Bombay High Court Allows Kataria Insurance Brokers To Retain Name, Bars Gems Jewellery Insurance

The Bombay High Court on 19 August allowed Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. to continue using its corporate name “KATARIA INSURANCE”, while restraining it from providing insurance services relating to the gems and jewellery sector, in a trademark dispute involving insurance agent Bhavesh Suresh Kataria. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan allowed the company's application seeking vacation of an interim injunction dated 8 December 2025, which had restrained it from using “KATARIA” in its corporate...

MSME Council Must Follow Mandatory Arbitration Process Before Passing Award: Madras High Court

On 19 August, the Madras High Court held that an award passed by the Chennai Region Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council without initiating arbitration as required under Section 18(3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) cannot be sustained. Justice P.B. Balaji set aside the Rs. 33.40 lakh award passed in favour of Mahalakshmi Trading Corporation against 3F Industries Ltd., holding that the Council had proceeded straight to an “Award”...

Criminal Court Cannot Order Release Of Seized Goods Without Customs Cognizance: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court on 13 August held that a regular criminal court cannot exercise powers under the general criminal law to release goods seized under the Customs Act when no cognizance of a Customs offence has been taken. Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita allowed a criminal petition filed by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Dimapur Regional Unit, challenging the 12 March 2026 order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Dimapur. The order had...

Reassessment Objections Must Be Raised Before Assessing Officer First: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court on 11 August declined to interfere with reassessment proceedings against Nitin Enterprises at the preliminary stage, holding that objections concerning the jurisdiction and validity of the reassessment must first be raised before the Assessing Officer and, if necessary, pursued through the statutory appellate remedies. A Division Bench comprising Justices P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda held that proceedings initiated through a notice under Section 148A and the...

Telangana High Court Holds Share Premium From Non-Resident Is Capital Receipt, Quashes ₹44.07 Cr Demand

The Telangana High Court on 11 August held that the share premium received by Escientia Advanced Sciences Pvt. Ltd. from a non-resident shareholder on a fresh issue of equity shares is a capital receipt and cannot be treated as taxable income. A Division Bench comprising Justices P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda allowed the company's writ petition and quashed a Rs. 44.07 crore tax demand raised for assessment year 2019-20. The judges held: "..the premium received by the petitioner on...

Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Advance Ruling On Kitchen Exhaust Hoods In Halton India's Case

The Karnataka High Court on 6 August held that the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings must examine material produced by an importer to determine whether kitchen exhaust hoods contain fans before deciding their tariff classification. A Division Bench comprising Justices S.G. Pandit and K. Manmadha Rao set aside the Authority's order dated 25 March 2026 after finding that material submitted by Halton India Pvt. Ltd. to establish that its imported exhaust hoods contain fans had not been...

Insolvency Does Not Bar Liquidator From Recovering Chit Company Dues: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court on 10 August held that the pendency of insolvency proceedings against a chit company does not prevent its Liquidator from taking steps under the Chit Funds Act, 1982 to recover amounts due to the company. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy directed the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) to furnish the Liquidator of Thiripura Chits Private Limited with a complete set of investigation materials so that he could initiate recovery proceedings under the Chit Funds Act. The Bench...

Delhi High Court Says Consent Awards Open To Challenge, Upholds Award In BDR Builders Dispute

The Delhi High Court on 18 August dismissed a property owner's challenge to a consent arbitral award directing specific performance of an agreement to sell his Vasant Vihar property in favour of BDR Builders and Developers Private Limited.Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, however, held that a consent arbitral award, though subject to a narrower scope of interference, can be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to examine whether the settlement was lawful,...

Landowner Can Claim Further Compensation Enhancement Despite Not Challenging Original Award: HP High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a landowner who secured enhanced compensation under an undertaking given by the Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. (HPPCL) cannot be denied a further enhancement merely because he did not independently challenge the original land acquisition award. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua allowed the writ petition filed by Sat Dev Singh, holding that his failure to challenge Award No. 658 concerning 13 biswas of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act,...

Income Tax Department Can't Retain Tax Collected Twice On Same Income: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has held that the Income Tax Department cannot retain tax collected twice on the same income and that the Commissioner must exercise powers under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The provision enables revision of an assessment to provide relief against over-assessment, even where the mistake is attributable to the taxpayer. A Division Bench comprising Justices P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda made the observation while allowing a writ petition filed by...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Income Tax Penalty For Furnishing Inaccurate Income Particulars Over Defective Notice

The Delhi High Court has held that a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be sustained if the notice issued to the assessee fails to specify the particular limb under which the penalty proceedings are proposed.The division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta rejected the Revenue's appeal against an ITAT order which had set aside the penalty imposed on Vitasta Estates.It noted that Section 271(1)(c) contemplates two distinct grounds for...

Personal Insolvency Moratorium Does Not Stay Cheque-Bounce Proceedings Against Directors: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that personal insolvency proceedings initiated by a company director do not require cheque-bounce proceedings against the director to be stayed where the dishonoured cheque was issued towards the company's debt. Justice N. J. Jamadar observed, “To put it in other words, the debt referred to in Section 96 must be a debt of the person by or against whom the insolvency resolution process is initiated under Sections 94 or 95, as the case may be.”The ruling concerned...