Madras High Court
Limitation Plea Can Be Raised At Any Stage As Long As Facts Are On Record: Madras High Court
In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court held that a belated plea of limitation cannot be entertained where the factual foundation necessary to examine such a plea is absent on record. The ruling came from a bench of Justice Dr. Anita Sumanth and Justice P Dhanabal while dismissing an appeal filed by Modern Engineering & Plastics Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that "Normally, limitation, if it were to be a pure question of law may be raised at any stage of the proceeding, and it would not...
Patent Opposition Board Recommendations Are Advisory, Not Binding Decision: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has refused to step in midway in a patent dispute over a cancer drug, holding that a recommendation made by the Opposition Board during post-grant opposition proceedings is only advisory and does not create anu valid binding rights. Dismissing the writ petition filed by two foreign pharma firms, Justice N. Senthilkumar said the patent holders must place all their objections before the Controller of Patents, who alone takes the final call.The court was hearing a...
Madras High Court Upholds Grant Of Virtual Agent Patent To US Company, Dismisses Flipkart's Challenge
The Madras High Court on Monday refused to interfere with the Patent Office's rejection of Flipkart's post-grant opposition, allowing a US company's patent on virtual agents used in online customer interactions to continue.In an order dated January 5, 2026, Justice N. Senthilkumar refused to interfere with the decision of the Patent Office, which had dismissed Flipkart's post-grant opposition and allowed the patent titled “Systems and Methods for Virtual Agents to Help Customers and Business” to...
Madras High Court Temporarily Bars Use Of “URG-9”, Finds It Deceptively Similar To “ARG-9”
The Madras High Court has granted an interim injunction restraining Foregen Healthcare Ltd. from using the pharmaceutical mark “URG-9.” The court held that it was prima facie deceptively similar to the registered trademark “ARG-9” owned by Nouveau Medicament Private Limited.Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the order on January 7, 2026, while deciding the interim injunction application in a trademark infringement and passing-off suit concerning pharmaceutical products.The court observed,...
Procuring Authority Liable For Differential GST In Government Contracts: Madras High Court Reiterates
Reiterating that additional GST arising from the rollout of the GST regime in government works contracts must be borne by the procuring authority, the Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to consider a contractor's claim for reimbursement of differential tax.A Bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar relying on settled law, held that contractors cannot be fastened with liability for differential GST, interest, or penalties when tax was discharged strictly in accordance...
GST Late-Fee Amnesty Benefit Cannot Be Denied To Early Annual Return Filers: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has held that GST-registered persons who filed their annual returns before the amnesty scheme cannot be denied its benefit merely because the GST Council did not address their situation in its meeting. The amnesty scheme, notified in March 2023, capped the maximum late fee for delayed filing of GSTR-9 (annual GST returns) at Rs 10,000 per financial year for the financial years 2017-18 to 2021-22. A single-judge bench of Justice C Saravanan observed that such taxpayers...
Madras High Court Directs Consolidated GST Adjudication After Trader Receives Two Assessments For Same Year
After a Chennai-based trader received two separate GST assessment orders for the same financial year, the Madras High Court remanded the matter for consolidated adjudication by a single authority. A single-judge bench of Justice C Saravanan noted that, for the same tax period, “two officers who are the Respondents in the respective Writ Petitions filed respective impugned orders,” and proceeded to consider the grievance raised by the trader. The dispute relates to two assessment orders issued...
Madras High Court Orders Removal Of Wipro's 'PREMIO' Trademark On Crompton Greaves Plea
The Madras High Court has ordered the removal of the “PREMIO” trademark registered in favour of Wipro Enterprises Private Limited. The Court found that the mark had not been put to genuine commercial use for more than five years. Justice N Senthilkumar passed the order on December 16, 2025. He allowed a rectification plea filed by Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited, a Mumbai-based consumer electricals manufacturer.The court held that the disputed mark was liable to be removed from...
Madras High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Granting Relief To 93 Chennai Port Spillage Workers
The Madras High Court on Wednesday rejected a petition filed by the Chennai Port Authority, refusing to set aside an arbitral award that directed the port to reinstate spillage-handling workers and grant back wages, gratuity and other service benefits to 93 workers. A single bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh held that the award did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or patent illegality and did not conflict with public policy. The court observed that the Port Trust, as a State...
Income Tax | Manual Returns Invalid After E-Filing Became Mandatory For Companies on May 14, 2007: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has held that from May 14, 2007, companies had to file their income tax returns electronically, and that paper returns filed after that date carry no legal validity A bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar rejected a claim for deduction under Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act, holding that electronic filing of returns was a mandatory requirement for availing the benefit. The case reached the High Court after the Income Tax Department filed an appeal...
Madras High Court Allows US Inventor's Late Patent Examination Request Despite Indian Agent's Error
The Madras High Court has directed the Indian Patent Office to accept and process a request for examination filed by a US-based inventor, holding that a patent application cannot be treated as abandoned due to an inadvertent mistake by a patent agent. The court ruled that in the absence of any intention to give up the invention, such procedural lapses should not defeat substantive rights. Justice N Anand Venkatesh passed the order on December 18, 2025, while disposing of a writ petition filed...