Delhi High Court Restrains Healing Pharma From Using Trade Dress Similar To Himalaya Products

The Delhi High Court on 18 August granted an ad-interim injunction restraining Healing Pharma India Private Limited from using packaging and trade dress deceptively similar to Himalaya's Liv.52, Cystone, Mentat, Speman, Pilex and Confido products. Justice A. J. Bhambhani passed the order while hearing a commercial suit filed by Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd over products sold under the names 'Liverheal', 'Liverheal 52', 'Liverheal DS', 'Senstone', 'Braintat', 'Spermax', 'Pilefine' and...

Taxpayer Cannot Be Denied TDS Credit For Deductor's Failure To Deposit Tax: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on 5 August held that TDS credit cannot be denied to a taxpayer merely because the person who deducted the tax failed to deposit it with the Central Government, once actual deduction of tax from the income or payment is established. A Division Bench of Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla observed that the default of the deductor cannot prejudice the deducted and directed the Income Tax Department to verify claims and grant TDS credit where actual deduction...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Sale Of Counterfeits With Sun Pharma's 'Photostable,' 'Bello' Marks

The Delhi High Court on 10 August granted an ad-interim injunction restraining several entities from selling counterfeit dermatological and skincare products bearing Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd's registered trademarks 'PHOTOSTABLE' and 'BELLO'. Justice A. J. Bhambhani passed the order in a commercial suit filed by Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd against Wear and Glow and other defendants, alleging trademark infringement. The Bench observed: “the plaintiffs have succeeded in making-out a...

Kerala High Court Holds MRF Eligible For Tax Exemption On 'Compound Rubber'

The Kerala High Court on 14 August held that MRF Limited is entitled to tax exemption under S.R.O. No. 1729/1993 for “compound rubber” manufactured by the company. It stated exemption cannot be denied by treating the product as covered by the negative list introduced through S.R.O. No. 38/1998 Justice Harisankar V. Menon allowed MRF's petition challenging the State Level Committee on Sales Tax Exemption's decision, which had denied the company exemption in respect of compound rubber. He held: ...

ITC Blockage Cannot Continue Beyond One Year Under CGST Rules: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court on 21 August held that a restriction on the use of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Rule 86A of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Rules cannot continue beyond one year. Justice S. Raveekumar directed the authorities to unblock the ITC of Metal Trade Incorporation, which had remained blocked for more than two-and-a-half years. He held: “the restriction was imposed on 27.01.2023 and more than 2 ½ years have passed. In view of the same, the restrictions on the blockage ceased to...

Jharkhand High Court Rejects State's Challenge To Delhi As Arbitral Seat After 2.5 Years

The Jharkhand High Court on 20 August, dismissed the Jharkhand Road Construction Department's challenge to an Arbitral Tribunal's decision fixing Delhi as the seat of arbitration in its dispute with Ramky Infrastructure Limited. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ananda Sen held that the Department's continued participation in the proceedings without a timely objection amounted to waiver under Section 4 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He explained: “The 'seat of arbitration' is the...

Calcutta High Court Bars Ex-Partner's Heir From Using Fox & Mandal Mark, Says Goodwill Belongs To Firm

The Calcutta High Court on 24 August permanently restrained Somabrata Mandal and his law firm from holding themselves out as connected with Fox and Mandal or using the marks “Fox & Mandal,” “Fox and Mandal” and “F&M.” A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur observed that “goodwill generated by a partnership is a partnership asset. The marks are the property of the firm and do not belong to any person or partner individually or his heirs.” Fox and Mandal is a partnership...

Delhi High Court Holds Outstanding Demand Can't Block Refund, Orders ₹53 Cr. Release To Vodafone Idea

The Delhi High Court on 18 August allowed three petitions filed by Vodafone Idea Limited challenging the Income Tax Department's refusal to release Rs. 53,09,56,470 in tax refunds on the ground of outstanding demands against its PAN and sister TANs, and directed the Department to pay the amount with applicable interest by 30 September 2026. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held that an outstanding tax demand does not by itself permit the Department to withhold...

Court Holds Court Fee Cannot Be Retained For Non-Maintainable Appeal: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court on 6 August held that court fee paid for an appeal that is not maintainable cannot be retained by the State, as such collection would be without the authority of law and result in unjust enrichment. A Division Bench comprising Justices G.R. Swaminathan and K.K. Ramakrishnan refused to entertain J. Murugavel's appeal against Pichai, Proprietor of Vel Murugan Traders, filed under Section 37(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging a final arbitral award....

Personality Rights Cannot Extinguish Parody, Caricature Or Lampooning: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on 5 August held that personality rights cannot be used to extinguish entire genres of expression such as caricature, lampooning or parody, while granting PhysicsWallah founder and physics educator Alakh Pandey interim protection against three specific forms of misuse of his persona. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani was hearing a commercial suit filed by Pandey against social media accounts, sticker platforms, coupon websites and domain registrars accused of misusing his name,...

Closure of Interim Pleas for Non-Payment of Arbitral Fees Not Appealable: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on 18 August held that an arbitral tribunal's order closing a party's interim relief applications and counterclaim for non-payment of arbitral fees is procedural and does not amount to an order granting or refusing interim relief appealable under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Justice Om Prakash Shukla dismissed as non-maintainable the appeal filed by Orbit In-Te-Rio against American Epay Services Pvt. Ltd., while granting the former liberty to...

Foreign Award Can Be Enforced And Executed By High Court In A Single Proceeding: Madhya Pradesh HC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 21 August held that a foreign arbitral award can be enforced and executed by the High Court in the same proceeding without requiring a separate execution case before a subordinate court. Justice Vinay Saraf rejected the oral objections raised by Shri Mittal Agritech Pvt. Ltd. to execution of the foreign award obtained by Moshers, holding that once a foreign award is declared enforceable under Sections 47 and 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it...