Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 577 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 614NOMINAL INDEXGNCTD v. LG 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 577 Akshat Baldwa & Anr. v. Maddock Films & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 578 DEEN DAYAL UPADHYAY HOSPITAL v. SANGEETA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 579 ANUSHA GUPTA & ORS v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (THROUGH THE DIRECTOR) & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 580 MDD Medical Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd....
Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 577 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 614
NOMINAL INDEX
GNCTD v. LG 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 577
Akshat Baldwa & Anr. v. Maddock Films & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 578
DEEN DAYAL UPADHYAY HOSPITAL v. SANGEETA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 579
ANUSHA GUPTA & ORS v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (THROUGH THE DIRECTOR) & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 580
MDD Medical Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Delhi International Arbitration Centre and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 581
Tirupati Constwell Private Limited Versus Delhi States Employees Federation CGHS Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 582
IIFL HOME FINANCE LTD versus PUNKAJ BHAGCHAND CHHALLANI & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 583
Ajay Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 584
RAM KRISHAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. versus ASIAN HOTEL (NORTH) LTD. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 585
GREENS ZOOLOGICAL RESCUE AND REHABILITATION CENTRE SOCIETY & ANR v. HIMAL SOUTHASIAN & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 586
SK v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 587
JITENDER DIXIT v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 588
Maninder Sidhu v. The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 589
KS Bhandari v. M/S International Security Printers Pvt Ltd. (and batch) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 590
MDD MEDICAL SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. versus DELHI INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE AND ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 591
Aditya Singh Deshwal v. Delhi High Court through Registrar General 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 593
Vikas Gupta And Anr v. M/S Sahni Cosmetics 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 594
Harshvardhan Metals Ltd & Anr. Versus ISF Commodities (P) Ltd 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 595
PCL STICCO (JV) versus NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 596
ANJUMAN MOINIA FAKHRIA CHISHTIYA KHUDDAM KHWAJA SAHIB SYEDZADGAN (REGD.) DARGAH SHARIF, AJMER v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR and other connected matter 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 597
LALIT SHARMA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 598
M/s Supreme Infrastructure India Limited v Freyssinet Memard India Pvt. Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 599
Christian Michel James v. ED 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 600
MOHSIN KHAN v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 601
Chandan Rai v. State 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 602
VASISHTA MANTENA NH04 JV & ORS. versus Mr. Ashish Kothari, Adv. BLACKLEAD INFRATECH PVT. LTD.2025 LiveLaw (Del) 603
KAL AIRWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED versus SPICEJET LIMITED & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 604
Carol Infrastructure Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 27, Delhi & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 605
The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -Central -1 v. Sneh Lata Sawhney (and batch) 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 606
NITIN KUMAR AND ORS v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 607
VINEET GUPTA v. SMT. BHAWNA GUPTA 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 608
Amit Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Pvt. Ltd And Ors 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 609
State v. Neeraj 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 610
ARPIT BHARGAVA v. DHARMENDRA AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 611
GUJARAT STATE ROLLER SKATING ASSOCIATION v. ROLLER SKATING FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 612
JAGTAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 613
M/S CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL Versus M/S MCM WORLDWIDE PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 614
Case Title: GNCTD v. LG
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 577
The Delhi High Court has allowed the withdrawal of a petition filed by then AAP-led Delhi Government against an order of the Lieutenant Governor, overturning the Cabinet's decision to appoint a panel of prosecutors of its choice to argue cases related to Farmers Protest and Delhi Riots.
Title: Akshat Baldwa & Anr. v. Maddock Films & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 578
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to expedite the process of issuance of guidelines on incorporating accessibility features in Over-The-Top (OTT) platforms for persons with disabilities (PwDs).
Once Worker Provides Testimony Under Oath, Burden Shifts On Employer To Disprove Claims: Delhi HC
Title: DEEN DAYAL UPADHYAY HOSPITAL v. SANGEETA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 579
Delhi High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Manoj Jain dismissed a petition that was filed by the Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital. The hospital was challenging a labour court award that awarded compensation to a sanitation worker. The court agreed with the Labour Court and ruled that the worker had been in continuous employment for over 240 days, and was improperly terminated. However, the court only awarded compensation instead of reinstatement.
Title: ANUSHA GUPTA & ORS v. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (THROUGH THE DIRECTOR) & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 580
The Delhi High Court asked the Director of National Cyber Forensic Laboratory (NCFL) to expedite the investigation ordered in a petition filed by two candidates alleging manipulation of their score cards in JEE (Main)-2025.
Case Title: MDD Medical Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Delhi International Arbitration Centre and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 581
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, while hearing a writ petition challenging the decision of Delhi International Arbitration Centre (Respondent No. 1) to revive arbitral proceeding after closing the proceedings due to non-filing of the State of Claim (SOC) observed that since the proceedings have been revived, the Arbitral Tribunal is the competent authority to adjudicate and rule upon.
Case Title: Tirupati Constwell Private Limited Versus Delhi States Employees Federation CGHS Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 582
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that if, after the issuance of a notice invoking arbitration, no bonafide negotiations take place between the parties, and the limitation period for filing an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) expires, the time allegedly spent in such negotiations cannot be excluded while computing the limitation period under Section 11.
Case Title: IIFL HOME FINANCE LTD versus PUNKAJ BHAGCHAND CHHALLANI & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 583
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that the intent of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) cannot be interpreted to confer jurisdiction on a court that is otherwise incompetent to entertain an application under this provision.
Case title: Ajay Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 584
The Delhi High Court observed that a greater degree of latitude has to be necessarily accorded to paramilitary and Armed Forces in cases relating to transfer of personnel.
Case Title: RAM KRISHAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. versus ASIAN HOTEL (NORTH) LTD.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 585
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that the appointment of an arbitrator as an observer in a matter unrelated to the arbitration dispute does not constitute de facto or de jure ineligibility under the Fifth or Seventh Schedules of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). Consequently, the arbitrator's mandate cannot be terminated on this ground under Section 14 of the Act. However, the court permitted the petitioner to raise this objection under Section 34 after the award is passed.
Title: GREENS ZOOLOGICAL RESCUE AND REHABILITATION CENTRE SOCIETY & ANR v. HIMAL SOUTHASIAN & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 586
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a contempt petition filed by Anant Ambani led Vantara, seeking deletion of an article published on online platform Himal Southasian alleging ill-treatment and transfer of elephants.
Section 377 IPC Can't Be Applied To Prosecute Husband In Marital Relationship: Delhi High Court
Title: SK v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 587
The Delhi High Court has ruled that in a marital relationship, Section 377 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, cannot be applied to criminalise non-penile-vaginal intercourse between a husband and wife.
“Such an interpretation would be in line with the reasoning and observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Navtej Singh Johar (supra),” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
Title: JITENDER DIXIT v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 588
Emphasizing that the right to speedy trial is not an illusory safeguard, the Delhi High Court has said that personal liberty cannot be whittled down merely because the case is under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA).
Case title: Maninder Sidhu v. The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 589
The Delhi High Court granted medical bail to a murder accused seeking to undergo laser surgery for Varicose Veins, subject to his marking attendance with the Investigating Officer on video calls.
Ordinarily, those on bail are required to visit the jurisdictional police station in person to mark their attendance with the IO.
Case title: KS Bhandari v. M/S International Security Printers Pvt Ltd. (and batch)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 590
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 is not confined to eviction of tenants for bona fide use by a man or a woman and it includes a tenant who is a juristic entity or any other entity such as a firm, company, etc.
Case Title: MDD MEDICAL SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. versus DELHI INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE AND ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 591
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has held that the mandate of the MSME Facilitation Council to refer a dispute to arbitration under Section 18(3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, following the failure of conciliation under Section 18(2), is not automatically terminated if the referral is not made within 90 days as prescribed under Section 18(5). Unlike Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) Section 18(5) of the MSMED Act does not specify any consequences for non-compliance with the 90-day timeline.
Case title: Vikas Gupta And Anr v. M/S Sahni Cosmetics
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 592
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that common Indian forenames like “NEHA” can constitute protected trademark, provided it acquires an 'inherent distinctiveness' by establishing a secondary meaning in trade.
Title: Aditya Singh Deshwal v. Delhi High Court through Registrar General
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 593
The Delhi High Court closed a public interest litigation to constitute special designated benches to adjudicate quashing petitions on the basis of a settlement.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice dk Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela asked the lawyer Aditya Singh Deshwal to give the suggestions on the administrative side.
Mere Inclusion Of A Mark In Trading Name Does Not By Itself Constitute 'Trademark': Delhi High Court
Case title: Vikas Gupta And Anr v. M/S Sahni Cosmetics
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 594
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that mere inclusion of a mark in a trading name does not, by itself, constitute a protected 'trademark'.
Single bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula though conceded that many brands derive their commercial identity through consistent and public-facing use of their trading name, it held that to give rise to protectable rights, such use must be of a kind that identifies the source of the goods and serves to distinguish them from those of others – a concept often referred to by Courts as “use in the trademark sense”.
Case Title: Harshvardhan Metals Ltd & Anr. Versus ISF Commodities (P) Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 595
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that Bye-laws may serve as operational guidelines, but they cannot impose conditions that conflict with statutory rights.
Case Title: PCL STICCO (JV) versus NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 596
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia has held that once the Judgment Debtor deposits the decretal amount with the court registry pursuant to a court order, and the Award Holder has notice of such deposit, interest on the deposited amount ceases to accrue. Consequently, interest can only be claimed on the remaining outstanding amount, not on the sum deposited with the court.
Delhi High Court Stays CAG Audit Of Accounts Of Ajmer Sharif Dargah
Title: ANJUMAN MOINIA FAKHRIA CHISHTIYA KHUDDAM KHWAJA SAHIB SYEDZADGAN (REGD.) DARGAH SHARIF, AJMER v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR and other connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 597
The Delhi High Court has stayed the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) audit of the accounts of Ajmer Sharif Dargah.
Justice Sachin Datta found credibility in the contention of Dargah's submission that the requirements under Section 20 of the CAG Act were not satisfied.
Title: LALIT SHARMA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 598
The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a plea seeking implementation of biometric verification process of Advocates for elections to the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD).
Case Title – M/s Supreme Infrastructure India Limited v Freyssinet Memard India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 599
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jyoti Singh while setting aside an arbitral award has observed that unilateral appointment of arbitrator vitiates the award and if the opposite party fails to reply to the notice under Section 21, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”), then such inaction cannot lead to an inference as to implied consent or acquiescence of the party to appointment of the named Arbitrator. The Court held that in such a situation the only recourse available to the party is to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court for appointment of an arbitrator.
AgustaWestland Scam: Delhi High Court Modifies Christian Michel's Bail Conditions In ED Case
Case Title: Christian Michel James v. ED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 600
The Delhi High Court modified the bail condition imposed on British Arms Counsultant Christian James Michel in the FIR registered by Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the Agusta Westland chopper scam.
Title: MOHSIN KHAN v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 601
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to a man accused in an espionage case, observing that the nation rests peacefully because the armed forces remain vigilant.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma denied bail to Mohsin Khan, accused of transmitting sensitive information pertaining to the Indian Army to Pakistan High Commission.
Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Man Booked For Murder After His Father Hit Deceased With Knife
Case title: Chandan Rai v. State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 602
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a man booked for murder after his father hit the deceased with a knife, during a quarrel involving the three.
Case Title: VASISHTA MANTENA NH04 JV & ORS. versus Mr. Ashish Kothari, Adv. BLACKLEAD INFRATECH PVT. LTD.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 603
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul has held that the benefit of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act is available only when the petition is filed within the normal limitation period that is 90 days as prescribed under section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act and the court was closed on the last day of that period. It does not apply when the court was closed on the last day of the extendable period under proviso to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act.
Case Title: KAL AIRWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED versus SPICEJET LIMITED & ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 604
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices C. Harishankar and Ajay Digpaul observed that the conduct of the appellants in this case is deeply troubling to the court's conscience. They neither informed the respondents about the filing of the present appeals nor disclosed the same to the court, even though the respondents' appeals challenging the same arbitral award had been listed and heard multiple times. Under these circumstances, the delay in filing and refiling the appeals cannot be condoned due to the appellants' evident lack of bona fide.
Case title: Carol Infrastructure Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 27, Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 605
The Delhi High Court made it clear that Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 “does not contemplate a hiatus” between handing over and receipt of information or documents pertaining to a non-searched entity.
Case title: The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -Central -1 v. Sneh Lata Sawhney (and batch)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 606
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Clause (ix) of the Explanation to Section 153B of the Income Tax Act 1961 cannot be invoked to exclude the period of reference under the Indo-Swiss DTAA, if the reference itself is invalid.
Title: NITIN KUMAR AND ORS v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 607
While dealing with a case concerning Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Delhi High Court has said that false allegations in such cases have wide ranging consequences across the society as the same create cynicism and give rise to a suspicion even against genuine victims.
Title: SH. VINEET GUPTA v. SMT. BHAWNA GUPTA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 608
The Delhi High Court has ruled that maintenance m is not a favour but is a recognition of shared parental responsibility, and of the child's right to be supported.
Case title: Amit Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Pvt. Ltd And Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 609
The Delhi High Court has held that where there is no evidence that a goods carriage/ tanker was carrying hazardous material, the mere absence of an endorsement under Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 cannot be construed as a breach of statutory conditions sufficient to grant recovery rights to the insurer.
Case title: State v. Neeraj
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 610
The Delhi High Court has held that when a Court comes to a conclusion that an accused person is suffering from mental retardation and decides to discharge him, it must consider whether it is safe to release such accused in the society.
Delhi Govt Implements SOP For Handling Bomb Threats In Schools, High Court Closes Contempt Plea
Title: ARPIT BHARGAVA v. DHARMENDRA AND ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 611
The Delhi High Court has closed a contempt petition after the Delhi Government's Director of Education implemented the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for handling bomb threats in schools in the national capital.
Title: GUJARAT STATE ROLLER SKATING ASSOCIATION v. ROLLER SKATING FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 612
The Delhi High Court has ordered that the elections of the Roller Skating Federation of India shall be conducted in terms of the National Sports Code and the constitution of the Indian Olympic Association.
Title: JAGTAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 613
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench consisting of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur allowed a writ petition filed by a retired BSF officer. The court directed the Union of India to provide lump sum compensation to the retired BSF officer, for a disability that he suffered in the line of duty. The Court held that he was entitled to compensation under Rule 9(3) of the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1972 (“CCS (EOP) Rules”), since his disability was attributable to his service. The Court also explained that any delay by the disabled in approaching the court is not a valid reason to deny disability compensation.
Case Title: M/S CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL Versus M/S MCM WORLDWIDE PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 614
The Delhi High Court bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathanshankar has held that for a valid acknowledgment under section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 certain essential requirements must be met. Firstly, the acknowledgment must be made before the relevant period of limitation has expired. Secondly, it must pertain specifically to the liability concerning the right in question. Lastly, the acknowledgment must be in writing and signed by the party against whom such right is claimed.