Delhi Courts Weekly Round Up [November 3-9, 2025]

1. [Coal Block Case] A Delhi Court has discharged RKM Powergen Pvt. Ltd, former Coal Secretary H.C. Gupta, and three others in the Fatehpur East coal block allocation case, holding that there was no evidence to prosecute them and that the allocation was made in public interest. Special Judge Dheeraj Mor of Rouse Avenue Court also discharged company promoters Andal Arumugam, T.M. Singaravel, and former Joint Secretary Kuljeet Singh Kropha after hearing arguments from both sides. The Court found that RKM Powergen was “the most deserving company” among all applicants for the coal block. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had filed an FIR in August 2014, alleging criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery and corruption under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The agency claimed that RKM Powergen and its directors misrepresented their preparedness, submitted forged documents, and cheated the government to secure the coal block. However, nearly three years later, the CBI filed a closure report in September 2017, stating that the allegations could not be substantiated. The special court then directed a further probe, following which a charge sheet was filed in 2023 against five accused, including Gupta and Kropha.

Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. M/s R.K.M. Powergen Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Bench: Special Judge Dheeraj Mor

Click here to read more

2. [Delhi Lawyer's Strike] Lawyers across all district courts in Delhi will abstain from work on Thursday, November 6, in protest against the arrest of Advocate Vikram Singh by the Haryana Police. The Coordination Committee of All Delhi District Court Bar Associations announced the strike, terming the arrest a “direct and deliberate attack on the independence of the legal profession.” Singh, who was representing an accused in a murder case registered in January 2024, was arrested by the Special Task Force (STF) of Gurugram Police based on a disclosure statement. In a circular issued on Tuesday (November 4), the Committee said the arrest amounted to an attempt to intimidate and silence advocates from performing their professional duties without fear or favour. “Such conduct by the police authorities not only undermines the rule of law but also shakes the confidence of the legal fraternity at large,” the circular stated. The Committee strongly condemned the action and demanded the “immediate and unconditional withdrawal” of the proceedings against Singh. It called upon all bar associations in Delhi to ensure full participation in the strike and abstain from court work. Advocate Tarun Rana, convenor of the Coordination Committee, said the strike was being observed to protest the “arbitrary action of the police and the false implication” of an advocate acting in the course of his professional duty.

Resolution By: Coordination Committee of All Delhi District Court Bar Associations and DHCBA

Click here to read more

3. [Carnatic Trademark Row] A Delhi Court has permanently restrained a Bengaluru-based restaurant from using the name ‘Carnatic’, ruling that its use amounted to trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair trade practice against the registered mark ‘Carnatic Café’. District Judge Neelam Singh of Saket Court decreed the suit in favour of the Delhi-based restaurant chain Carnatic Café on October 29, 2025, and made the 2019 interim injunction permanent. The plaintiff, Carnatic Café, claimed to have been operating restaurants and providing allied food and beverage services since January 1, 2012, and had established itself as a well-known provider of authentic South Indian cuisine across Delhi and the National Capital Region. Represented by authorised signatory Pavan Jambagi, the plaintiff asserted that its distinct menu, ambience, and service standards had built a strong brand identity and significant goodwill. The plaintiff further stated that it owns multiple trademark registrations for ‘Carnatic Café’ in Class 43 covering restaurant, catering, café, and related services, as well as food-related goods. These marks, the plaintiff argued, had acquired a high degree of distinctiveness through continuous and extensive use.

Case Title: Mr. Pavan Jambagi v. Lemonpepper Hospitality Pvt Ltd & Ors.

Bench: District Judge Neelam Singh

Click here to read more

4. [Sandeepa Virk PMLA] A Delhi Court has refused to grant bail to actress and social media influencer Sandeepa Virk in a money laundering case investigated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), arising from an alleged ₹6-crore fraud registered in Mohali, Punjab. The Court observed that the allegations against the accused were “grave and serious in nature” and that her release on bail could hamper the investigation or allow her to tamper with evidence. The order was passed by Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Vijay Shankar of the Tis Hazari Courts on November 4, 2025, dismissing Virk’s first regular bail application under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The case stems from FIR No. 91/2016 registered at Police Station Phase-8, SAS Nagar (Mohali) under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. The complaint was filed by Jasneet Kaur, who alleged that she and her family were duped of approximately ₹6 crore by Virk and co-accused Amit Gupta alias Nageshwar Gupta on the false promise of securing her a lead acting role in a film and inviting her to invest in its production. The Mohali police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet only against Amit Gupta, who has since been declared a proclaimed offender by a local court. However, nearly nine years after the registration of the FIR, the ED initiated an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) in August 2025 under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, alleging that proceeds of crime were laundered through various means by both accused persons.

Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. Amit Gupta @ Nageshwar Gupta & Anr.

Bench: ASJ Vijay Shankar

Click here to read more

5. [National Herald Case] A Delhi Court has reserved its order on the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) chargesheet in the National Herald money laundering case, in which Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi are among the accused. Special Judge Vishal Gogne of the Rouse Avenue Court said the order on cognisance will be pronounced on November 29. “Further submissions and clarifications have been advanced by the Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the ED in light of the inspection of the case files by the court. List for orders on November 29,” the judge said. The Court had earlier deferred its decision, noting the need for further scrutiny of the case documents before taking cognisance. The chargesheet, filed by the ED, accuses senior Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, along with the late party leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes, as well as Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, and the company Young Indian, of criminal conspiracy and money laundering.

Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. Sonia Gandhi & Ors.

Bench: Special Judge Vishal Gogne

Click here to read more

6. [Nitish Katara Murder Case] The Delhi High Court on Thursday sought responses from the Delhi government and the family of Nitish Katara on a plea by Vikas Yadav, who is serving a 25-year sentence without remission for Katara’s 2002 murder, seeking release on furlough. Justice Ravinder Dudeja issued notice to the Delhi government, Tihar Jail authorities and the Katara family and directed them to file their status reports before the next hearing on November 27, 2025. Yadav has challenged the October 29 order of the jail authorities rejecting his request for furlough. He has sought 21 days’ release, stating that he recently got married and wishes to maintain social ties. Senior advocate Vikas Pahwa, appearing for Yadav, argued that the rejection was mechanical and without application of mind. He said Yadav meets all conditions under the Delhi Prison Rules and that furlough cannot be denied solely because of the nature of the crime or because he is serving a fixed-term sentence without remission.

Case Title: Vikas Yadav v. The State NCT of Delhi Through Secretary & Ors

Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja

Click here to read more

7. [Celina Jaitly] The Delhi High Court has directed the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) to immediately provide legal assistance to Major (Retd.) Vikrant Kumar Jaitly, brother of actor Celina Jaitly, who has allegedly been detained in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for over a year in connection with a national security case. A bench led by Justice Sachin Datta, which heard the case on Monday, instructed the Centre to take urgent steps to ensure adequate legal support for Major Jaitly and to facilitate communication between him, his wife, and his sister. The court also directed the government to appoint a nodal officer to coordinate with the UAE authorities. In her plea, Celina Jaitly sought the court’s intervention for legal, medical, and diplomatic assistance for her brother, alleging that he was “illegally abducted and detained” on September 6 last year. She said he had been living in the UAE since 2016 and was employed with the MATITI Group, a firm involved in trading, consultancy, and risk management. Jaitly was represented by advocates Raghav Kacker, Ribhav Pande and Madhav Aggarwal, who argued that despite repeated representations, the family has not been able to speak to him even once, and he has been denied a single verified phone call for over a year.

Case Title: Celina Jaitly v. Union Of India

Bench: Justice Sachin Datta

Click here to read more

8. [Local commissioner in District Court] The Delhi High Court has expressed hope that the Lieutenant Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena would take up the matter of approving the rules for the appointment of Local Commissioners and Receivers in district courts and grant approval at the earliest. A Division Bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela issued this direction while hearing submissions from both parties in a writ petition filed by Advocate Rajiv Khosla. During the proceedings, counsel appearing for the Delhi High Court informed the bench that the rules governing the appointment of Local Commissioners and Receivers for matters before the High Court have already been finalised and officially notified on 02.09.2025. However, she clarified that the corresponding rules for the district courts are still awaiting approval from the Lieutenant Governor. Taking note of the submission, the Court observed, “In the aforesaid view of the matter, we dispose of this writ petition with the hope that the issue relating to approval of the rules concerning the matters in the District Courts shall be attended to by the learned Lieutenant Governor and requisite approval shall be granted at the earliest.”

Case Title: Rajiv Khosla vs High Court of Delhi

Bench: Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Click here to read more

9. [Arnab Goswami] The Delhi High Court has quashed a criminal defamation complaint filed against journalist Arnab Goswami by lawyer Vikram Singh Chauhan over allegedly defamatory remarks made on a news channel in 2016. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while pronouncing the verdict, set aside both the criminal defamation complaint and the summons issued against Goswami and two former officials of the TV channel, Shrijeet Ramakant Mishra and Samir Jain. “Complaint quashed. Summoning order set aside,” the Court said. A copy of the detailed order is currently awaited. The verdict came on three separate petitions challenging the trial court order by which Goswami had been summoned in the defamation case filed by Chauhan. The case stemmed from a criminal defamation complaint in which Chauhan alleged that Goswami made derogatory remarks about him during the broadcast of The NewsHour on Times Now on February 19, 2016.

Case Title: Arnab Goswami v. State & Ors and other connected matters

Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna,

Click here to read more

10. [Engineer Rashid] The Delhi High Court has delivered a split verdict on a plea filed by Jammu and Kashmir MP Abdul Rashid Sheikh, popularly known as Engineer Rashid, challenging a trial court’s order directing him to bear costs as a condition for being granted custody parole to attend Parliament. A Division Bench comprising Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Anup Kumar Bhambani delivered a split verdict on the plea. Justice Bhambani allowed the petition, while Justice Chaudhary dismissed it. In view of the difference of opinion, the matter has been placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. Pronouncing the verdict, the Court said: “My brother and I have not been able to concur on the manner in which the application is to be disposed of. Therefore, we will render two separate and divergent judgments, and the matter will be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate directions. Let the matter be placed before Chief Justice.....”

Case Title: Abdul Rashid Sheikh v National Investigative Agency

Bench: Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani

Click here to read more