No Substantive Review Maintainable Against Orders Appointing Arbitrators: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has recently ruled that only limited procedural correction and not a substantive review is permissible of orders appointing or refusing to appoint an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.A single-judge bench of Justice S Manu said the law on arbitration is a self-contained code and does not permit courts to reopen such orders on merits, as that would slow down arbitration instead of speeding it up. The court cautioned that allowing substantive review...

“Tiger” Mark Common In Trade, Not Trademarkable: Delhi High Court Denies Relief To Farm Equipment Maker

The Delhi High Court has refused to grant interim relief to an agricultural equipment maker that sought to stop a rival from using the word “Tiger” as part of its brand name for farm implements. In a judgment delivered on January 9, 2026, Justice Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court held that the words “Tiger” and “Brand” are common to the trade and that no case of deceptive similarity was made out at the interim stage.The court observed, “As 'TIGER' and 'BRAND' are found to be generic and...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Trade Marks Registry Order Refusing Mankind Pharma's PETKIND Trademark

The Delhi High Court has overturned an order of the Trade Marks Registry refusing registration of Mankind Pharma Limited's trademark “PETKIND” for animal and agricultural products. The relief was earlier denied on the ground of similarity with an earlier “PETKIND” mark filed by Petkind Pet Products Inc.Justice Tejas Karia, by a judgment dated January 9, 2026, allowed the appeal filed by Mankind Pharma, holding that the refusal of the trademark was unjustified in view of the company's...

Special Court Cannot Hear Private Complaints In Companies Act Fraud Cases; Only SFIO Can File: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday held that a special court cannot entertain a private complaint in cases involving fraud under the Companies Act. It ruled that where an offence attracts punishment under the fraud provision, cognisance can be taken only on a complaint filed by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office or an authorised officer of the Central government. A Division Bench of Justice J K Maheshwari and Justice K Vinod Chandran held that offences under Section 448 of the Companies Act, which...

Wrong PIN Code In E-Way Bill Alone Cannot Trigger Seizure Or Penalty Under GST Act: Allahabad High Court Reaffirms

The Allahabad High Court has once again made it clear that GST authorities cannot detain goods or impose penalties merely because of a wrong PIN Code in an e-way bill, if the addresses of the consignor and consignee are otherwise correct. A single-judge bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal held that proceedings under Section 129 of the GST Act are are not justified for clerical mistakes. Relying on a binding circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs and his own earlier...

GST Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Against Deceased Taxpayer, Recover From Heirs: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that while GST law allows proceedings to be pursued against a legal heir after the death of a taxpayer, authorities cannot determine tax liability in the name of a deceased person and then recover it from the heir. The court ruled that Section 93 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, permits recovery from legal representatives only after a valid determination against them, and not through orders passed against a dead assessee. A bench of Justice Shekhar B...

Delhi High Court Orders Deutsche Bank To Refund Rs 3.45 Crore To MSME Exporter

The Delhi High Court has ordered Deutsche Bank to refund Rs 3.45 crore to an MSME exporter, M D Overseas Private Limited. The court held that the bank wrongly recovered interest subvention benefits that had already been given upfront under the Interest Equalization Scheme. A single-judge bench of Justice Amit Bansal said the bank's move defeated the purpose of the scheme. The scheme, the court noted, was meant to "enhance the global competitiveness of Indian exports by lowering the cost of...

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...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitration Against Bhushan Steel Following Tata Steel Takeover

The Delhi High Court has set aside an arbitral tribunal order that allowed arbitration to continue against Tata Steel, formerly Bhushan Steel, even after its resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was approved. A single-judge bench of Justice Amit Sharma allowed Tata Steel's writ petition and quashed the tribunal's October 7, 2020 order. The court said that once a resolution plan is approved, it binds all creditors. “The Resolution Plan had attained finality and would be...

Immunity From Penalty Cannot Be Denied Once Conditions Under Income Tax Act Are Met: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has recently clarified that the income tax department cannot deny immunity from penalty for under-reporting of income once a taxpayer meets the conditions prescribed under the law.A bench of Justice Om Narayan Rai said Section 270AA of the Income Tax Act leaves no discretion with the Assessing Officer. The provision allows immunity where the taxpayer has paid the tax demand, has not filed an appeal, and has applied for immunity within the prescribed time. It also requires...

Appeal Against Commercial Court Judgment Lies Under Commercial Courts Act, Not CPC: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has said that a judgment delivered by a Commercial Court carries the force of a decree, and an appeal against it must be filed under the Commercial Courts Act rather than under the Civil Procedure Code. A division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal held that such appeals must be filed under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and registered as First Appeals before the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court. “The...