Unregistered Firm Can Sue To Enforce Statutory Or Common Law Rights; S.69(2) Partnership Act No Bar: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932 is not an embargo to suits filed by unregistered firms, if any statutory or common law right is being sought to be enforced.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed,“Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 has an embargo on an un-registered firm from filing a suit or any proceeding for enforcement of a right. However, the exceptions to the said provision are carved out in Haldiram...

GST | Assessee Entitled To Copy Of Seized Electronic Data Unless Prejudicial To Investigation: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an assessee is entitled to copies of the data stored on its electronic devices which are seized by the GST Department, unless the same is prejudicial to the probe.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed,“A perusal of Section 67(5) of the CGST Act clearly shows that copies of the seized data cannot be denied to the Petitioner. However, such copies can be made in the presence of an Authorised Officer, unless it is recorded...

Delhi High Court Directs Customs To Ensure Strict Implementation Of Minimum Import Price On Soda Ash

The Delhi High Court has directed the Customs authorities to ensure strict implementation of the Minimum Import Price (MIP) imposed by DGFT on Soda Ash, warning of stringent action in case of any violations.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain gave “clear directions to all the Customs Authorities…to ensure that the Notification No. 46 of 2024-25 along with Notification No.23 of 2025-26 shall be implemented strictly in letter and spirit. If any Commissionerate of Customs,...

S.107 GST Act | Taxpayer Can't Ignore Order Merely Because Copy Was Illegible: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a taxpayer cannot ignore an order passed against it and uploaded on the GST portal, merely because copy of the order was allegedly illegible.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain thus refused to condone the taxpayer's delay in filing appeal against a GST demand order merely on the ground that the order supplied to it was illegible. It observed,“The contention of the Petitioner is that the Order-in-Original dated 04th February,...

Unsigned GST Demand Order Valid If Accompanied By DRC-07 Bearing Officer's Details: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that an unsigned GST demand order is valid, if the same is accompanied by DRC-07 which contains the details of the official who passed the order.DRC 07 is a summary of the demand order issued by the proper officer, to be uploaded on GST Portal, specifying the amount of tax, interest or penalty payable.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain were dealing with a petition moved by Future Consumer Limited, challenging the demand order on the ground...

FERA | ED Can Seize Indian Currency Intended For Illegal Purchase Of Foreign Exchange: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Indian currency can be seized by the Enforcement Directorate under provisions of the erstwhile Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, if the same is intended to be used for illegal purchase of foreign exchange.FERA, 1973 was enacted to regulate the inflow and outflow of foreign exchange in India, and to prevent hoarding of foreign currency. The statute has since been replaced by the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, which came into effect in June...

Delhi High Court Dismisses Income Tax Dept's Appeals Against Remfry & Sagar Law Firm Over Goodwill License Fees

The Delhi High Court has upheld an order of the ITAT allowing IPR law firm Remfry & Sagar to treat the license fees paid by it to acquire its founder's goodwill, as a business expense deductible under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar thus dismissed the appeals preferred by the Income Tax Department against the firm.The Court heavily relied on Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -21 v. M/S.Remfry & Sagar (2025) where a coordinate...

Delhi High Court Questions Centre Over Withdrawal Of GST Concession On Vehicles Purchased By Differently-Abled Persons

The Delhi High Court recently questioned the Central government for effectively withdrawing GST concessions granted to differently-abled persons on purchase of cars.A division bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao asked the standing counsel to seek instructions in the matter and respond by December 17.The Court was dealing with a petition moved by All India Confederation Of The Blind (AICB) challenging a notification issued by the Union Ministry of Heavy Industries reducing...

Proceedings Can Be Terminated U/S 32(2)(C) Of A&C Act When Underlying Contract Is Unenforceable: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award terminating proceedings under section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) on the ground that an agreement to sell (ATS) between the parties was unforceable for being unregistered and unstamped under Uttar Pradesh law. Justice Amit Bansal held that an agreement concerning transfer of sub-leasedhold rights in immovable property situated in Uttar Pradesh constituted a contract of sale under the section 54 ...

Terminating Arbitrator's Mandate Over Mere Allegations Of Corruption Would Set Dangerous Precedent: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court held that mere allegations of corruption or pendency of an unverified complaint against an arbitrator cannot justify termination of arbitrator's mandate under section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). Justice Jyoti Singh held that “mandate of an Arbitrator cannot be terminated solely on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations or mere complaints.. De jure ineligibility is an inherent disability and mere allegations cannot meet this...

Clause In Insurance Policy Shortening Limitation Period Is Void U/S 28 Contract Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court restored an arbitral award in favor of M/s H.P. Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd.(Appellant) which was set aside 16 years ago holding that clause of the insurance policy which required claims to be made within 12 months from the date of loss was void and unforceable under section 28 of the Indian Contract Act. The court held that the Single Judge erred in relying on section 28 pre-amendment precedents which allowed limitation clauses that extinguished rights. A bench...

CA-Certified Audited Statements Are Valid Proof Of Actual Expenditure: Delhi High Court Partly Upholds Arbitral Award Against NHAI

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) filed by National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) against an arbitral award passed in favor of Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. (HCC). The court further held that the arbitrator's award of compensation for expenses incurred during extended time period was reasoned, plausible and did not suffer from perversity or patent illegality. Justice Jasmeet Singh held...