Delhi Decisions : December 2025
1. Shantanu Prakash v. CBI [2025] GCtR 1859 (Delhi) has held that the first and foremost requirement for production of document under
Section 91 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is that it can be invoked at the stage of enquiry as well as
the trial. The second requirement is that it should be necessary or desirable
for that purpose of investigation. The third aspect which emerges is that
such necessity or desirability has to be considered with reference to the
stage, when the prayer is made for the production.
2. Sandeep Jha @ Sandy v. State of NCTD [2025] GCtR 1860 (Delhi) has noted that it is deemed apposite to note at this stage that the medical
examination of the prosecutrix was conducted soon after physical relations
were allegedly established between her and the accused, however, she refused to undergo internal examination during the same. Accused was acquitted of offence under S.376 of IPC.
3. Rahul v. State GNCTD [2025] GCtR 1861 (Delhi) has set aside the Order of the Trial Court. It was noted that although the Trial Court
itself recorded that sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act had
not been received and hence charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 could not be framed, it still relied upon the alleged recovery of the
country-made pistol at the instance of the petitioner to draw
conclusions regarding the alleged use of a deadly weapon.
4. Parwez Khan v. Shabnam Ara [2025] GCtR 1862 (Delhi) has held that the scope of interference with an interim
maintenance order under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is narrow and limited to
correcting patent illegality, perversity, or manifest unreasonableness in the Order.
5. Munna @ Manoj Kumar v. Ram Narain [2025] GCtR 1863 (Delhi) has held that scope of interference
under A.227 of the Constitution of India is extremely limited,
especially in a case where two courts below have concurred in their
decision. Under A.227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can
interfere with an order challenged before it where the same is grossly illegal
or perverse. The High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under A. 227
of the Constitution of India shall not reappreciate the evidence.
6. State of GNCTD v. Toshib @ Paritosh [2025] GCtR 1865 (Delhi) while dealing with sexual offences has held that if interim compensation disbursed in cases where allegations are subsequently withdrawn or found to be false is routinely allowed to remain unrecovered, it may not only result in misuse of public funds but may also dilute the credibility and sustainability of schemes meant to support genuine victims of sexual violence.
7. Mahua Moitra v. Lokpal of India [2025] GCtR 1867 (Delhi) has held that once a sanction is granted under Section 20(7)(a) of Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013, the learned Lokpal becomes functus officio insofar as the merits of the case are concerned. The Act does not provide for deferment of sanction, reconsideration of material, or continuation of scrutiny by the Lokpal at a subsequent stage when the role of the learned Special Court has come into play.
8. Shiksha Kumari v. Santosh Kumar [2025] GCtR 1866 (Delhi) has held that the waiver of the 01-year separation period under section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 does not preclude waiver of the 06-month cooling-off period for filing the 2nd motion under section 13B(2); and waiver of the 01-year period under section 13B(1), and the 06-month period under section 13B(2), are to be considered independently of each other.
9. Satish Motiani v. T Choithram Foundation [2025] GCtR 1868 (Delhi) has held that a suit to protect the Trust property from persons acting without authority does not necessarily seek the direction of the Court for the "administration of the trust" in the public sense but rather seeks to secure the Trust’s integrity. S.92 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 does not lay down that with respect to a public charitable trust, only a suit under S.92 can be filed. S.92 is not the sole repository of suits filed by or against a Public Charitable Trust.
10. Shahid Yousuf v. NIA [2025] GCtR 1870 (Delhi) has held that Section 21(1) of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 permits an appeal from “any judgment, sentence or order not being an interlocutory order”. Under Sub-Section (3), it bars any other appeal or revision. After noting that NIA Act was amended in the year 2019 and the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amending Act, 2019 it was held that the scheme of NIA Act is that for the Scheduled offences covered by the NIA Act, the investigation as well as trial shall be speedy. A revision challenging any order is absolutely barred to enable Court to hold proceedings expeditiously.
11. Colgate Palmolive Company v. NIXI [2025] GCtR 1889 (Delhi) has held that the Dynamic+ injunction would apply under the following circumstances: (i) Wherever the brand/trademark appears as it is in the domain name; (ii) Wherever brand/trademark appears with a prefix or suffix which could lead to confusion; (iii) Wherever the brand/trademark appears as an alphanumeric variation. It was also held that any misuse of domain names by registration of fraudulent domain names and creation of fake websites results in erosion of the integrity and goodwill of the business house and name, as also leads to consumer deception.
12. DAMEPL v. Construcciones Y Auxiliar De Ferrocarriles [2025] GCtR 1888 (Delhi) held that when the seat of arbitration is outside India, the bar contained in Section 2(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 squarely applies and the jurisdiction of Indian courts is excluded, rendering Part I of the A&C Act inapplicable. On facts of this case, it was held that the dispute shall be governed by the arbitral proceedings in London as per the ICC Rules, Paris.
Compiled and written by
Vishal
Note : AI etc has not been used at any state of writing/research. No other material except full text copy of Judgment has been referred.