The Delhi High Court dismissed Tata Play Ltd’s plea challenging a ₹10.41 crore GST demand for FY 2020–21 over alleged excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims.

Tata Play argued that the Show Cause Notice (SCN), dated November 30, 2024, was time-barred under Sections 73(2) and 73(10) of the CGST Act.

However, the Court held that “three months” refers to calendar months, validating the SCN. It also rejected Tata Play’s claim of being denied a personal hearing, noting multiple opportunities were provided.

While upholding the SCN and order, the Court allowed Tata Play to file an appeal under Section 107 by August 31.

[Tata Play Ltd. vs. Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO]

The Delhi High Court refused to stay the release of the film Udaipur Files, based on the 2022 murder of Kanhaiya Lal, rejecting a plea by one of the accused, Mohammed Javed, who claimed the film could prejudice his trial.

The Court held there was no prima facie case to justify halting the release and noted the filmmaker had invested significantly.

It emphasised that the in-house inquiry or prior certification by authorities, including CBFC, had been followed. The Court dismissed concerns that the film could prejudice ongoing trials.

The film is now set to release on August 8, 2025, as scheduled, despite earlier legal challenges and controversy.

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act challenging an interim award passed under Section 17, which restrained appellants from breaching a non-compete clause in a valid Shareholders’ Agreement (SHA).

The Court held that such enforcement doesn’t violate Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, as the SHA wasn’t lawfully terminated.

The Court observed that managerial disengagement doesn't absolve contractual obligations and noted the appellants’ inconsistent positions.

The Court held that interim relief was essential to preserve the arbitration’s subject matter and prevent irreparable harm. The Court found the award reasonable and satisfying the triple test for interim relief.

[Paul Deepak Rajaratnam & Ors. V Surgeport Logistics Private Limited & Anr.]

The Delhi High Court ruled that both serving and retired officers holding Group-A posts for at least five years with law degrees are eligible for appointment as Special Metropolitan Magistrates.

Relying on Section 18(1) of the CrPC, 1998 Rules, and application guidelines, the Court clarified that retirement-related fields in the application apply only to retired candidates and do not restrict eligibility to them alone.

The Court upheld the nomination of six officers serving on the relevant cut-off date, dismissing challenges against their appointments.

[Abdul Aleem v High Court of Delhi and Ors]

The Union government has approved the release of Udaipur Files, dismissing objections and revision petitions. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting upheld the CBFC’s certification, noting 55 cuts and additional voluntary edits.

The Delhi High Court had earlier stayed the film’s release and directed a re-examination under the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

Petitioners argued the movie could prejudice the trial of the accused and depict Muslims negatively. With the Court’s August 7 deadline, the ministry found no grounds to block the film, clearing it for release on August 8.

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking a district-wise police database of women filing multiple sexual offence complaints.

Filed by men’s rights activist Shonee Kapoor, the plea alleged misuse of rape laws for extortion or vendetta, and requested seizure of Aadhaar cards of such complainants.

The Bench, led by Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya, questioned the Court's role in such administrative matters, stating, “Is this a petition or a suggestion?” Citing a pending police response to Kapoor’s RTI, the Court refused to intervene and directed authorities to decide on his representation expeditiously, without commenting on the petition's merits.

[Shonee Kapoor v Union of India & Ors]

The Delhi High Court held that a woman’s right to reside in a shared household under Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, does not override her husband's lawful right to seek partition or assert ownership in civil proceedings.

Dismissing a divorced woman’s appeal, the Delhi High Court affirmed the Family Court's ruling that both parties held 50% ownership in the suit property.

The Court observed that the woman’s right of residence is not absolute and cannot prevent lawful civil remedies. 

The husband’s partition suit followed due process and thus did not amount to unlawful eviction.

[Smita Jina v Amit Jina]

The Delhi High Court dismissed a wife’s appeal seeking maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1996, after the Family Court had denied her relief.

The Court noted the wife was a retired senior teacher living with her two adult sons. In contrast, the husband, aged over 70, was unfit for work and deprived of post-retirement benefits.

The Court held that Section 24 is intended to prevent procedural disadvantage during litigation, not to impose undue financial burden.

The Court said maintenance under Section 24 is discretionary, and depends on both parties' financial situations.

[Yashwani Verma v Virender Verma]

The Delhi High Court ruled that the "three months" period for issuing a Show Cause Notice (SCN) under Section 73(2) of the CGST Act must be interpreted as three calendar months, not 90 days.

The ruling came in a petition by Tata Play, which argued that a show-cause Notice dated November 30, 2024, was time-barred.

The Court rejected this, noting that the final order could be passed until February 28, 2025, making the SCN timely.

Relying on the General Clauses Act and a 2010 Supreme Court ruling, the Court clarified that “month” means a full calendar month unless otherwise specified.

[Tata Play Ltd v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/ Avato]

The Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) told the Delhi High Court that OpenAI is infringing media rights by using online news reports to train ChatGPT, potentially wiping out digital journalism.

Representing top outlets like The Times Group and The Hindu, DNPA argued that even momentary storage of news for training is a copyright violation. The Court was hearing a related case filed by ANI, which also accused OpenAI of using its content without permission.

DNPA added that just because news is publicly available doesn't mean it's free to use. Even for research, companies must use legal copies. 

The Court will hear the matter again on August 18, September 12, and September 23.

The Delhi High Court stayed the auction of a man's ancestral property over unpaid maintenance, citing protection under Section 60(1)(ccc) of the CPC.

The petitioner argued that the property was his sole dwelling, shielding it from attachment or sale in execution of a decree.

The Court noted that the authenticity of a 2017 family settlement deed, which transferred ownership shares, was still under dispute. It held that allowing the sale before resolving this issue could lead to irreparable harm. The Court stayed the auction until August 28, stressing the need for proper adjudication.

[Sh. Raj Kumar And Anr. v. Mrs Poonam]

The Delhi High Court was informed on August 1 that mediation between Dabur India Ltd and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd had failed in their trade dress dispute over Patanjali’s Dant Kanti Red toothpaste.

Dabur alleged that the packaging imitates its Dabur Red product and could mislead consumers.

Given prior compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, the court exempted Dabur from initiating fresh mediation and listed the case for further hearing in December. 

In a related suit, the Court had earlier directed Patanjali to take down ads allegedly disparaging Dabur’s Chyawanprash.

[Dabur India Limited Vs Patanjali Ayurved]

The Delhi High Court held that Section 104A of the Patents Act, 1970, can be invoked at the initial stage of a suit when a patentee seeks disclosure of the defendant’s process.

The Court ruled this applies if the plaintiff shows the product is identical to the patented one and that discovering the defendant’s process is difficult.

Rejecting Roche’s argument that Section 104A doesn’t apply to biologics or early-stage suits, the Court cited statutory interpretation and regulatory guidelines, concluding that the disclosure request falls within scope. The plaintiff’s application was dismissed.

[F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag & Anr. v. Zydus Lifesciences Limited]

The Delhi High Court quashed a ₹12 lakh cost imposed on Vi-John Healthcare by the trial court for a 48-day delay in responding to Dabur’s trademark infringement suit over its Meswak toothpaste packaging.

The trial court had earlier ordered ₹25,000 per day of delay. The High Court found this direction peremptory, noting that Vi-John’s delay was due to ongoing settlement talks.

It held that applications for condonation must be evaluated independently under changing circumstances and without blind reliance on prior orders.

The court also highlighted proportionality, pointing out that the ₹12 lakh cost was disproportionate compared to Dabur’s ₹2.5 lakh damages claim.

[Vi-John Healthcare India LLP v. Dabur India Limited]