Bombay High Court
IBC Amendment Removing Interim Moratorium For Personal Guarantors Applies To Pending Cases: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has ruled that a recent amendment removing the automatic interim moratorium available to personal guarantors to corporate debtors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code applies even to pending insolvency proceedings.Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that the amendment, which took effect on May 26, 2026, applies to pending proceedings and operates retroactively, not retrospectively. Rejecting the guarantors' argument that the change applies only to fresh filings, the...
Bombay High Court Pulls Up ITAT Over Failure To Pronounce Reserved Judgments Within 90-Day Deadline
The Bombay High Court has pulled up the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) over the repeated practice of releasing matters reserved for judgment without pronouncing orders. A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad observed that Rule 34(5)(c) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, requires the tribunal to pronounce its judgment within 60 days of concluding the hearing and, in exceptional circumstances, within a further period of 30...
Arbitral Tribunal Can Pass Interim Award Without Framing Issues Or Separate Plea: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has ruled that an arbitral tribunal can pass an interim award at any stage of the proceedings on any matter it is empowered to finally decide, even if no formal issue has been framed or a separate application seeking such an award has been filed. Justice N.J. Jamadar observed that the decisive question is whether the parties are in dispute over a matter that the arbitral tribunal is required to finally determine, and not whether a formal issue has been settled for...
Bombay High Court Upholds Asset Disclosure Order Against Rolta Founder In ₹2300 Cr Foreign Judgment Case
The Bombay High Court on 30 July upheld an order directing Rolta India founder and former Chairman and Managing Director Kamal Singh to disclose his assets and restraining him from creating third-party rights over them in proceedings seeking enforcement of New York State Supreme Court judgments involving claims of about Rs. 2,300 crore. A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata noted that a party cannot avoid enforcement of foreign judgments by questioning their enforceability...
Actor Shruti Haasan Moves Bombay High Court Over AI Deepfakes, Personality Rights Violations
Actress Shruti Haasan has moved the Bombay High Court with a commercial suit seeking ₹15 crore in damages, alleging that unauthorised merchandise sellers, online platforms, and unidentified parties have violated her personality and publicity rights by using her name, image, likeness and voice without her consent. She has also alleged the creation and circulation of AI-generated deepfake content, including sexually explicit videos and images featuring her.Justice Abhay Ahuja has granted Haasan...
Appeals Against Award Satisfaction Orders Limited To Grounds U/S 37 Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court on 20 July held that orders recording satisfaction of arbitral awards can be challenged only if they fall within the categories specifically provided under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande dismissed the commercial appeals filed by Reliance Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. against Hiroo Hotchand Advani, holding that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides a complete appellate...
Denying Auction Purchasers Writ Remedy To Enforce S.14, SARFAESI Orders Would Be 'Travesty of Justice': Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that auction purchasers under the SARFAESI Act can invoke the writ jurisdiction to seek enforcement of orders passed by a Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act.Holding that auction purchasers have the locus to seek such relief, a division bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat said refusing to entertain such petitions would erode public confidence in the rule of law."If the writ Court shuts its doors to the auction purchasers like the petitioners,...
Bombay High Court Rejects IT Appeals Over Search Assessment Based On Regular Books Instead Of Search Material
The Bombay High Court has dismissed two appeals filed by the Income Tax Department, upholding an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal order that deleted additions made to a company's completed income tax assessments after finding they were not based on incriminating material recovered during a search. The court found that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. A division bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe agreed with the tribunal that the Assessing Officer had...
Mere Delay In Paying Income Tax Does Not Amount To Wilful Tax Evasion: Bombay High Court
The Goa bench of the Bombay High Court has held that mere delay in paying an admitted tax liability, without a deliberate intention to evade payment, does not amount to a "wilful attempt" to evade tax. Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar observed that criminal prosecution requires proof of mens rea and cannot be invoked merely because there has been a delay or failure in paying tax."The word 'wilful' introduces a mental element and requires looking into the mind of a person by gauging the person's...
Service Of Arbitral Award Through Spouse At Same Address Triggers Limitation: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court on 28 July held that delivery of a signed copy of an arbitral award to one party on behalf of another party residing at the same address constitutes valid delivery under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and triggers the limitation period for challenging the award. Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh held that K. Samad had received the signed copy of the arbitral award passed in favour of Reliance Capital Limited on behalf of his wife Mekarunisa Samad...
Jurisdiction Order U/S 16 Arbitration Act Cannot Be Independently Challenged: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court on 27 July held that an arbitral tribunal's ruling under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (which empowers a tribunal to decide its own jurisdiction) cannot be challenged under Section 34 merely because it upholds the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, as such a ruling is not an interim award. Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh dismissed a petition filed by I.A. & I.C. Private Limited & Ors. challenging an arbitral tribunal's order...
