Delhi High Court Rejects Sujata Home Appliances Plea To Use 'SUJATA' As Corporate Name

The Delhi High Court has refused to allow Sujata Home Appliances (P) Ltd. to use the mark “SUJATA” as its corporate identity, holding that a limited exception granted in 2020 for specific products did not dilute the broader restraint under earlier orders. The suit was filed by Mittal Electronics, the registered proprietor of the “SUJATA” trademark. Sujata Home Appliances had approached the court seeking clarification of a September 9, 2020 order to permit use of “SUJATA” as its trade and...

Delhi High Court Pulls Up Income Tax Department For Pursuing Tax Dues After Nine-Year Slumber, Quashes Notice

The Delhi High Court has recently pulled up the Income Tax Department for waking up after nine years to pursue tax dues, calling it “difficult nay impossible” to believe such prolonged inaction, and quashed the notice issued to APS Hydro Private Limited. A division bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar was dealing with a writ petition against a notice dated February 16, 2022, and a follow-up communication issued on May 12, 2022, by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which...

Delhi High Court Bars Sale Of Water Purifiers Infringing 'KENT' Trademark And Design

The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of Kent RO Systems Ltd., restraining several entities from making or selling water purifiers that infringe its “KENT” trademark and registered design. In a judgment delivered on March 13, 2026, Justice Jyoti Singh recorded that the defendants did not appear to contest the case and were proceeded against ex parte. The material placed on record, the Court noted, showed that the plaintiffs' marks and design had been copied. The court pointed out that...

Bombay High Court Sets Aside ITC Block On Suspicion Of Ineligible Credit, Says It Ceases After One Year

The Bombay High Court has recently set aside the blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) of NZS Traders Pvt. Ltd., holding that such a restriction made on apprehension of fraud cannot continue beyond one year and ceases to operate by law. A Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe explained that Rule 86A empowers GST authorities to block a taxpayer from using the credit available in its electronic credit ledger if they have reasons to believe that the credit has been wrongly or...

Delhi High Court Denies Plea to Sell 'OLD FORESTER' Whiskey Seized For Trademark Infringement, Terms It Counterfeit

The Delhi High Court has refused to permit the sale of seized whiskey stocks bearing the trademark “OLD FORESTER”, holding that goods found in violation of trademark rights fall within the definition of “counterfeit liquor” under excise law. In an order delivered on April 2, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed an application by Brewholik Private Limited seeking to release 3,464 boxes of seized inventory and complete the importation of an additional 2,600 boxes to fulfill government...

HSCC MD Not A 'Civil Post' Under Union, CAT Lacks Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the managing director of HSCC India, a government-owned company, does not hold a civil post under the Union and therefore cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal.A bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan said the position was corporate in nature. “Having meticulously examined the nature of the post held by the Respondent No.1, and upon drawing a clear distinction between an employee of the Union and an employee of an...

Bombay High Court Sets Aside GST Order Passed Before Scheduled Date Of Hearing

The Bombay High Court has set aside a GST adjudication order passed even before the scheduled date of hearing, holding that it was vitiated by a breach of natural justice. A bench of Justices G S Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe held that the order was passed before the scheduled hearing date fixed in the show cause notice. “The impugned order, however, was passed on 30 March 2022 in regard to which, admittedly, no hearing was granted to the petitioner as also no opportunity to file reply to the said...

Bombay High Court Sets Aside Awards Against Stock Broker For Ignoring Claimant's Statements

The Bombay High Court recently set aside concurrent arbitral awards, holding that ignoring vital evidence, including the claimant's own statements, rendered the findings perverse.Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan heard a petition by Kantilal Chhaganlal Securities Pvt Ltd. The firm had challenged an arbitral award dated October 23, 2013 and an appellate award dated April 8, 2014 in favour of its client. Setting aside the awards, the court said: “That vital evidence that cuts to the root of the...

Service Of Notice On One Partner Deemed Service On All Under Presidency Towns Insolvency Act: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has held that service of an insolvency notice on a firm or any one of its partners amounts to valid service on all partners under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909. The court rejected the argument that limitation should be counted from the last date of service on each partner. A single-judge bench of Justice Jitendra Jain was hearing an insolvency petition where the judgment debtors challenged its maintainability under Section 12(1)(c) of the Presidency Towns...

IBC Moratorium Can't Revive Missed Written Statement Deadline: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has recently held that filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows a defendant to seek rejection of a plaint at the threshold on legal grounds, cannot revive the statutory period for filing a written statement once it has expired. The court clarified that this position would apply even in a case where the defendant had invoked insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. A bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna...

Refusal To Produce Audited Financials Justifies Adverse Inference: Bombay High Court Upholds Arbitral Award

The Bombay High Court has recently refused to interfere with an arbitral award, holding that refusal by a party to produce audited financial statements justifies the drawing of an adverse inference by the arbitral tribunal. The court remarked that a party cannot selectively rely on tax returns while withholding audited financial statements and books of account. A bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed: “As such, every business enterprise would have both sets of financial information...

Mere Filing Of One Plea Before A Court Doesn't Confer Jurisdiction For Subsequent Arbitration Pleas: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that merely filing a petition before a particular court cannot fix jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, especially where the petition is withdrawn without any adjudication. Section 42, which centralises all subsequent applications in the first court approached, cannot be invoked in such circumstances as the jurisdiction contemplated must be “real, effective, and legally sustainable”, the court said. A Single Bench of Justice...