High Court
Allahabad High Court Rejects Challenge To DRT Registrar's Power To Issue Notices In SARFAESI Proceedings
The Allahabad High Court has rejected a challenge to a notice issued by the Registrar of the Debts Recovery Tribunal in a securitisation case, holding that the Registrar was empowered under the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993. “When power to issue notice to a defendant has specifically been conferred upon the Registrar of DRT, it cannot be said that the Registrar has no power to issue notice to a defendant to show-cause as to why the S.A. should not be allowed, and also to caution the defendant...
S. 37 of Arbitration Act | Fresh Material Barred At Appellate Stage If Not Placed Under Section 34: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has held that parties to an arbitration cannot introduce completely new material for the first time at the appellate stage (Section 37) of arbitration proceedings if such material could have been produced earlier but was not placed before the court when the arbitral award was initially challenged (Section 34) The court emphasised that an appeal at this stage is not an opportunity to cure evidentiary lapses or supplement the record belatedly. A division bench of Justices...
Suit Liable To Dismissal Cannot Be Transferred To Commercial Division: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a 25-year-old suit between Tractel Tirfor India Pvt. Ltd. and Tractel International S.A.S., holding that the case was never legally pending and therefore could not have been transferred to the court's commercial division. A Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi ruled on January 21 that the failure to lodge a writ of summons, which is mandatory under the High Court's Original Side Rules, rendered the suit liable to dismissal in...
Kerala High Court Refuses To Interfere With NCLT's Rejection Of Resolution Plan Despite 100% CoC Approval
The Kerala High Court has refused to interfere with the National Company Law Tribunal's rejection of a resolution plan for an insolvent company, even though it had received 100% approval from the Committee of Creditors. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. held that the NCLT was acting within its jurisdiction in examining the resolution plan and that writ jurisdiction could not be invoked merely because the tribunal disagreed with the Committee of Creditors. ...
Council Members Changed Between Hearing and Award: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside MSME Award
The Calcutta High Court has set aside an arbitral award passed by the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council.It held that the award in this case could not stand because it was delivered by a differently constituted tribunal than the one that heard the parties A division bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi found that the dispute was heard over several years but the Council's composition kept changing. The members who finally delivered and signed the...
Failure To Provide Translation Vitiates Trademark Registration: Madras High Court Cancels 'THUFAN' Mark
The Madras High Court has cancelled the registration of the trademark “THUFAN” in Telugu and Tamil, holding that failure to provide mandatory transliteration and translation while advertising the mark deprived affected parties of their statutory right to oppose it.In a judgment dated December 12, 2025, a Division Bench of Justice Dr. G. Jayachandran and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar allowed appeals filed by Kolkata-based fan maker Shambhunath & Bros., which uses the mark “TOOFAN”. The...
Bias of Even One Arbitrator Taints Entire Arbitral Award: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has set aside an arbitral award, holding that the bias of even a single arbitrator is sufficient to vitiate the entire award, even where the decision is unanimous. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh said parties are entitled to an arbitral tribunal that is impartial in its entirety and not merely a neutral majority. Bias, the court held, violates Section 18 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which requires equal treatment of parties, and also goes against the...
Physical Service Of Notices Necessary After Cancellation Of GST Registration: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court on 19 January held that any adjudication notice issued after the cancellation of a GST registration must be served physically to the assessee to comply with the principles of natural justice. A Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla was hearing a challenge against a notice issued to the petitioner three years after its GST registration was cancelled. The petitioner argued that it could not access the portal to which the notice had been...
No Review Of Writ When GSTAT Appeal Is Available: Madhya Pradesh High Court
In a case involving bogus invoicing, the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 16 January reiterated that when an appellate remedy is available before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), review of an earlier order which declined a writ petition was not warranted. A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi was hearing a review petition against its 5 August 2025 decision, which had relegated the petitioner to the remedy of appeal before GSTAT. The Bench...
Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Calcutta Stock Exchange Penalty Against Dalmia Securities Over Invalid Board
The Calcutta High Court has set aside a penalty order passed by the Calcutta Stock Exchange Ltd (CSE) against Dalmia Securities Pvt Ltd, holding that the decision was taken by an unlawfully constituted governing board. The court, however, upheld the validity of the underlying investigation. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya partly allowed the writ petition filed by Dalmia Securities and its director. He held that the investigation into alleged violations was legally valid, but the final order...
“Is It Legitimate?”: Delhi High Court Seeks Flipkart's Reply on 'More Sellers' Feature On Its Marketplace
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday questioned Flipkart on whether its “more sellers” or latching-on feature can be considered legitimate when, in the facts of the case, it is alleged to enable the sale of counterfeit goods linked to a genuine product listing. Justice Jyoti Singh raised the issue while hearing a suit filed by a seller alleging that counterfeit sellers had latched on to its product listing as “more sellers” and offered non-genuine goods at lower prices, thereby misleading...