Delhi High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 10 To March 16, 2025

Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 299 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 320

NOMINAL INDEX

Rattan India Power Ltd. v. BHEL 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 299

Eureka Forbes Limited vs.Om Sai Enterprises & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 300

Puma SE vs. Mahesh Kumar 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 301

JSD Traders LLP v. Additional Commissioner, GST 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 302

Ramada International, Inc. vs. Clubramada Hotels And Resorts Private Limited & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 303

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. WGF Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 304

WRESTLING FEDERATION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT MR. SANJAY SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 305

Cargill India Private Limited v. Central Board Of Direct Taxes. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 306

MOHD. MUNIB v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 307

M/S Ismartu India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India And Others 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 308

M/S Ismartu India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India And Others 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 309

State Bank of India vs. M/S. P. P. Jewellers Private Limited (M/S. P. P. JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 310

JOHNSON & JOHNSON v. PRITAMDAS ARORA T/A M/S MEDSERVE & ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 311

ISHA FOUNDATION v. GOOGLE LLC & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 312

M/s ARSS Infrastructure Projects Ltd. v. National Highway Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 313

Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 314

NAVAL KISHORE KAPOOR v. NIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 315

Amirhossein Alizadeh v. The Commissioner Of Customs & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 316

VIJAY KUMAR @ CHAMPION v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 317

Living Media India Limited & Anr. vs. Telegram FZ LLC & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 318

Aabi Binju versus Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 319

M/S Smartschool Education Private Limited Vs M/S Bada Business Pvt. Ltd And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 320

Arbitral Awards Can Be Granted On The Basis Of Evidentiary Admissions: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Rattan India Power Ltd. v. BHEL

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 299

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has observed that the power to pass an award on admissions is wide, and evidentiary admissions (admissions contained outside pleadings) can also form the basis of an arbitral award.

Delhi High Court Issues Permanent Injunction Against Trademark & Copyright Infringement Of Acquaguard's Spare Parts, Imposes ₹2 Lakh Costs

Case title: Eureka Forbes Limited vs.Om Sai Enterprises & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 300

The Delhi High Court has granted permanent injunction in favour of Eureka Forbes Limited which owns 'Acquaguard', restraining a manufacturer of spare parts of water purification systems from infringing on its trademarks and copyrights.

Eureka Forbes Limited (plaintiff) manufactures and sells water purifiers and its spares and consumables under the 'AQUAGUARD' and formative trademarks.

Trademark Infringement: Delhi High Court Directs Manufacturer Of Counterfeit Products To Pay ₹11 Lakh To Puma

Case title: Puma SE vs. Mahesh Kumar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 301

The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favour of Puma, restraining a manufacturer of counterfeit products from selling products under Puma's trademarks and its logos.

Observing that the manufacturer engaged in a blatant act of counterfeiting, Justice Mini Pushkarna directed the manufacturer of counterfeit products to pay Rs. 11 lakh in damages and costs to Puma.

S.29 CGST Act | SCN Must Reflect Both Reasons And Intent Of Retrospective Cancellation Of Registration: Delhi High Court

Case title: JSD Traders LLP v. Additional Commissioner, GST

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 302

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an order cancelling GST registration of a trader with retrospective effect will not sustain unless the show cause notice preceding such decision reflects both the reasons and the authority's intent for retrospective cancellation.

Delhi High Court Issues Permanent Injunction Against Trademark Infringement Of Ramada International, Awards ₹10 Lakh Damages

Case title: Ramada International, Inc. vs. Clubramada Hotels And Resorts Private Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 303

The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of the American hotel chain Ramada International, against trademark infringement by a party using the 'Ramada' mark as its corporate name.

Ramada International (plaintiff) submitted that it adopted the trademark RAMADA in 1954 for its hotel in Arizona, USA. It stated that it franchises and manages over 900 hotels across more than 60 countries including India.

S.36 Income Tax Act | Deduction For Bad Debt Allowed Only If Assessee Lends In Ordinary Course Of Banking/Money Lending Business: Delhi HC

Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. WGF Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 304

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that allowance in respect of bad debts as an expense under Section 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is permissible only if:

(a) the debt was taken into account for computing the income of the assessee in the previous year in which the amount is written off or prior previous years; or

(b) represents money lent in the ordinary course of business of banking or money lending.

Suspension Of Wrestling Federation Of India Revoked: Centre Tells Delhi High Court

Title: WRESTLING FEDERATION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT MR. SANJAY SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS & ORS. 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 305

The Central Government informed the Delhi High Court that the suspension of Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) by the Union Sports Ministry on December 24, 2023, has been revoked.

An order to the said effect was passed by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports on March 10. Vide the said order, the Centre has restored the recognition of WFI as a national sports federation for wrestling.

Income Tax Rules | Centre's Power To Relax Conditions Under Rule 9C Exceptional & Discretionary, Not Ordinarily Subject To Judicial Review: Delhi HC

Case title: Cargill India Private Limited v. Central Board Of Direct Taxes.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 306

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the power of the Central government to relax conditions prescribed under Rule 9C of the Income Tax Rules 1962, read with Section 72A of the Income Tax Act, 1962, is exceptional, discretionary and cannot ordinarily be subject to judicial review.

Complainant Has No Right To Be Heard In Bail Proceedings Under Juvenile Justice Act: Delhi High Court

Title: MOHD. MUNIB v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 307

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a complainant has no right to be heard at every stage of bail proceedings under the Juvenile Justice Act.

“The involvement of the complainant remains a matter of judicial discretion rather than an enforceable entitlement, and the fundamental principle of juvenile justice i.e., "rehabilitation over retribution" must remain paramount in any such determination,” Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said.

S.28(4) Customs Act | Genuine Disagreement With Department Regarding Classification Of Goods Not 'Suppression Of Facts' By Trader: Delhi HC

Case title: M/S Ismartu India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India And Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 308

The Delhi High Court has held that merely because there is disagreement between the Customs department and a trader regarding the classification of the latter's goods for the purpose of levying duty, it does not mean that the trader has indulged in 'suppression of facts' from the Department.

Subsequent Notice U/S 28(4) Customs Act Cannot Be 'Supplementary' To Prior Notice U/S 28(1), Both Provisions Operate In Separate Fields: Delhi HC

Case title: M/S Ismartu India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India And Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 309

The Delhi High Court has held that notices under Section 28(1) and Section 28(4) of the Customs Act 1962 operate in different scenarios and even by an exaggerated stretch, cannot possibly be said to be interchangeably issued.

'Luxury Litigation': Delhi High Court Dismisses SBI's Plea To Expunge Magistrate's Remarks Suggesting Collusion In Loan Default Case

Case title: State Bank of India vs. M/S. P. P. Jewellers Private Limited (M/S. P. P. JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 310

Remarking that the State Bank of India (SBI) was pursuing a “luxury litigation”, the Delhi High Court dismissed the bank's petition which sought to expunge remarks made by a Magistrate which pointed to a lack of due diligence on the part of SBI in recovery of loan amount and further indicated collusion with the defaulter.

Counterfeit Medical Products Threat To Public Health: Delhi HC Awards ₹3.34 Crore Damages To Johnson & Johnson Over Trademark Infringement

Title: JOHNSON & JOHNSON v. PRITAMDAS ARORA T/A M/S MEDSERVE & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 311

The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favour of the American pharmaceutical company Johnson & Johnson, against trademark infringement and selling large quantities of counterfeit products by a party engaged in the sale of surgical devices using Johnson & Johnson's 'Surgicel', 'Ligaclip' and 'Ethicon' trademarks.

Delhi High Court Orders Take Down Of YouTuber Shyam Meera Singh's 'Defamatory' Video On Sadhguru, Isha Foundation

Title: ISHA FOUNDATION v. GOOGLE LLC & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 312

The Delhi High Court directed the take down of YouTuber Shyam Meera Singh's recent, allegedly defamatory YouTube video on Isha Foundation and its founder spiritual leader Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev.

The video titled “Sadhguru EXPOSED: What's happening in Jaggi Vasudev's Ashram” was uploaded by Singh on his YouTube channel on February 24 and he shared it on his 'X' page with allegations suggesting that minors were being exploited in the Ashram.

Veracity Of Allegations Against Settlement Agreement Cannot Be Looked Into By Court In Application U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/s ARSS Infrastructure Projects Ltd. v. National Highway Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 313

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has reiterated that the scope of inquiry under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is limited to examining the prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement.

Contingent Liability vs Laid Out Expense: Delhi HC Allows Vodafone To Claim ₹5.1 Crore Depreciation Over Estimated Costs To Restore Mobile Tower Sites

Case title: Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 314

The Delhi High Court has allowed Vodafone Mobile, engaged in providing telecommunication services, to claim depreciation of ₹5.10 crores in respect of fixed assets over provisioned expenditure to discharge its contractual obligation of restoring mobile tower sites to their original condition at the end of the lease period.

UAPA: Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Accused Naval Kishore Kapoor, Says Terror Funding Wreaked Havoc In Kashmir

Title: NAVAL KISHORE KAPOOR v. NIA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 315

The Delhi High Court denied bail to accused Naval Kishore Kapoor in a terror funding case registered by National Investigation Agency (NIA) under UAPA.

A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur dismissed Kapoor's appeal challenging a trial court order denying him bail on August 19, 2019.

'Cannot Be Forced To Repeatedly Approach Court': Delhi HC Orders Release Of Iran National's Jewellery Confiscated By Customs Almost 3 Yrs Ago

Case title: Amirhossein Alizadeh v. The Commissioner Of Customs & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 316

The Delhi High Court ordered the Customs Department to release the silver-coated gold chains of an Iranian national, which were confiscated on his arrival in India almost three years ago.

A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noted that the prescribed period of six months for issuance of a Show Cause Notice had already elapsed.

Writ Petition For Quashing Of FIR Can't Serve As Substitute For Availing Remedies Under BNSS: Delhi High Court

Title: VIJAY KUMAR @ CHAMPION v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 317

The Delhi High Court has observed that a writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking quashing of an FIR cannot serve as a substitute for availing remedies specifically provided under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for securing personal liberty.

Delhi High Court Grants Relief To India Today Group Against Dissemination Of Its E-Magazines By Illegal Telegram Channels

Case title: Living Media India Limited & Anr. vs. Telegram FZ LLC & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 318

The Delhi High Court has granted a permanent injunction in favour of India Today Group, against copyright and trademark infringement by several Telegram channels/accounts uploading e-magazines owned by the India Today Group.

Courts Can't Interfere In Assessment By Reporting Officer In Absence Of Bias Or Prejudice Against Employee:Delhi High Court

Case Title: Aabi Binju versus Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 319

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices C.Hari Shankar and Anup Kumar Mendiratta partly allowed a writ petition seeking to set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal that upheld the gradings given to the Petitioner in the ACR's by Reporting and Reviewing Officers. The Bench observed that while the Courts are required to consider and give weightage to the reports and gradings given by Officers, it is also necessary to consider whether such remarks or gradings were assigned without any bias or prejudice.

Withdrawal Of MSMED Council Application Does Not Preclude Arbitration U/S 11, Even Without Council's Response: Delhi High Court

Case Title: M/S Smartschool Education Private Limited Vs M/S Bada Business Pvt. Ltd And Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 320

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held that withdrawal of an application before the MSMED Council does not bar a party from seeking the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even in the absence of any corresponding response from the MSMED Council.