Madras High Court Sets Aside Customs Broker Suspensions, Says 'Immediate Action' Must Be Timely

The Madras High Court has set aside the suspension of licenses of 11 Customs Brokers, holding that the power to order “immediate suspension” cannot be exercised after an unexplained or substantial delay.Justice Hemant Chandangoudar held that while “immediate” does not mean that the suspension must be ordered instantaneously, the Customs authorities must act with reasonable promptness once the material necessary for taking action is available.The Court was hearing a batch of writ petitions filed...

Interim Arbitration Relief Plea Cannot Be Rejected At Threshold Merely Because It Covers Two Agreements: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has held that an application seeking interim relief in aid of arbitration cannot be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 merely on an objection that it covers two separate agreements containing separate arbitration clauses.Justice Anand Sharma observed, “The question whether two agreements are wholly independent or are interrelated is not necessarily capable of determination merely by looking at the title of the agreements or the fact that they contain...

Purchase Order Date Cannot Determine Import Date For Project Import Duty Benefit: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has ruled that a purchase order placed with a foreign supplier before registration of a project contract does not, by itself, determine whether imported goods qualify for the Project Import benefit. The relevant date is when the goods are imported into India, subject to the other requirements under the Project Import Regulations, 1986.“The mere fact that a purchase order was placed before registration of the project contract cannot, by itself, determine the date of...

Income Tax | Delhi High Court Quashes Section 153C Notice As Time-Barred, Relies On Ojjus Medicare Ruling

The Delhi High Court has quashed a notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17, holding that the notice was issued beyond the prescribed limitation period.The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Aditi Choudhary allowed the writ petition filed by Preeti Chadha, challenging the notice dated July 25, 2022, issued under Section 153C of the Act pursuant to a satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer on June 16, 2022.Petitioner contended...

GST Order Must Disclose Factual Basis For Statutory Ingredients, Not Merely Reproduce Provision: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that an adjudication order invoking Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act must disclose the factual basis on which the statutory ingredients of the provision are said to have been satisfied.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar observed that mere reproduction of the statutory language, without supporting particulars, would not demonstrate the requisite application of mind.It thus set aside an order confirming a...

Delhi High Court Directs Toplad To Change Name, Finds 'TOPLAD' Too Nearly Resembles 'TOPLAND'

The Delhi High court has directed Toplad Private Limited to change its name, holding that “TOPLAD” too nearly resembles the registered “TOPLAND” trademark of Topland Engines Private Limited. “Except for the letter 'N', both the words completely resemble each other and to the mind of a person with average intelligence, the mere negation of the letter 'N' would not make the names visually or phonetically dissimilar,” Justice Amit Mahajan observed. The court set aside the May 15, 2023 order of...

Tummoc App Can Be Used For E-Ticketing In Goa, No Contempt Made Out: Karnataka High Court In IP Dispute

The Karnataka High court has held that using the Tummoc app for e-ticketing in Goa did not amount to contempt. The court noted that the injunction in the underlying suit was confined to BMTC/DTC and had been stayed by the High court. “We are therefore, of the view that as only interim injunction passed by the trial Court was stayed by this Court vide order dated 19.02.2024 passed in MFA No.483/2024 (IPR/SJ), no contempt is made out for using the app Tummoc by the respondent/contemnor/s in Goa.”...

Delhi High Court Blocks ₹213 Crore Release To British Marine Over Unstamped Arbitral Award Against SAIL

The Delhi High Court has refused to release the remaining ₹213.24 crore deposited by Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) in enforcement proceedings initiated by British Marine PLC. The court held that the arbitral award could not be executed while it remained unstamped and the original award was not available before it.Justice Vinod Kumar observed:“Now the situation is that the original Award is not available before this Court. Though an arbitral Award is a chargeable instrument, as evident...

Commercial Suit Filed Before Ordinary Civil Court Must Be Returned, Not Rejected: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on 30 September held that a plaint filed before an ordinary civil court in a suit involving a commercial dispute must be returned for presentation before the competent Commercial Court, rather than rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). Justice S Manu dismissed an appeal filed by the defendants against the First Additional Sub Court, Thrissur's order directing return of the plaint in a suit for dissolution of partnership. The Bench observed...

Madras High Court Allows “Acha Dholak” Pleading Amendment, Says Issues Framing Does Not Commence Trial

On 1 October, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order allowing amendment of pleadings in a trade mark suit concerning the “Acha Dholak” safety match brand. Justice R. Poornima held that mere framing of issues does not establish that a trial has substantially commenced for deciding an application to amend pleadings. The Bench observed: “Mere framing of issues does not, by itself, establish that the trial had substantially commenced....

Supplier's GST Default Cannot Automatically Trigger ITC Reversal: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 1 October, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be mechanically reversed merely because a supplier failed to deposit GST with the Government or because the supplier's registration was subsequently cancelled, including retrospectively. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor upheld the validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, which makes actual payment of tax to the Government a condition for claiming ITC....

Delhi High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity Of Sec. 19 In 2018 Commercial Courts Amendment Act

The Delhi High Court on 30 September upheld the constitutional validity of Section 19 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018, holding that applying the amended regime only to commercial disputes instituted on or after 3 May 2018 does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia dismissed a petition filed by Alpro Industries and others...