Karnataka High Court Sets Aside $114,041 Decree, Says Time-Barred Claims Cannot Be Revived By Assignment

The Karnataka High Court has recently set aside a Commercial Court order directing Komtech Plastic Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. to pay USD 114,041 to Zrii Technologies Inc., holding that a time-barred claim cannot be revived through assignment of receivables, while modifying relief granted on equity shares.A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha held that the Commercial Court had erred in treating the dispute as a declaratory suit and in concluding that the claim...

Excise Duty Recovery During Stay On Demand Treated As 'Under Protest'; Refund Not Time-Barred: Madras HC

The Madras High Court has held that where the Department appropriates amounts during the pendency of an appeal against a Excise duty demand despite a subsisting stay order, such amounts must be treated as paid under protest, and a refund cannot be denied on the ground of limitation.The bench stated that "If the revenue is permitted to adopt such novel ways to adjust the amounts by getting over an order of stay and thereby indirectly recovering the money, it cannot be construed as a duty payable...

Madras High Court Rejects MSME's Interest Claim Under MSMED Act In Absence Of Contract

The Madras High Court has dismissed an MSME's claim for interest under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, holding that such interest cannot be awarded where the claim arises as compensation under Section 70 of the Contract Act and not from a contractual debt Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, in a judgment delivered on April 01, 2026, held that, “In any event, the plaintiff cannot claim interest on compounded basis with monthly rests, whether by invoking Section 16 of...

No Letters Patent Appeal Lies Against Order to Deposit 75% To Challenge MSME Award: Madras High Court

Reiterating that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a self-contained code, the Madras High Court has dismissed a Letters Patent appeal against a Single Judge's order directing a 75% pre-deposit in a challenge to an MSME arbitral award. A Division Bench of Justices C.V. Karthikeyan and K. Kumaresh Babu held, “The order of the learned Single Judge does not fall under the ambit of Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore, this appeal filed under the Letters Patent would...

Madras High Court Quashes IT Case Against Gautham Vasudev Menon Over Non-Filing Of His Company's Returns

The Madras High Court on Monday quashed an income tax prosecution against filmmaker Gautham Vasudev Menon for failure to file the income tax returns of his company, Photon Kathaas Productions Pvt Ltd, for the assessment year 2013-14.Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan quashed the case pending against Menon before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The case against Menon was initiated under Section 276 CC read with Section 278B of the Income Tax Act for non-filing of the returns of the company...

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...