High Court
Letters Patent Appeal Not Maintainable Against Single Judge's Order Under Trade Marks Act: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has ecently held that a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA), an intra-court appeal before a Division Bench, is not maintainable against a Single Judge's decision in a statutory appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.Holding so, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray said such appeals are barred by Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The bench also held that Parliament's...
Bombay High Court Rejects EYETEX DIVYA Owner's Plea Against DIVYAM Trademark
The Bombay High court has dismissed a plea by Aravind Laboratories to cancel the registration of a device mark using the word "DIVYAM". It held that the company cannot claim exclusive rights over the word "DIVYA" merely because it forms part of its registered mark "EYETEX DIVYA".Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that the distinctiveness of the company's registered marks comes from the "EYETEX" prefix and not the standalone word "DIVYA.""It is evident that the dominant feature of the...
Why Should Delay Interest Not Be Recovered From Your Salary? : Delhi High Court To AO Over 4-Year Delay In Tax Refund
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday (July 28) directed an Assessing Officer to personally explain the four-year delay in taking steps to release over ₹15 crore due to Clix Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta directed the officer involved to personally appear before the Court and show cause why the interest payable for the delay should not be recovered from his salary.Petitioner-company submitted that the Assessing Officer had passed an...
Revenue's Appeal Against CESTAT's Service Taxability Ruling Lies Before Supreme Court: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that an appeal against a CESTAT order determining the taxability of a particular service is not maintainable before the High Court and must instead be filed before the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain relied on Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Delhi South v. M/s Spicejet Ltd., SERTA 2/2024 to conclude,“where the CESTAT determines the taxability of a particular service,...
'Something Seriously Amiss': Delhi High Court Flags Delays In Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Refunds
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday (July 28) expressed concern over recurring delays by the Income Tax Department in processing refunds under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, observing that there was "something seriously amiss" in the system as assessees were routinely approaching the High Court for release of refunds. The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta directed the Chairman of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to ascertain whether the...
Legal Heir Can't File Cheque Bounce Case Without Being Payee Or Holder In Due Course: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court on 29 June held that a legal heir of a deceased payee cannot maintain a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (which provides for criminal liability for cheque dishonour) merely by virtue of succession. Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale quashed three complaints filed by Nandini Ashok Rao against Dr. Sagar Raghunath Phatkare, holding that she was neither the payee nor the holder in due course of the dishonoured cheques and therefore could not...
DEPB Licences Not Eligible For ITC Under TNVAT Act Even If Classified As Goods: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court on 24 July held that dealers cannot claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) on purchase of Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) licences under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (TNVAT) Act, as such licences, despite being classified as “goods”, do not meet the statutory conditions for availing credit. A Division Bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and N. Mala dismissed the writ appeals filed by P.I. Polymers and upheld the Single Judge's order denying ITC on DEPB licences, while reaffirming...
RBI Banking Ombudsman Cannot Review Or Recall Order After Disposing Complaint: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has recently held that the RBI Banking Ombudsman has no authority to review or recall an order after disposing of a complaint, observing that the Ombudsman becomes functus officio once the proceedings conclude. "As a matter of fact, Banking Ombudsman has no right or authority to review or recall the original Ext.P4 Order. After disposal of the complaint, the Banking Ombudsman becomes functus officio. Accordingly, I find that Ext.R3(c) Order passed by the Banking Ombudsman...
Bona Fide Classification Dispute Cannot Establish Tax Evasion Intent For Penalty: Punjab & Haryana HC
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on 20 July held that a bona fide classification dispute cannot, by itself, establish an intention to evade tax for imposing penalty under the Punjab Value Added Tax (PVAT) Act. A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor allowed the appeal filed by Intex Technologies (India) Ltd. and set aside the penalty of Rs. 94,500 imposed under the PVAT Act for allegedly attempting to evade tax on mobile phone accessories....
Allahabad High Court Partly Sets Aside ₹157.57 Cr Arbitral Award Against U.P. State Highways Authority
The Allahabad High Court on 23 July held that a financial model based on assumptions cannot, by itself, quantify a claim for loss of profits in arbitration, and set aside the Rs. 157.57 crore loss of profits award against the U.P. State Highways Authority. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh partly allowed the Authority's appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, severed the loss of profits component of the arbitral award,...
Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Aurore Life Sciences From Manufacturing, Selling Ruxolitinib In Patent Suit
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Aurore Life Sciences Pvt Ltd from using, manufacturing, stockpiling, importing, offering for sale, selling, or exporting pharmaceutical products containing Ruxolitinib, a prescription drug used to treat myelofibrosis, a form of bone marrow cancer, in a patent infringement suit filed by Incyte Holdings Corporation and two others.Justice Jyoti Singh passed the ex-parte ad interim injunction after holding that the patent holders had made out a prima...