Award Granting Statutorily Barred Relief Suffers From Patent Illegality: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court on 18 March held that determining whether an arbitral award grants relief barred by law or beyond the contract is a question of legality, not of re-examining evidence. Courts can intervene under Section 34(2A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 only if the award shows patent illegality. A Division Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi allowed Southern Railway's appeal and set aside the arbitral award that directed continuation...

Delay In Filing Objections Excused Where Arbitral Tribunal Fails To Provide Signed Award: HP High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held on 19 March that a party cannot be held responsible for delay in filing objections where the arbitral tribunal fails to furnish a signed copy of its award, despite specific requests. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, while condoning a 16-day delay in filing objections in the dispute between the Chief Engineer, HP PWD National Highway Division, Shimla, and Ceigall India Limited, observed: "This Court is of the considered view that the learned Arbitral Tribunal should...

Non-Signatory To Cheque From Joint Account Cannot Be Prosecuted Under NI Act: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court on 3 March held that a joint account holder cannot be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act unless they have signed the cheque in question. Justice G. K. Ilanthiraiyan quashed cheque dishonour proceedings against G. Revathi, a co-accused, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry, while directing that the trial continue against the other accused. He held: “In the case on hand, admittedly the second respondent herein alone signed the...

Madras High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Granting Damages To Power Purchaser After Supplier's First Breach

The Madras High Court on 6 March, held that an arbitral award granting damages for non-supply of electricity cannot be interfered with when the supplier itself commits the initial breach of the power supply agreement by unilaterally revising the tariff and stopping supply without following the contractual procedure. A Division Bench of Justices C.V. Karthikeyan and K. Kumaresh Babu dismissed an appeal filed by OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd (OPG) under Section 37 of the Arbitration and...

Madras High Court Orders Removal of 'Sugar Pop' Device Mark On Plea By Sugar Cosmetics Brand

The Madras High Court has recently directed the removal of the 'SUGAR POP' device mark from the Register of Trade Marks on a plea by Sugar Brands Pvt. Ltd., holding that it was entered without sufficient cause due to lack of due diligence by the Registrar. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, in an order dated March 25, 2026, observed that the Registrar failed to properly search for conflicting marks despite the petitioner's existing registrations, leading to the wrongful entry of the impugned...

Madras High Court Finds Geetham Restaurants Passed Off As Sangeetha For 17 Months, No Trademark Infringement

The Madras High Court has recently held that former franchisees of the Sangeetha restaurant chain were liable for passing off for about 17 months after ending their association but ruled that their use of the name “Geetham” did not amount to trademark infringement.In a judgment pronounced on March 25, 2026, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that the defendants had dishonestly adopted a trade dress identical to the plaintiff's iconic red-and-green color scheme to mislead the public...

Madras High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Arbitrator Order Refusing Expert Analysis Of iPad Evidence

The Madras High Court has recently dismissed an appeal challenging an arbitrator's refusal to send an iPad marked as evidence for expert analysis, holding that the appeal filed by ADRPlexus Medical Services Pvt Ltd was not maintainable under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, particularly where the request was made after completion of the claimant's evidence. A Division Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi held that ADRPlexus Medical...

Balance Depreciation Allowed In Subsequent Year For Assets Used Less Than 180 Days: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court on 2 March held that a taxpayer is entitled to claim the balance 50% of additional depreciation in the subsequent assessment year where new plant and machinery are put to use for less than 180 days in the year of acquisition. A Bench of Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice Shamim Ahmed allowed an appeal filed by Wheels India Limited against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 2007–08, which had upheld the partial disallowance of the...

Madras High Court Temporarily Injuncts 'Freedum' Oil Mark In Dispute With Gemini Edibles' 'Freedom' Brand

The Madras High Court has granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Gemini Edibles and Fats India Ltd., restraining a Kurnool-based trader from using the mark “Freedum” for edible oils.In an order dated March 16, 2026, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that the applicant had established a prima facie case showing the rival trader had adopted a mark deceptively similar to Gemini's registered trademark for identical products. The court observed that such intervention was necessary after...

Madras High Court Refuses To Remove 'Ayyappan Brand' Trademark, Says Minor Variations In Mark Do Not Affect Identity

The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Sree Lakshmi Balaji Industries seeking removal of the trademark “Ayyappan Brand” owned by Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Rice Industries from the Register of Trade Marks on the ground that the user date recorded for the mark was inconsistent and that the trademark owner had not used the mark in the form in which it was registered. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, in an order dated March 11, 2026, said the petitioner had not shown sufficient grounds...

Madras High Court Grants Interim Injunction To Block Unauthorized Broadcast Of 'Jab Khuli Kitab'

The Madras High Court on 16 March, held that preventive measures are necessary to protect copyright owners from irreparable harm and granted an ad‑interim injunction restraining unauthorized broadcasting of the film Jab Khuli Kitab. A single‑judge Bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy allowed the injunction against dozens of internet service providers (ISPs) and cable TV operators. He held: “In matters of this nature, it is likely that irreversible injury will occur unless unlawful...

Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Direct Renewal Of Determinable Contract: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has set aside an arbitral award and a subsequent order of a single judge, ruling that an arbitral tribunal cannot direct continuation or renewal of a determinable contract, as such relief is barred under Section 14(d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. A Division Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi held that once a contract is determinable in nature, an arbitral tribunal cannot compel its continuation or renewal. “Section 14(d) of the...