Whether A Commercial Suit Is Urgent Enough To Skip Pre-Institution Mediation Is For Court To Decide: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that whether a commercial suit can bypass mandatory pre-institution mediation under the Commercial Courts Act depends on the court's assessment of whether the case genuinely requires urgent interim relief. The assessment must be based on the pleadings and the reasons placed before the court by the party seeking the exemption. Justice Aniruddha Roy observed, "Since neither Section 12A of C.C. Act nor the Practice Procedure, 2021 specify or define what should...

Rajasthan High Court Rejects Second Bail Plea In ₹48 Crore GST Evasion Case

The Rajasthan High Court has rejected a second bail application filed by a man accused of being the kingpin of an alleged ₹48.41 crore GST evasion syndicate, ruling that bail granted to a co-accused cannot by itself entitle another accused to the same relief. Justice Praveer Bhatnagar observed, "It is a settled proposition of law that parity, by itself, is not the sole or determinative ground for grant of bail as while considering the plea of parity, the court is required to independently...

Does A Dispute Arising After A Joint Venture Exit Remain A Commercial Dispute? Kerala High Court Answers

The Kerala High Court has recently held that a dispute arising from an agreement executed to facilitate a partner's exit from a joint venture continues to qualify as a "commercial dispute" under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, even if the claim is based on the dishonour of a cheque issued pursuant to the exit arrangement.Justice Easwaran S. delivered the judgment while dismissing a plea challenging an order of the Commercial Court, Devikulam, rejecting an objection to the maintainability of a...

Bombay High Court Upholds Fraud Tag On Former Realme Zonal Distributor, Rejects Ex-Director's Plea

The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed a writ petition filed by Anil Khemani, former director of Eagle Electronics India Pvt Ltd (EEPL), a Realme zonal distributor. Khemani had challenged Axis Bank's show cause notice and its decision declaring the company's account as "fraud". A division bench of Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla upheld the bank's October 16, 2025 order. The Court found no violation of the principles of natural justice and held that the fraud...

Gauhati High Court Says How GST Proceedings Are to Be Initiated Can't Be Decided in Writ Petition

The Gauhati High Court has ruled that a writ petition is not the appropriate forum to decide whether GST proceedings should be initiated under the normal recovery provisions or the fraud-related provisions of the CGST Act, as that issue requires factual adjudication by the proper officer.Single Judge Justice Devashis Baruah observed that whether a taxpayer committed fraud, made a wilful misstatement or suppressed facts to evade tax can only be determined after examining the facts and, therefore,...

Madras High Court Restrains Piracy Of Lokesh Kanagaraj-Starrer 'DC' Ahead Of Release

The Madras High Court has restrained internet service providers and cable TV operators from facilitating the apprehended copyright violation of Sun TV Network Limited's upcoming Tamil film "DC."The film, starring filmmaker Lokesh Kanagaraj in his lead acting debut, is slated for theatrical release on August 7.Justice K. Kumaresh Babu on August 5 passed the order on two applications filed by Sun TV in a copyright infringement suit, one directed at major ISPs including BSNL, Airtel, Vodafone, Jio,...

Madras High Court Refuses To Transfer Ex-Minister Radhakrishnan Case To PMLA Court, Calls Plea Premature

On 4 August, the Madras High Court dismissed the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) petition seeking transfer of the disproportionate assets case against former Tamil Nadu Minister and MLA Anitha R. Radhakrishnan from the Principal Sessions Court, Thoothukudi, to the Special PMLA Court at Madurai, holding that the application was premature. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan held that a scheduled offence case can be committed to a...

Delhi High Court Upholds ₹9.92 Lakh Award Against Vantage, Rejects Recovery Of RBI Penalties From Supplier

The Delhi High Court on 5 August upheld an award directing Vantage Integrated Securities Solution Pvt. Ltd. to pay Rs. 9.92 lakh to Spark Technologies Pvt. Ltd., holding that the former's unilateral notice stating that it would recover any liquidated damages imposed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) from the latter did not create a binding contractual obligation. A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain noted that liquidated damages imposed by a party's client under a...

Six Month Limitation For Service Tax Refund Starts From SIPCOT Certificate Date: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court on 14 July held that the six-month limitation period for claiming service tax refund under Section 104 of the Finance Act, 2017 must be calculated from the date on which the taxpayer receives the mandatory certificate from the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (SIPCOT), and not from the date on which the Finance Act received Presidential assent. A Division Bench comprising Justices Dr. G. Jayachandran and N. Mala allowed the taxpayer's appeal, set aside...

Delhi High Court Orders Restoration Of 'BLUE CHIP' Trademark, Holds Removal Without Notice Invalid

The Delhi High Court on 4 August directed the Trade Marks Registry to restore the trademark 'BLUE CHIP' belonging to Amrit Singh Mehta, trading as Mehta Cosmetics, after finding that the mark was removed from the Register without issuing the mandatory notice required under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. A Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh allowed Mehta's petition and held that the Registry's failure to issue the prescribed notice before removal of the mark violated the statutory...

Pre-2015 Arbitrator Appointment Void Only Without Contractual Authority Or Consent: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on 4 August held that an executing court cannot refuse enforcement of an arbitral award arising from proceedings initiated before the 2015 amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 merely because the arbitrator was appointed unilaterally, unless the appointment lacked contractual authority and was made without the other party's consent. Justice Jitendra Jain held that pre-23 October 2015 arbitral awards remain enforceable where the arbitration agreement named...

Arbitrators Can Decide Contractual Tax Disputes, Not Statutory Tax Issues: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has recently held that tax disputes between contracting parties, where a party must bear or reimburse a tax, may be resolved through arbitration. However, questions involving statutory tax rates, classification, assessment or quantification remain within the exclusive domain of tax authorities. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh partly set aside the GST-related portions of an arbitral award granting over...