Statutory Bar On Arbitrability Can Be Examined While Granting Interim Relief: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on 16 April held that courts can examine arbitrability, including statutory bars, while deciding petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, especially where no Arbitral Tribunal exists.Section 9 allows a Court to grant interim protection measures before, during, or after arbitral proceedings to safeguard the subject matter of the dispute.A Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan allowed the review petitions filed by the Airports Authority of...

Bombay High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Against MSRDC In Toll Collection Dispute

The Bombay High Court has recently set aside an arbitral award in a dispute between Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. (MSRDC) and Jai Laxmi Constructions Engineers and Contractors, holding that no arbitration agreement existed governing disputes under the Toll Collection Agreement and that an arbitration clause contained in a separate lender-related agreement could not be invoked for such disputes. A bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed, “Therefore, the main test of...

Bombay High Court Protects Kartik Aaryan's Personality Rights, Orders Removal Of Infringing Content

The Bombay High Court has granted temporary relief to actor Kartik Aaryan, restraining identified and unidentified defendants from unauthorised use of his name, image, voice and likeness across websites, social media platforms, AI-generated content and chatbots, holding that such use prima facie violates his personality/publicity rights and right to privacy. In an order dated April 15, 2026, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh found a prima facie case of violation of personality and publicity rights,...

Arbitrator Must Follow Fair, Evidence-Based Process Even In Ex-Parte Proceedings: Bombay High Court

On 15 April, the Bombay High Court held that even in ex-parte proceedings, an arbitrator must ensure a fair, evidence-based and unbiased process in terms of Section 25 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and cannot treat claims as established merely because the other side remains absent. A Division Bench of Justices Arun R. Pedneker and Vaishali Patil Jadhav dismissed the appeal filed by Shinde & Sons and upheld the order of the District Judge at Beed setting aside the...

Bombay High Court Grants Relief To NSE, Orders Suspension Of Domains, Takedown of Trademark-Infringing Accounts

The Bombay High Court has recently granted ad interim relief to the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd, restraining unknown persons from infringing its “NSE” trademark and directing social media intermediaries and domain name registrars to remove or disable infringing accounts, channels, and domain names. Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, in an order dated April 10, 2026, held that such a measure was necessary in public interest. “Considering the fact that an unsuspecting investor can be drawn...

No Penalty Where Claim Is Based On Binding High Court Law Later Reversed By Top Court: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on 30 March held that if a taxpayer made a deduction claim based on a binding High Court judgment, penalty under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act cannot be imposed subsequently, merely because the claim was later disallowed following a Supreme Court ruling.A Division Bench of Justices B. P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla held that penalty is not automatic and does not arise where a taxpayer makes a bona fide claim based on the prevailing legal position. It noted: ...

No TDS Payable On Pfizer Products' Cost-Sharing Payments To Pfizer Ltd. Without Profit Element: Bombay HC

Holding that reimbursements without any profit element do not attract TDS, the Bombay High Court has dismissed an income tax appeal filed by the Revenue against Pfizer Products India Pvt. Ltd. over cross-charges of Rs.14,51,77,000 paid to its sister concern-Pfizer Ltd.A Division Bench of Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice S. M. Modak held, "The cross-charge paid by the Assessee-Respondent in terms of the cost-sharing agreement between the Assessee and M/s. Pfizer Ltd, did not have any...

Bombay High Court Admits Limited 115JB Questions In ACC Case, Holds Settled Issues Not Appealable

The Bombay High Court on 16 March partly admitted an appeal filed by the Department against ACC Limited, holding that several issues raised by the Revenue were already covered by binding precedents and therefore did not give rise to any substantial question of law. A Bench of Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, however, admitted the appeal on four questions concerning computation of book profits under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. They held: “The appeal is...

Developer Undertaking Risk And Execution Qualifies For Section 80-IA Deduction: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on 11 March held that a taxpayer-company undertaking substantial development work, investment risk and technical execution cannot be treated as a mere works contractor and is entitled to deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the Income Tax Act for profits from infrastructure projects. A Bench comprising Justices M. S. Karnik and S. M. Modak dismissed the Revenue's appeals against Patel Engineering Ltd., holding that the latter acted as a “developer” of infrastructure...

Old Income Tax Demands Cannot Surface On Portal Without Serving Underlying Orders: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently observed that old income tax demands could not be sustained where the underlying orders were not made available to the taxpayer, observing that such demands cannot be permitted to surface without proper disclosure. “Old matters and demands cannot be allowed to suddenly surface on the portal without the underlying orders being available and served. Consequently, the impugned demands cannot be sustained,” the court said. A Division Bench of Justices B. P....

Borrower Cannot Use Court Receiver Appointment In Arbitration Proceedings To Resist SARFAESI Action: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has held that a borrower cannot rely on the appointment of a Court Receiver, which was ordered to retain possession of a mortgaged property pending arbitration, to resist enforcement of a security interest under the SARFAESI Act, particularly when such enforcement has not been challenged. Justice Arif S. Doctor, in a dispute between Aditya Birla Finance Ltd and Ma Durga Hardware Stores, said that it would be inequitable for the respondent to use the Court Receiver's...

Appeal Not Maintainable Against Arbitral Tribunal's Impleadment Order: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on 8 April, held that an order allowing impleadment of parties cannot be challenged in appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 merely because the Arbitral Tribunal passed it under Section 17, which empowers the Tribunal to issue interim and procedural orders during arbitration to manage the proceedings and grant temporary reliefs. A Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan clarified that Section 37 contains an exhaustive list of appealable...