Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up [December 8-14, 2025]

1. [Indigo Crisis] The Delhi High Court on Wednesday pulled up the Central government over the large-scale disruption of IndiGo flights, asking how the situation was allowed to deteriorate to the point where thousands of passengers were left stranded at airports across the country. A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela made the observation while hearing a public interest litigation seeking relief for affected passengers. The plea has urged the Union government to ensure adequate ground support as well as timely refunds amid the airline’s operational breakdown. The judges added that the impact of such a crisis “is not confined merely to inconvenience to passengers, but also affects the country’s economy, as fast and efficient passenger movement is an essential component of economic functioning today.”

Case Title: Akhil Rana & anr v Union of India & ors

Bench: Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Tushar Rao Gedela

Click here to read more 

2. [Salman Khan Personality Rights] The Delhi High Court on Thursday, December 11, 2025, directed several social media intermediaries to treat Bollywood actor Salman Khan’s plea seeking protection of his personality rights as a formal complaint under the Information Technology Rules and to take action within three days. The order was passed by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, who issued the direction while hearing Khan’s plea, which asks the Court to restrain social media platforms, websites and online sellers from using his name, pictures, voice or any element of his identity without his consent. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, appearing for Khan, submitted that Apple, an AI chatbot, and several e-commerce platforms have facilitated the misuse of the actor’s personality rights. He further took exception to fan accounts circulating digitally altered images of Khan without his consent. After considering the submissions, the Court said it would issue an interim order against those platforms and sellers that are not social media intermediaries but are allegedly offering unauthorised merchandise featuring Khan’s image or likeness.

Case Title: Salman Khan v. Ashok Kumar v. Ors

Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Click here to read more 

3. [Non Consummation of Marriage Is a Valid Ground for Divorce] The Delhi High Court has upheld a decree of divorce granted to a husband, agreeing with the Family Court’s view that the marriage had never been consummated and that the wife’s conduct amounted to mental cruelty. A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said it saw no reason to interfere with the factual findings recorded by the Family Court. “For all the reasons recorded above, this Court finds that the Family Court’s conclusion that the Respondent had proved cruelty on a preponderance of probabilities is supported by the record and does not warrant appellate interference. The Appeal is thus devoid of merit,” the Court observed.

Case Title: SK v. RR

Bench: Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar

Click here to read more

4.  [Sun Pharmaceutical Industries] The Delhi High Court on Wednesday 10 December 2025 recorded an undertaking from Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. in which the company agreed not to sell its semaglutide based drug in the Indian market until March 20 2026, the date on which Novo Nordisk’s patent over the drug is scheduled to expire. The undertaking was noted by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, who permitted Sun Pharma to manufacture and export the drug to jurisdictions where no corresponding patent exists. Semaglutide, marketed globally as Ozempic, Wegovy and Rybelsus, is a GLP 1 analogue used for type 2 diabetes and obesity and is known for its once weekly injectable regimen. In its order, the Court directed Sun Pharma to file an affidavit reaffirming its undertaking and to submit details of exports made. The company further stated that if the Court’s December 2 ruling in a related matter is appealed and modified in favour of Dr Reddy’s Laboratories, it would seek to rely on such determination as well.

Case Title: Novo Nordisk & Anr. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited

Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Click here to read more

5. [Defamation Suit Filed by J&K Deputy Chief Minister] The Delhi High Court on Tuesday, December 9, 2025, directed Jammu and Kashmir Deputy Chief Minister Surinder Kumar Choudhary to implead the individuals responsible for uploading allegedly defamatory content about him on social media, in his ongoing defamation suit. Justice Amit Bansal was considering Choudhary’s request to advance the hearing date, which was originally scheduled for January 13, 2026. The application was allowed and the matter has now been listed for hearing on December 16. During the proceedings, counsel appearing for Meta was directed to provide Choudhary with the IP addresses and basic subscriber details of the accounts that uploaded the disputed content. The platform has been asked to supply the information within three days. The videos reportedly show Choudhary in a purported telephonic conversation with a woman and are alleged to contain sexually suggestive elements.

Case Title: Surinder Kumar Choudhary v. Google LLC & Ors

Bench: Justice Amit Bansal

Click here to read more

6. [NTR Junior Personality Rights] Actor Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao Junior, widely known as NTR Jr, has moved the Delhi High Court seeking protection of his personality rights, alleging unauthorised commercial use of his name, photographs and persona on social media and e-commerce platforms. The matter was taken up today by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak, appearing for the actor, placed material before the Court to demonstrate allegedly infringing and commercially exploitative content circulating online, including on multiple social media and e-commerce platforms. After hearing the submissions, the Court directed social media intermediaries and online marketplaces to treat the suit as a formal complaint under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, and to take appropriate action within three days. The Court clarified that further directions would follow after examining replies and compliance reports, and listed the matter for further hearing on December 22.

Case Title: Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe and Ors

Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Click here to read more

7. [ Bignet vs Novex] The Delhi High Court has closed a copyright dispute brought by Bignet Solutions LLP after Novex Communications told the court that it does not claim copyright over sound recordings released before 1965 and does not require anyone to take a licence for using them.  In the order, the court observed, “In view of the aforesaid statement of the defendant categorically stating that it asserts no claims in pre-1965 sound recordings and the fact that the plaintiff’s event for 12.10.2025 has been held smoothly, this Court is of the opinion that the cause of action on which the suit was filed stands satisfied.” Court also rejected Bignet’s request for damages, noting that there were no pleadings to support such a claim, and declined to refund the court fee, pointing out that the plaintiff chose not to use the pre-institution mediation mechanism before coming to court. Justice Arora further clarified that the court has not expressed any opinion on allegations of misrepresentation or unjust enrichment raised in the plaint. With these observations, the suit and all pending applications were formally disposed of.

Case Title: BIGNET SOLUTIONS LLP versus NOVEX COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD.

Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh

Click here to read more

8. [Airline Pilots] The Delhi High Court has held that airline pilots fall within the definition of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, after finding that the functions performed by them are skilled and technical in nature. In doing so, a Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed a batch of appeals filed by King Airways, which had challenged labour court orders passed in favour of its pilots. The appeals arose from a judgment of a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court that had upheld the pilots’ status as workmen and affirmed their entitlement to remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Single Judge had upheld orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court allowing the pilots’ claims for unpaid salary, incentives for extra flying hours, and related dues. The Court had rejected the airline’s contention that pilots, by virtue of being designated as Pilots in Command or Captains, performed supervisory or managerial functions that would exclude them from the statutory definition of workman.

Case Title: King Airways Vs Captain Pritam Singh

Bench: Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar 

Click here to read more

9. [HIMALAYA'] The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction to restrict the use of a deceptively similar trademark, thus protecting the long-established rights of the Himalaya Wellness Company in its registered mark HIMALAYA'. The injunction prevents the defendant from infringing upon the plaintiffs trademark, copyright, and trade dress. The order was passed by the Single Judge Bench of Justice Tejas Karia while hearing an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code,1908. The Court noted that the defendant's use of the mark was visually, phonetically, and structurally similar to the plaintiff's marks. This similarity could confuse an average consumer of imperfect recollection, making the two marks appear identical and leading to doubts about the products' source.

Case Title: Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. Vs. Greenland Trading Company CS(COMM) 1266/2025

Order Dated: 27.11.2025

Click here to read more

10. [Fast-Track Courts for Honour Killing] The Delhi High Court recently stated that the issue regarding the establishment of special fast-track courts to deal with criminal trials in honour killing cases will be reviewed by the Court on its administrative side, in consultation with the Delhi government. The Court laid out the next steps for the petitioners to take. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was dealing with a petition seeking establishment of designated Court/Fast Track Courts for purposes of conducting trial in relation to offences concerning honour killing as per the direction of the Supreme Court passed in the year 2018. "Establishment of designated Special Courts or Fast Track Courts are done by the Delhi Government in consultation with the High Court," the order noted, detailing the proper procedure for establishing such judicial infrastructure.

Case Title: Dhanak of Humanity & Anr. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Click here to read more

10. [Maintenance] The Delhi High Court has reduced the maintenance of ₹25,000/- per month to the sum of ₹17,000/- per month as awarded to a wife. Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma relied on the case of Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra wherein the High Court had held that the net income of the husband is to be apportioned in “units” or “shares”, ordinarily by keeping two shares for the husband and one share for the wife where there are no children or other dependents, so that the wife ordinarily is held entitled to about one third of the husband's net income."Applying the said principle to the facts of the present case, and considering the fact that petitioner herein has no dependents, the petitioner would be entitled to two shares and the wife to one share out of three shares in all. On a monthly income of about ₹43,189/-, one share would come to roughly 14,000–₹15,000/-. Even allowing for some reasonable increase having regard to inflation, the rise in cost of living, and the need to secure a dignified standard of living for the respondent-wife, the grant of ₹25,000/- per month as maintenance would amount to awarding her a sum which is more than half of the petitioner‟s income as reflected in the ITR. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met by awarding maintenance in the sum of ₹17,000/- per month to the petitioner", the bench ordered.

Case Title: SH. ANKUR JAIN vs. SMT. SWATI JAIN

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Click here to read more

11. [Zee's copyright suit against ShareChat, Moj] The Delhi High Court on December 8, 2025 refused to entertain an application filed by Mohalla Tech Private Limited, under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), seeking return of plaint filed by Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited on account of the captioned suit being barred by law for want of territorial jurisdiction of this Court to adjudicate the present suit. Zee Entertainment has approached the High Court seeking a permanent injunction for restraining the ShareChat and Moj from infringing its copyrighted works on their platforms, along with other ancillary reliefs.

Case Title: ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED vs. MOHALLA TECH PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: Justice Pushkarna

Click here to read more

12. [Cotton mop left inside woman during C-section] The Delhi High Court has quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings initiated against a Hospital and the concerned doctor over a cotton mop left inside the woman during C-section. As per the FIR, while conducting a Lower Segment C-Section surgery of a woman, a foreign object/abdominal cotton mop was left inside the abdominal cavity which resulted in severe infection and pus collection in the area. The woman had to then undergo another major surgery, after the C-Section surgery, due to the medical negligence.Before the High Court Dr. Dipti K. Yadav and Venkateshwar Hospital, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of FIR, registered at Police Station Dwarka North, for the offences under Sections 336/337/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Case Title: VENKATESHWAR HOSPITAL AND ANR vs State of NCT of Delhi Order Date: December 2, 2025

Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan

Click here to read more