Madras High Court Upholds Rejection Of AI-Human Integration Patent Claim

The Madras High Court bench dismissed an appeal seeking a review of a patent claim for a product designed to integrate human and AI capabilities. The appeal was filed by Caleb Suresh Motupalli before the single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, challenging the order of the Controller of Patents. Upon review, the court found no sufficient grounds to interfere with the Controller's decision and accordingly rejected the appeal. Facts of Issue The applicant filed a patent...

Arbitral Award Can't Have Specific Format; Reasoning Must Be 'Proper', 'Intelligible' And 'Adequate' : Madras High Court

The Madras High Court bench comprising Justice K. .R. Shriram (Chief Justice) and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy have observed that an arbitral award does not have to follow any specific format; just as every judge writes their judgment in a particular style, arbitrators also write in different styles. The court also held that any ground which was not raised in a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be raised at the stage of appeal under...

Baggage Rules Apply Only To Luggage Of International Travellers, Not To 'Reasonable Amount' Of Jewellery Worn In-Person: Madras HC

The Madras High Court has made it clear that Baggage Rule, 2016 framed under the Customs Act, 1962 apply only to the baggage carried by an international traveller.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that the Rules cannot be extended to articles like jewellery, “carried on the person” of a traveller.The bench observed, “The Customs Act, 1962, enables the Central Government to make Rules to the extent of the articles carried in the baggage of a passenger and not for the articles, which were carried...

No Bar On Court To Entertain More Than One Application U/S 29A Of Arbitration Act: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose has held that there is no prohibition for the Court to entertain more than one application under Section 29A of the Act seeking extension of time for the arbitrator to pronounce arbitral award provided sufficient cause is demonstrated. Brief Facts: The present application has been filed under section 29A of the Arbitration Act seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal. The learned arbitrator directed the ...

Arbitral Award Can Be Set Aside As 'Patently Illegal' If View Taken By Arbitrator Is Not A Plausible One: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court bench of Justice P.B. Balaji has held that when the view taken by the Arbitrator is not even a plausible view, an award passed by such an arbitrator can be set aside under section 34 of the Arbitration act on the ground of patent illegality. Brief Facts: The petitioner awarded a contract to the respondent for the purpose of designing and constructing underground stations and tunnels in Chennai. The respondent claimed additional costs due to change in law which...

Executing Courts Can't Annul Arbitral Awards Solely On Ground Of Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar has observed that the issue of ineligibility of the arbitrator cannot be raised during the pendency of the execution proceedings. The court held that the Executing Courts cannot suo motu dismiss the Execution Petition(s) solely on the ground of unilateral appointment of an arbitrator. The court held that the executing court cannot suo motu annul the award when a party to the agreement did not challenge the award on the ground of...

GST Registration And Payment Of Tax After Inspection Is Not Voluntary Conduct: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court stated that GST registration and payment of tax after inspection is not a voluntary conduct.The Bench of Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that “there is a deliberate attempt to evade payment of tax by not registering himself under the Act and also issuing receipts as donation to the Trust. Only after the inspection they have agreed to pay the tax by registering themselves. This conduct cannot be said to be a voluntary conduct.”In this case, the assessee/petitioner is the...

Proviso To S.10A Of IBC Doesn't Bar CIRP Applications Where Default Continues Beyond Moratorium Period: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court bench comprising Justice S.S. Sundar and Justice P. Dhanabal has held that the proviso to Section 10-A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) does not extend to cases where the default continues beyond the moratorium period. The court noted that Section 10-A only imposes a moratorium temporarily suspending the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). Section 10-A bars an application for initiation of CIRP of a Corporate Debtor, for...

Madras High Court Dismisses Netflix India's Application To Reject Suit Filed By Dhanush Against Nayanthara's Documentary

The Madras High Court has dismissed applications filed by Netflix's Indian entity - Los Gatos, seeking to reject the plaint filed by Dhanush's Wunderbar, in connection with alleged copyright infringement by Nayanthara, Vignesh Sivan, and others.Justice Abdul Quddhose also informed the parties that he would be hearing the interim injunction application filed by Wunderbar on February 5th, 2025.Dhanush, who produced the movie “Naanum Rowdy Daan” has approached the court claiming that some...

Madras High Court Reserves Orders On Netflix India's Application To Reject Suit Filed By Dhanush Against Nayanthara's Documentary

The Madras High Court has reserved orders on two applications moved by Netflix India to reject the plaint and to revoke the leave to sue granted to Actor Dhanush's Wunderbar films. Wunderbar had sought leave to sue Los Gatos (Netflix's Indian entity) in connection with the copyright infringement case against Nayanthara, Vignesh Sivan, and others. Justice Abdul Quddhose reserved orders after hearing Senior Advocate Parthasarathy (for Netflix India) and Senior Advocate PS Raman (for...

Award Passed After Inordinate And Unexplained Delay Can Be Set Aside U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court bench of Justice P.B. Balaji has held that inordinate and unexplained delay in passing the arbitral award can be a ground to set it aside under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Brief Facts The present petition has been filed under section 34 of the Arbitration Act against an award passed by the Arbitrator on September 30, 2019. The petitioner submitted that delay in passing the arbitral award can be a ground to set it aside even without going into the...

What Constitutes Valid Service Of Notice U/S 169 Of CGST Act? Madras High Court Clarifies

The Madras High Court interpreted Section 169 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and stated that Section 169 mandates a notice in person or by registered post or to the registered e-mail ID alternatively and on a failure or impracticability of adopting any of the aforesaid modes, then the State can, in addition, make a publication of such notices/ summons/ orders in the portal/ newspaper through the concerned officials. The Bench of Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that “when...