Calcutta High Court Upholds ₹14.49 Crore Arbitral Award To Sourav Ganguly Against Former Talent Manager

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday dismissed an appeal by Percept Talent Management Ltd., upholding a Rs. 14.49 crore arbitral award in favour of former Indian cricketer Sourav Ganguly and finding that the company had lost its right to terminate a 2003 Player Representation Agreement by waiting too long and continuing to act as his agent. The judgment was delivered on April 16, 2026 by a Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi. The court also upheld the...

Even Consent Cannot Cure Lack of Jurisdiction In HC Appointment Of Arbitrator In ICA: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an arbitrator appointed by a High Court in an international commercial arbitration has no authority in law to decide the dispute, and any award passed in such proceedings is void. A bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal said, “The conjoint reading of Section 11(6) and Section 11(12)(a), ACA makes it abundantly clear that the power to appoint an arbitrator in an ICA lies exclusively with the Supreme Court. The High Court has no...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Nippon Paint From Using 'INFINITY' Trademark For Paints

The Delhi High Court has recently granted an interim injunction in favour of Glossy Paints India Pvt. Ltd., restraining Nippon Paint (India) Private Limited from using the impugned mark incorporating “INFINITY” and the infinity symbol “∞”, or any mark identical or deceptively similar, holding that the rival mark is prima facie deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion in the market. In a common judgment delivered on April 10, 2026, Justice Tejas Karia also dismissed a rectification...

Borrower Cannot Use Court Receiver Appointment In Arbitration Proceedings To Resist SARFAESI Action: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has held that a borrower cannot rely on the appointment of a Court Receiver, which was ordered to retain possession of a mortgaged property pending arbitration, to resist enforcement of a security interest under the SARFAESI Act, particularly when such enforcement has not been challenged. Justice Arif S. Doctor, in a dispute between Aditya Birla Finance Ltd and Ma Durga Hardware Stores, said that it would be inequitable for the respondent to use the Court Receiver's...

Pre-2002 Transfer Of Self-Generated Trademarks With No Cost Of Acquisition Not Taxable: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court on 12 March, held that consideration of Rs.29.10 crore received by Zydus Lifesciences Limited on assignment of self-generated trademarks prior to 1 April 2002 is not chargeable to tax either as capital gains or as business income under the Income Tax Act, 1961. A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi dismissed the Revenue's appeal and affirmed the Tribunal's view that, in the absence of an ascertainable cost of acquisition, the charging...

Appeal Not Maintainable Against Arbitral Tribunal's Impleadment Order: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on 8 April, held that an order allowing impleadment of parties cannot be challenged in appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 merely because the Arbitral Tribunal passed it under Section 17, which empowers the Tribunal to issue interim and procedural orders during arbitration to manage the proceedings and grant temporary reliefs. A Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan clarified that Section 37 contains an exhaustive list of appealable...

Mere Allegation Of Fraud Not A Bar To Arbitration: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court on 8 April held that mere allegations of fraud or prior monetary transactions do not oust arbitration where the dispute arises from agreements containing arbitration clauses. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha held that Courts must refer parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act unless a party shows that no prima facie arbitration agreement exists. It further noted the interplay with the...

Madras High Court Temporarily Restrains Illegal Broadcast Of Vijay Starrer “Jana Nayagan” Movie

The Madras High Court, on Thursday (16 April), granted an interim injunction restraining internet service providers (ISPs) and cable operators from illegally streaming the “Jana Nayagan” movie, starring Actor Vijay.Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy granted the interim relief in a suit moved by the movie's producers, KVN Productions.The production company had approached the court seeking a permanent injunction restraining the ISPs and cable operators from infringing on the movie and blocking all...

Pecuniary Jurisdiction No Bar Once Court Is Designated As Commercial Appellate Court: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court on 31 March, held that once the State designates a Court as a Commercial Appellate Court under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the appellate forum is determined strictly by such designation and not by the ordinary pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge. A Bench comprising Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita dismissed an appeal filed by Lokesh Anand Singhal and Shilpi Anand Singhal, holding that the High Court lacked jurisdiction as the statutory appellate remedy lay before...

Interim Relief Provision In Arbitration Act Cannot Be Invoked To Revive Terminated Contract: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that where an agreement has, prima facie, ceased to subsist, courts cannot grant interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in a manner that effectively revives such a contract. Dismissing an appeal filed by JLT Energy 9 SAS, a Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan upheld a Single Judge's refusal to restrain Hindustan Cleanenergy Limited from creating third-party rights in its solar project assets. The...

Demonetisation Deposits From Cash In Hand Cannot Be Rejected Without Evidence: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court on 8 April held that where a taxpayer explains cash deposits during 2016 Indian demonetization as arising from cash in hand, the Assessing Officer cannot reject the explanation in the absence of any material to the contrary. A Bench comprising Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary dismissed the appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow against Medharaj Techno Concept Pvt. Ltd. and upheld the order of the Income Tax Appellate...

Share Buyback Not Acquisition Of Property: Delhi High Court Deletes ₹16.33 Crore Tax Addition Against Globe Capital

The Delhi High Court has upheld the deletion of a Rs 16.33 crore addition against Globe Capital Market Ltd., holding that a company's buyback of its own shares does not amount to acquisition of “property” and Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act has no application to such transactions. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar dismissed the appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, affirming the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision, which had upheld relief...