Restraining Breaching Party From Activities Barred By Shareholders' Agreement Is Not Prohibited U/S 27 Of Contract Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that restraining a breaching party through an interim award passed under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act from engaging in certain activities, as per the terms of Shareholders' Agreement (SHA), to prevent the subject matter of arbitration from being rendered futile, is not barred under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, especially when the contract remains valid and has not been lawfully terminated. The...

Customs Wrongly Treated 998 Purity Gold Jewellery As Prohibited Goods Under Baggage Rules: Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Traveller

The Delhi High Court recently granted relief to a woman whose 998 purity (equivalent to 24 karat) gold jewellery was treated as prohibited goods under the Baggage Rules 2016, and absolutely confiscated by the Customs Department on her return to the country.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed,“On the aspect of personal effects and jewellery, the Adjudicating Authority has merely held that because of the purity, the same cannot be considered as personal...

Trader Can't Be Labelled Defaulter Over Unpaid Demand During Pendency Of GST Appeal, After Making Pre-Deposit: Delhi High Court

The Delhi HIgh Court has held that once a trader prefers an appeal against a demand raised by the GST Department and makes the mandatory pre-deposit, the demand order is automatically stayed and the trader cannot be treated as a defaulter.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta thus granted relief to the Petitioner-proprietorship firm and directed the Department to process its request for a fresh GST registration.Briefly, Petitioner had a GST registration in...

Phrase 'Three Months' U/S 73(2) GST Act Means Three Calendar Months, Not 90 Days: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the 'three months' period prior to expiry of three years within which show cause notice for alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit must be issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act, means three calendar months and not 90 days.Under Section 73, SCN is issued to an assessee for determination of tax not paid or short paid. The Proper Officer is required to issue a SCN, specifically mentioning the reason(s) and the circumstances why the provision has been set...

GST Refund Can't Be Granted To Trader Until Cancelled Registration Is Restored: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that GST refund cannot be granted to a trader whose GST registration stands cancelled.In the case at hand, the Petitioner's registration was cancelled in February 2023 with retrospective effect from July 2018.In this backdrop a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed,“When the GST registration itself has been cancelled in 2018, obviously, no refund can be granted till the said GST registration of the Petitioner is restored.”The...

S.74 CGST Act | Consolidated SCN For Multiple Financial Years Necessary To Establish Wrongful Availment Of ITC: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that consolidated show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST is not only permissible but necessary, to unearth wrongful availment of ITC over a span of period.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed,“The nature of ITC is such that fraudulent utilization and availment of the same cannot be established on most occasions without connecting transactions over different financial years. The purchase could be shown in one...

Process Patent | S.104A Of Patents Act Can Be Invoked At Interim Stage To Seek Disclosure Of Defendant's Process: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that there is no bar on the invocation of Section 104A of the Patent Act 1970 at the initial stage of a suit, when the patent holder seeks disclosure of the defendant's process.For context, Section 104A prescribes that where the subject matter of a patent infringement suit is a 'process' for obtaining a product, the burden is on the defendant to prove that the process used by him to obtain the identical product is different from the patented process.A proviso to the...

Delhi High Court Reprimands GST Dept For Raiding Lawyer's Office, Seizing Computer Over Client's Tax Case

The Delhi High Court has pulled up the GST Department for harassing a tax lawyer, by raiding his offices and seizing his files and electronic gadgets, in connection with alleged GST evasion by one of his clients.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that unless the Department has some material to indicate the lawyer's involvement in alleged tax evasion, it cannot take such steps against him.“The Advocate cannot be subjected to harassment in this manner unless and...

Arbitral Award Cannot Be Challenged Through Civil Suit: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that an arbitral award cannot be challenged through a civil suit, as such a course is clearly barred under Section 5 read with Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). Such a plaint deserves to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), on the ground that it is barred by law.The plaintiff has already invoked the criminal remedies by filing a complaint before the...

Mere Pendency Of Formal Signature By One Party Doesn't Preclude Parties From Being Referred To Arbitration: Delhi HC Allows Vedanta's Plea

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that the mere pendency of a formal signature by one party, when the other party has signed the agreement after reading and understanding its terms, including the arbitration clause, does not prevent the parties from being referred to arbitration. The Petitioner has filed this petition under section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act seeking appointment of the Respondent's nominee arbitrator to adjudicate disputes. The...

Civil Courts Not Prohibited From Granting Anti-Arbitration Injunction In Foreign-Seated Arbitration If Proceedings Are Vexatious: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has held that Civil Courts are not prohibited from granting anti arbitration injunction in a foreign seated arbitration if the proceedings are conducted in a vexatious and oppressive manner. The present application has been filed seeking an injunction against the ongoing arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) stating that the proceedings are vexatious, oppressive, unconscionable and against the...

[Patent Act] Applicant's Failure To Disclose Prior Art Doesn't Bar Amendment In Specifications Of Application: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that if by suppressing any prior art, an applicant is able to obtain patent undeservingly, then such prior art can certainly be relied even at a later stage to challenge the grant of patent to such an applicant or to revoke such patent, under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970.However, Justice Mini Pushkarna added, “if a prior art comes to the notice of the Controller during the pendency of a patent application, though not disclosed by the applicant, and if...