All High Courts
Transit Pass Surrender Not Conclusive Proof Of Goods Movement, Doesn't Bar KVAT Penalty: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court on 15 July held that surrender of a transit pass under the Karnataka Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act does not conclusively establish genuine interstate movement of goods or prevent authorities from initiating penalty proceedings. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and Dr. K. Manmadha Rao dismissed an appeal filed by Sri C. Girish, proprietor of Jai Gurudev Road Carriers, and upheld the penalty imposed under Section 53(12) of the KVAT Act (which provides for penalty...
Delhi High Court Rules Section 43(3) Of Arbitration Act Cannot Save Void Arbitration Clause
The Delhi High Court has recently held that a provision empowering courts to extend the contractual time for commencing arbitration in cases of undue hardship cannot, by itself, validate a contractual clause that is otherwise void under the law.Referring to Section 43(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court observed,"The provision does not validate or positively enact the enforceability of contractual time-bar clauses. It addresses only the limited question of whether a court...
Karnataka High Court Holds CESTAT Must Decide Limitation Plea Before Remanding Excise Matter
The Karnataka High Court on 2 July held that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) must decide a specifically pleaded limitation objection before remanding an excise dispute for adjudication on merits, as accepting the limitation plea could make further proceedings unnecessary. A Division Bench of Justices S.G. Pandit and Rajesh Rai K. disposed of the appeal filed by Lotus Printers Private Limited and directed CESTAT to decide the limitation issue while keeping its...
Delhi High Court Protects “BATA” From Counterfeiters, Directs Flipkart To Remove Infringing Listings
The Delhi High Court on 8 July granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of Bata India Limited, restraining the two individuals from selling or promoting footwear under the BATA trademark.A Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh also directed Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. to remove the infringing listings, holding that identical marks and identical goods are likely to cause confusion and constitute prima facie infringement and passing off. She observed: “The marks being identical and the rival...
Jharkhand High Court Orders Separate Registers For SARFAESI Applications, Makes Records Accessible Under RTI
The Jharkhand High Court has directed all District Magistrates and Chief Judicial Magistrates in the State to maintain separate registers for applications filed by banks and financial institutions under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Section 14 empowers District Magistrates and Chief Judicial Magistrates to assist secured creditors in taking physical possession of secured assets when such assistance is sought under the Act. The court further directed that the registers be treated as public...
Delhi High Court Restrains Astormueller From Using 'n:' And 'nu:beat' Marks In New Balance Trademark Suit
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Swiss footwear company Astormueller AG and its Indian subsidiaries from manufacturing, selling, or advertising footwear bearing the standalone "n:" logo or the "nu:beat" logo mark. The restraint will operate during the pendency of a trademark suit filed by New Balance Athletics Inc.Justice Jyoti Singh held that New Balance had made out a prima facie case for passing off. The court also found that the impugned logo marks were deceptively similar to...
Kerala High Court Revises Its Guidelines On Freezing Bank Accounts Suspected Of Money Mule Activity
The Kerala High Court on 14 July held that banks can freeze accounts suspected to be “money mule” accounts based on their own assessment of suspicious activity, even without a requisition from a law enforcement agency, as they are best placed to identify such accounts. Therefore, courts must give due weight to their assessment. Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim revised the guidelines governing the freezing of suspected money mule accounts while disposing of a petition filed by Ajith P.R. seeking a...
IBBI Chairperson Cannot Act As Disciplinary Committee Under IBC: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court on 16 July held that the Chairperson of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) cannot act as the Disciplinary Committee under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), as the Committee can consist only of Whole-Time Members of the IBBI. Justice Shampa Sarkar allowed the petition filed by Sashi Agarwal, an Insolvency Professional, and set aside the IBBI order cancelling his registration under Section 220(2) of the IBC, which empowers the Disciplinary...
Madras High Court Quashes Bank Account Attachment Under GST For Lack Of Tangible Material
The Madras High Court on 8 July held that a provisional attachment of a taxpayer's bank accounts under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act cannot be sustained merely by reproducing the statutory language without disclosing any tangible material or reasons to justify the action. Section 83 of the CGST Act empowers the Commissioner to provisionally attach a taxpayer's property, including bank accounts, to protect government revenue during the pendency of specified...
Bombay High Court Imposes ₹82 Lakh Costs On Hair Cream Manufacturer For Breaching 'NOVA' Trademark Injunction
The Bombay High Court has imposed more than ₹82 lakh in costs on the proprietor of a brilliantine hair cream manufacturing business after holding that he wilfully violated a 2010 injunction. The court found that he continued to market products under the 'NONI' label and the 'NOVA MINI' mark despite being restrained from using Dr. Ashok M. Bhat's registered 'NOVA' trademark and artistic work.Justice Arif S. Doctor directed Harichand Nagpal, sole proprietor of Ravi Industries, to pay ₹32.42 lakh...
State Cannot Recover Unintended Benefit From Contractor After Accepting Lump Sum Contract: Telangana HC
The Telangana High Court on 9 July held that the State cannot withhold a contractor's security deposit by raising a claim of “unintended benefit” from Central Excise Duty exemption after accepting a lump-sum contract value without accounting for the exemption at the tender stage. A Division Bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and Gadi Praveen Kumar dismissed the State's appeal and partly allowed the appeal filed by Gammon Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. by setting aside the liberty...