Aviation Ltd v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs Acc (Import) New Custom House New Delhi & Ors. and batch

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 274

In big relief to Indigo airlines, the Delhi High Court has held that an additional levy of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) and cess under Section 3(7) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 on re-import of aircraft parts that were repaired abroad, is unconstitutional.

Illegal Construction Threatens Ecologically Sensitive Yamuna Floodplains: Delhi HC Rejects Dhobi Ghat Slum Residents' Plea Against Demolition

Title: DHOBI GHAT JHUGGI ADHIKAR MANCH v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 275

The Delhi High Court has observed that Yamuna floodplains in the national capital is ecologically sensitive and any unlawful encroachment or construction in the area poses significant threat to it.

NDLS Stampede: Delhi High Court Refuses To Implead Persons Prevented From Boarding Train, Asks Them To Avail Remedy Separately

Case Title: Arth Vidhi v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 276

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain an application filed by various individuals seeking intervention in a pending public interest litigation filed over the recent stampede that occurred at New Delhi Railway Station on February 15.

Awarding Less Than Minimum Prescribed Sentence Under Wildlife Protection Act Would Frustrate Its Object, Set A Dangerous Precedent: Delhi HC

Title: CBI v. MD. YASEEN WANI & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 277

The Delhi High Court has held that it is impermissible to award a sentence which is less than the minimum prescribed term under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

No Liberalised Family Pension For Death During Casual Leave; Direct Causal Link With Official Duty Essential: Delhi HC

Title: Leelam v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 278

Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur held that death of a CRPF Sub-Inspector in a road accident during casual leave does not qualify for Liberalized Family Pension or Ex-Gratia Compensation. The court held that mere classification of leave as 'on duty' under service rules is not enough unless there exists a direct causal link between the death and the performance of official duties. It ruled that for Liberalized Family Pension or Ex-Gratia Compensation, the death must occur in circumstances related to the performance of official duties.

Time Spent Before 'Wrong' Court Excluded U/S 14 Of Limitation Act While Calculating Limitation Period U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: INCITE HOMECARE PRODUCTS PVT LTD versus R K SWAMY PVT LTD ERSTWHILE RK SWAMY BBDO PVT LTD

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 279

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma has held that during the calculation of the limitation period of three months for the application under Section 34(1) of the Act, the time during which the applicant was prosecuting such application before the wrong court is excluded. Court noted that the proceedings in the wrong court should be bona fide, with due diligence.

Delhi High Court Upholds Trial Court Order Allowing Accused's Plea To Preserve Call Detail Records, Location Data Of CBI Officers

Case title: CBI vs. Neeraj Kumar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 280

The Delhi High Court has observed that a Trial Court's order allowing the application of an accused for preservation of Call Detail Records and location data of CBI officers and independent witnesses is an 'interlocutory order' and thus a revision petition under Section 397 CrPC challenging the order is not applicable.

[Arbitration Act] Limitation Does Not Stop If Initial Filing Is Non Est, Date Of Filing Must Be Reckoned From Date Of Refiling: Delhi HC

Case Title: Sudesh Hans v. Gian Chand Hans and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 281

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has reiterated that the filing of the arbitral award under challenge along with application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not a mere procedural formality but an essential requirement and non-filing of the same would make the application non est in the eyes of law.

Delhi HC Grants Interim Relief U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act By Attaching TMT Steel Bars Worth ₹69.5 Crores Made Using Coal Whose Quality Was Disputed

Case Title: RESCOM MINERAL TRADING FZE versus RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED RINL AND ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 282

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has granted interim relief to a petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to the extent of 50% of the balance outstanding claimed i.e., Rs. 69.50 Crores by attaching TMT Steel bars (finished product) of the equivalent amount in a dispute over the quality of coal delivered, which was used to manufacture the steel bars.

Delhi HC Asks CESTAT To Decide If Tax On Services Purchased By Prepaid Mobile Subscribers From Existing Balance Would Amount To Double-Tax

Case title: Tata Teleservices Limited v. The Commissioner CGST Delhi East & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 283

The Delhi High Court has asked the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal to decide whether levy of tax on the services purchased by a prepaid subscriber of Tata Teleservices, using the existing mobile balance on which tax was already paid, would amount to double taxation.

Making Two Applications For One Recruitment Examination, Concealing One, Delhi High Court Dismisses Writ Petition

Case Title: PRAGYA SINGH versus DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 284

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices C.Hari Shankar and Anup Kumar Mendiratta dismissed a Petition whereby the Petitioner sought quashing of a notice by which her candidature was rejected. The Bench held that since the Petitioner had filed two application forms and had also concealed her educational qualifications before the Tribunal as well as the Court, she would not be entitled to any sort of relief.

CESTAT Can't Reject Appeal Merely Because Pre-Deposit Was Made In Wrong Account, Especially When Rules Were Unclear: Delhi High Court

Case title: M/S DD Interiors v. Commissioner Of Service Tax & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 285

The Delhi High Court has held that merely because a pre-deposit prescribed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for preferring an appeal is made in the wrong account, that too when the integrated portal might not have been fully functional, cannot result in rejection of appeal on the ground of defects.

'Ego Issue': Delhi HC Disapproves Of Tax Commissioner Seeking Declaration Against Appointments Committee Of Cabinet Over Delay In Promotion

Case title: Ramesh Chander v. The Chairman Central Board Of Direct Taxes, & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 286

The Delhi High Court rejected the petition filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, seeking a declaration against the Appointments Committee Of Cabinet (ACC) which promoted him to the post with purported delay.

Survey Report On Existence Of 'Permanent Establishment' In Tax Year Not Relevant For Previous/Future AYs: Delhi HC Grants Relief To Swiss Co

Case title: GE Grid (Switzerland) GMBH v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 287

The Delhi High Court has held that the existence of a foreign entity's Permanent Establishment (PE) in India is required to be determined in law for each year separately on the basis of the scope, extent, nature and duration of activities in each year.

'Extra Duty Deposit' Different From Customs Duty, Limitation For Seeking Refund U/S 27 Of Customs Act Is Inapplicable: Delhi High Court

Case title: Sentec India Company Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Customs, Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 288

The Delhi High Court has held that an Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) does not constitute a payment in the nature of customs duty under the scope of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and thus, the period of limitation for seeking a refund of customs duty under the provision would not apply qua EDD.

'Highly Undesirable Practice, Wastes Judicial Time': Delhi High Court Laments Frequent Non-Appearance Of Govt Counsel In Customs Matters

Case title: Rahul Vattamparambil Remesh v. Union Of India & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 289

The Delhi High Court has expressed its displeasure at the frequent non-appearance of government counsel in customs related matters.

[POCSO Act] Lying Very Close To Minor Victim Amounts To 'Outraging Modesty' But Not 'Aggravated Sexual Assault' If No Overt Sexual Intent: Delhi HC

Title: MRP (IDENTITY WITHHELD) v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 290

The Delhi High Court has held that pressing lips of a minor victim and lying very close to her may amount to offence of outraging her modesty under Indian Penal Code but the same may not amount to offence of aggravated sexual assault under POCSO Act if overt sexual intent is absent.

Family Court's Approach Can't Be Like Ordinary Civil Proceeding: Delhi HC Sets Aside Order Closing Wife's Right To File Reply In Divorce Plea

Title: MEENU AGRAWAL v. BHARAT GOEL

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 291

The Delhi High Court has said that while dealing with matrimonial matters, family courts must adopt an approach which is different from ordinary civil proceedings.

Delhi HC Grants Permanent Injunction In Favour Of Rishikesh Based Chotiwala Restaurant Over Trademark Infringement, Awards ₹3 Lakh Damages

Case title: Chotiwala Food And Hotels Private Limited vs. Chotiwala & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 292

The Delhi High Court has recently granted a permanent injunction in favour of Rishikesh-based restaurant Chotiwala Food And Hotels Private Limited, restraining three Delhi-based restaurants from using Chotiwala's name, trademark and artistic work.

Not Coherent: Delhi HC Uphold's Dismissal Of Woman's Complaint Claiming She Survived 25 Gunshots Using Ayurvedic Medicines, Without Surgery

Title: C SHARMA v. NAVDEEP SINGH & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 293

The Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of a woman's complaint who claimed that she survived about 25 gunshot wounds in her head and heart using ayurvedic medicines without surgery or going to the hospital.

S.67 Of CGST Act & S.110 Of Customs Act Are Pari Materia; GST Department Must Give Notice To Assessee Before Extending Seizure Period: Delhi HC

Case title: M/S Kashish Optics Ltd. v. The Commissioner, CGST Delhi West & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 294

The Delhi High Court has held that an assessee must be issued notice within six months of seizure of its goods under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, failing which the goods must be returned by the Department.

Shamshera Movie Copyright Case: Delhi High Court Stays Further Investigation In FIR Against Yash Raj Films, Aditya Chopra

Title: YASH RAJ FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 295

The Delhi High Court has stayed further investigation against Yash Raj Films Private Limited and director Aditya Chopra in the FIR registered against them in relation to the Shamshera movie copyright case.

Income Tax Department Cannot Attach Properties Indefinitely Without Pursuing Steps To Resolve Matter: Delhi High Court

Case title: Fasttrack Tieup Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 296

The Delhi High Court has held that the Income Tax Department cannot, suspecting escapement of tax on income by an assessee, indefinitely attach its properties without taking further steps to resolve the matter.

Relief To Quick Delivery Platform 'Zepto': Delhi High Court Directs Cancellation Of Trademark Registered By Individual In 2014

Case title: Kiranakart Technologies Private Limited vs. Mohammad Arshad & Anr (C.O.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 297

The Delhi High Court has directed the cancellation of 'Zepto' trademark registered in 2014 by an individual, in a rectification petition filed by consumer goods delivery services Kiranakart Technologies Private Limited which operates under the Zepto mark.

Transfer Pricing | Existence Of International Transaction Must Be Determined Before Benchmarking Analysis Is Commenced: Delhi HC

Case title: PCIT-1, New Delhi v. Beam Global Spirits & Wine (India) Pvt.Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 298

The Delhi High Court has held that before the Income Tax Department commences transfer pricing benchmarking analysis of an assessee's international transactions, the very existence of such 'international transaction' must be determined.