Delhi HC Allows 'GAINDA' Maker To Clear Inventory Despite Injunction In Harpic, Colin Trade Dress Dispute

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday allowed the maker of 'GAINDA' cleaners to exhaust its existing stock despite an injunction over bottle designs similar to Reckitt's Harpic and Colin, holding that the relief was necessary to balance the equities and avoid financial loss and environmental waste. A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed, “.We are not persuaded that any undue loss will be caused to the Respondent if Appellant is permitted to exhaust...

Stockbroker Cannot 'Wriggle Out' Of Liability For Agent's Unauthorized Acts: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on 21 April, held that a stockbroker remains liable for unauthorised and fraudulent trades executed by its sub-brokers and agents, particularly where such acts arise in the course of agency and result in abnormal brokerage gains at the client's expense. Justice Arun R. Pedneker upheld the arbitral award directing IIFL Capital Services Limited to pay Rs. 14.37 lakh to investor Sukhadeo Gorakha Bhil and dismissed the appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and...

Madras High Court Holds Post-Search Return Invalid In Block Assessment, Rejects Kerala Roadways' Claim

The Madras High Court on 7 April, held that a return filed after the initiation of search proceedings and beyond the due date cannot qualify as a valid disclosure to exclude such income from undisclosed income in block assessment under the Income Tax Act. A Division Bench of Justices G. Jayachandran and R. Sakthivel rejected the Kerala Roadways appeal. It partly accepted one of the Revenue's appeals and fully accepted another, while deciding issues on block assessment, revisional powers, and...

Input Tax Credit Blocking Cannot Continue Beyond One Year From Imposition: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has recently reiterated that a restriction on utilization of Input Tax Credit in the Electronic Credit Ledger cannot continue beyond one year from the date of its imposition. A division bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe, examining Rule 86A(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, observed, "Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we are of the considered view that there appears to be much substance in the...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains 'POSITIVE MIND' Mark, Directs Meesho, Meta To Remove Listings

The Delhi High Court has recently restrained the use of the mark “POSITIVE MIND” for sexual wellness products such as delay sprays and lubricants, and directed intermediaries including Meesho and Meta to remove listings and disable accounts, after finding a prima facie case of infringement and passing off.A single-judge Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of PstGems Pvt. Ltd., observing, “Prima facie Defendant No.1 is not only infringing the...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside GST Demand Order Despite Delay In Filing Writ, Cites Denial Of Hearing

The Delhi High Court has recently set aside a GST demand order after finding that the taxpayer was not given an opportunity of hearing, even though the writ petition was filed belatedlyA bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul set aside a GST demand order passed under Section 73 of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, while imposing costs and granting conditional relief to the petitioner.Petitioner had challenged an Order-in-Original confirming a tax demand of over Rs. 20...

Delhi HC Sets Aside GST Demand Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Unserved SCN

The Delhi High Court has recently set aside a GST demand order after finding that the show cause notice (SCN) was not effectively served on the assessee, holding that a reminder issued in respect of such an SCN cannot be treated as a valid communication.A bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul thus set aside a GST demand order after finding that the SCN had not been properly communicated to the petitioner.Petitioner challenged the demand order issued under Section 73 of the...

Delhi HC Refuses To Order Third Re-Test Of Shawls For Export, Says Decision Lies With Adjudicating Authority

The Delhi High Court has recently declined to direct a third re-test of goods under Customs proceedings, holding that such a request cannot be insisted upon at the mere instance of a party and that the decision lies within the discretion of the adjudicating authority, particularly where two test reports are already on record.A bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul dismissed a writ petition filed by an exporter seeking the quashing of a show cause notice and a direction for...

Delhi HC Dismisses Plea Against Customs Order, Says Non-Communication Of Adjudication Time Extension Not Fatal

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed writ petitions challenging adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act, holding that non-communication of an order extending time for adjudication does not, by itself, vitiate the proceedings.A bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul relied on Pranij Heights India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Joint Commissioner of Customs where it was held that although as a matter of prudence the Customs Department ought to intimate the grant of extension to the...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Leela Entertainment From Using 'THE LEELA' Mark

The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Leela Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. from using “THE LEELA”, a popular hospitality mark, till the next hearing, holding that it prima facie amounts to infringement of Schloss HMA Pvt. Ltd.'s trademark and passing off of its goodwill.A bench of Justice Jyoti Singh observed, “Plaintiff has built an immense reputation for itself in the hospitality industry and adoption of identical/deceptively similar marks for identical services by the Defendant is a...

IT Appellate Authority Must Pass Speaking Order, Hear AO Before Admitting Fresh Evidence: J&K&L High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has recently held that an appellate authority under the Income Tax law cannot allow a taxpayer to file fresh evidence at the appeal stage without first passing a reasoned order and giving the tax officer a fair chance to respond. A bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar said, “We are also of the clear view that the opportunity to lead additional evidence at the appellate stage could not be granted by the First Appellate Authority...

MSMED Act Overrides Arbitration Act In MSME Cases; 75% Pre-Deposit To Challenge Award Mandatory: Madras HC

The Madras High Court has held that in arbitration under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, while the procedure is governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, key substantive provisions such as the mandatory 75% pre-deposit for challenging an award will prevail in case of conflict. The court clarified that only those provisions of the Arbitration Act apply which are not inconsistent with the MSMED Act. Justice Abdul Quddhose observed that "MSMED Act is a...