Excluded Period Need Not Overlap With Limitation Period To Be Excluded In Arbitral Award Execution: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has held that, for the purpose of excluding a period while computing limitation, it is not necessary that the limitation period should have commenced or expired during the period sought to be excluded. Observing that "the period excluded has to be simply excluded", the court ruled that the period excluded by the Supreme Court during the COVID-19 pandemic must be left out while calculating the limitation for the execution of an arbitral award. Justice Abhay Ahuja made the...

Arbitral Award Based On Undisclosed Material Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on 8 June held that an arbitral award becomes patently illegal when the tribunal relies on material not disclosed to a party or taken from external sources without granting an opportunity to respond. Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh while hearing a petition filed by Eicher Motors Ltd. (Eicher), set aside an award granting interest and costs in favour of Ashutosh Ranjit Majumdar after finding that the tribunal relied on undisclosed Yahoo Finance data while computing...

Association's Unilateral Arbitrator Appointment Under Bye-Laws Violates Public Policy: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on 8 June held that an arbitral award passed by an arbitrator unilaterally appointed under an association's bye-laws, despite the absence of an arbitration agreement and where one party was not a member of the association, is contrary to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the public policy of India. Justice Gauri Godse allowed a petition filed by Traviera Silk Mills and set aside an arbitral award passed in favour of Toto Toya Spin under the...

Dissenting Flat Owners Cannot Stall Redevelopment Project By Withholding Consent: Bombay High Court

On 18 June, the Bombay High Court held that dissenting members of a co-operative housing society cannot stall an approved redevelopment project by refusing to execute consent declarations required under a redevelopment agreement, observing that the collective will of the society, and not the wishes of individual members, governs such projects. Justice Amit Borkar granted interim relief to Wadhwa Estates and Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd. and directed the dissenting members of Moon Craft...

Bombay High Court Grants Injunction Against 'Mefial-Spas' For Infringing Blue Cross's 'Meftal-Spas' Mark

The Bombay High Court has permanently restrained Alto Healthcare Private Limited and its manufacturer from using the mark "MEFIAL-SPAS" and associated packaging. The court found that the mark was deceptively similar to Blue Cross Laboratories' registered trademarks and artistic work used for its "MEFTAL-SPAS" product. Justice Arif S. Doctor delivered the judgment on June 17. The Court also directed each defendant to pay costs of ₹5 lakh to Blue Cross Laboratories within eight weeks. If the...

Deadline For Filing Evidence In Support Of Trademark Opposition Is Directory, Not Mandatory: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has recently held that the two-month deadline for filing an evidence affidavit in trademark opposition and rectification proceedings is directory and not mandatory, finding that the broader scheme of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, does not support treating it as an inflexible limitation period. "One must remember that the scheme of Rules 44 to 51 of the 2017 Rules are procedural provisions to aid in adjudicating the merits of Opposition Proceedings and Rectification...

Bombay High Court Temporarily Restrains Use of 'PIL-LINCTUS', Finds Similarity With 'GRILINCTUS'

The Bombay High Court on 15 June granted an interim injunction restraining Psychotropics India Limited from using the mark 'PIL-LINCTUS' for its cough syrup, holding it to be deceptively similar to the registered mark 'GRILINCTUS' owned by Laboratoires Griffon Private Limited. Justice Arif S. Doctor held that the competing marks were aurally, phonetically and structurally similar, with the suffix “LINCTUS” dominating the overall impression of both. The Court observed: “when pronounced, it is...

Bombay HC Holds No Arbitration Without Specific Clause Incorporation, Rejects Plea Against Tata Projects

On 17 June, the Bombay High Court held that an arbitration clause contained in a principal contract cannot be imported into a subcontract unless the subcontract specifically incorporates the arbitration clause itself. Justice Arun R. Pedneker dismissed a Commercial Arbitration Application filed by Apurvakriti Infrastructure under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act against Tata Projects Ltd, holding that no arbitration agreement existed between the parties in relation to a Rs....

Well-Known Trademark List Not Immune From Rectification Proceedings: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that the list of well-known trademarks is amenable to rectification proceedings. It cannot be insulated from challenge merely because it is maintained separately from the Register of Trade Marks. Justice Arif S. Doctor, however, declined to entertain a petition seeking removal of the 'KEI' marks from the list. The judge held that the Delhi High Court was the more appropriate forum to decide the dispute. "....though prior registration is not necessary for a mark...

Bombay High Court Allows Preity Zinta To Pursue Suit Against Google, Meta Over AI Deepfakes

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday granted actress Preity Zinta leave to institute a suit against Google LLC, Meta and other entities over AI-generated deepfake videos, manipulated images, chatbot personas, and other digital content that she claims infringes her rights. The proposed suit alleges infringement of her personality rights, copyright, and moral rights. Justice Abhay Ahuja allowed Zinta's petition seeking leave to file the suit before the Bombay High Court and disposed of the matter. ...

Tax Reassessment Beyond 4 Years Invalid Without Failure To Disclose Material Facts: Bombay High Court

On 16 June, the Bombay High Court held that the Income Tax Department cannot reopen an assessment after four years when the taxpayer has already disclosed all material facts fully and truly and allowed a writ petition filed by Chennai Container Terminal Private Limited.A Division Bench of Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla set aside the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, the order rejecting objections, and the consequential show cause notice and draft...

Bombay High Court Restraints Mas Pharmachem's 'BON K2 FORTE', Protects Integrace 'BON-K2' Mark

The Bombay High Court on 15 June granted a permanent injunction restraining Mas Pharmachem from using the mark 'BON K2 FORTE', holding it to be deceptively similar to Integrace Private Limited's registered mark 'BON-K2'.Justice Arif S. Doctor found the defendants' adoption of the mark to be “plainly dishonest, malafide and with a clear intent to deceive” and directed them to pay costs of Rs.1,00,000 each to the Plaintiff within eight weeks, with interest at 8% per annum in case of default....