Reasonable Time To Appoint Arbitrator Cannot Be Decided By Counting Days After Notice: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on 21 August held that a party's reasonable time to appoint an arbitrator cannot be assessed merely by counting the days after a formal arbitration notice, and that courts must also consider earlier litigation, failed mediation and attempts to agree on an arbitrator. Justice Om Prakash Shukla rejected a prematurity objection in a family partnership dispute and appointed former Supreme Court Judge Justice (Retd.) Ravindra Bhat as sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes...

Delhi High Court Says Writ Courts Should Not Pre-empt MSMED Arbitration, Dismisses BSNL Plea

On 26 August, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by the General Manager, Telecom District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), challenging the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council's (MSEFC) reference of a dispute to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and the consequential arbitration proceedings. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that writ courts should not pre-emptively interfere with arbitration proceedings under the Micro, Small and Medium...

Delhi Registered Office Doesn't Confer Jurisdiction Over UP Tax Audit Dispute: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on 21 August held that merely because the registered office of a company whose accounts were audited is situated in Delhi, it does not mean that any part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta dismissed a petition filed by a Chartered Accountants firm challenging a dispute concerning its fee bill and interest arising from its appointment as a Special Auditor. It held: ...

Delhi High Court Stays FSSAI Notice Against FDC's Enerzal For 8 Months Over 'Electrolyte' Label

On 25 August, the Delhi High Court stayed a notice of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) directing FDC Limited to stop using the terms “electrolyte” and “electrolyte drink” on its Enerzal products for eight months, after noting that the company had not been issued an improvement notice under Section 32 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act). Section 32 requires a prior improvement notice giving a food business an opportunity to rectify violations. Justice...

Delhi High Court Restrains Ajmer Spa From Using "ANANTARA" For Similarity With MHG IP Holding's Mark

The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained Anantara Spa and Massage, an Ajmer-based spa, from using the mark “ANANTARA” or any deceptively similar variant in a trademark infringement suit filed by MHG IP Holding Singapore Pte Ltd which is part of the Minor International Public Company Limited group, widely known as the 'Minor Hotel Group'. Justice Jyoti Singh passed the ex-parte ad interim injunction, noting that MHG IP held valid and subsisting registrations for the ANANTARA mark since...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Sale Of 'SCALP SAYY' Hair Care Products For Similar To 'SAYY'

The Delhi High Court on 21 August temporarily restrained Bhuva Ankitkumar Jaysukhbhai, a sole proprietor from manufacturing, marketing and selling hair care and cosmetic products under the mark “SCALP SAYY”. Justice Jyoti Singh found it deceptively similar to the plaintiff Sayy Partnership Firm's trademark “SAYY”. She observed that the “defendant's mark SCALP SAYY subsumes Plaintiff's mark SAYY (word) in entirety.”The plaintiff claimed to be the prior adopter and user of the mark “SAYY” since...

Delhi High Court Cancels 'STONEX WORLD' Mark Finding Likelihood Of Confusion With 'STONEX India Pvt Ltd'

The Delhi High Court on 10 August cancelled the registration of the trademark “STONEX WORLD” held by individual proprietor Mohit Kumawat, after finding it deceptively similar to the registered “STONEX” marks of Stonex India Private Limited, a dealer in marble and natural stone. Justice Jyoti Singh allowed a rectification petition filed by Stonex India under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, holding that “the averments of the petition including the aforesaid allegations are deemed to be...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Trademark Registry Order Refusing “AYU LIFESCIENCE” Registration

The Delhi High Court on 21 August set aside the Trademark Registry's order refusing to register the device mark “AYU LIFESCIENCE”, finding that the Registry could not rely on cited marks without first examining whether they were validly subsisting on the register. Justice Jyoti Singh allowed an appeal filed by Ayu Lifescience Industries FZE against the Registry's order dated 10 October 2025, which had refused registration under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act on the ground that the applied...

Delhi High Court Quashes Tax Demand Against Ex-Kingfisher Airlines Employee Over Undeposited TDS

The Delhi High Court on 21 August quashed a tax demand raised against a taxpayer after finding that his former employer, Kingfisher Airlines, failed to deposit the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) deducted from his salary. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta allowed the petition and directed the Revenue to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner within three months. The dispute arose from an intimation dated 23 September 2025 issued under Section 143(1) of...

Delhi High Court Questions Income Tax Dept's Withholding Of ₹71.71 Lakh Refund Against ₹1.25 Lakh Demand

The Delhi High Court on 21 August questioned the Income Tax Department's decision to withhold the entire refund of Rs.71.71 lakh payable to Civitech Housing India against an outstanding demand of only Rs.1.25 lakh. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that it failed to comprehend why such a “meagre” demand warranted withholding the entire refund. It observed: “We fail to comprehend that while would the respondents withheld the entire refund of...

Delhi High Court Upholds ₹3.65 Crore Advance Tax Credit Against Capital Gains Liability

The Delhi High Court on 21 August upheld an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) order directing the Income Tax Department to allow Marguerite Lasusa Chawla, a taxpayer, credit of Rs. 3.65 crore advance tax paid in an earlier assessment year against her capital gains tax liability arising in a subsequent assessment year. A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed: "Technically and legally, the advance tax…deposited and the return furnished by the respondent...

Cheque Handover Date Discrepancy Does Not Defeat Liability When Signatures Are Admitted: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on 10 August held that a discrepancy regarding the date on which a cheque bearing the defendant's admitted signatures was handed over, does not, by itself, undermine the underlying loan liability. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed Rakesh Srivastava's appeal and upheld the 30 April 2026 judgment of the District Judge, which had decreed Pradeep Yadav's recovery suit for Rs. 6 lakh with pendente lite and future interest at 9% per annum. She observed: "When the cheque...