Uttarakhand High Court Restrains Use Of 'SWARNIKA' Mark Pending Suit Over Similarity With 'SUNAREKA'

The Uttarakhand High Court on 7 October held that a court must assess competing trademarks as a whole while determining deceptive similarity, and restrained jeweller Poonam Bhatt from using “SWARNIKA” pending the disposal of a suit alleging infringement of Deepanshu Bansal's registered mark “SUNAREKA”. Justice Ravindra Maithani allowed Bansal's appeal against the trial court's refusal to grant an interim injunction, holding that the Bench could not disregard similarities between the marks...

Share Purchase Agreements Not Commercial Disputes Merely Due To Share Transfer: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court on 7 October held that a share purchase agreement does not qualify as a shareholders' agreement under Section 2(1)(c)(xii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, merely because it concerns the transfer of shares. Disputes arising from such agreements cannot be classified as commercial disputes under the provision. A Division Bench comprising Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Sandip Kumar De allowed appeals challenging a Single Judge's order dated 5 March 2021, which...

Madras High Court Sets Aside Refusal Of 'THE SKIN COMPANY' Trademark, Orders Advertisement

The Madras High Court on 9 October set aside the refusal of Hyderabad-based Tregum Remedies Private Limited's application for “THE SKIN COMPANY” in Class 3 and directed the Registry to advertise the mark in the Trade Marks Journal. A Single Judge Bench of Justice P.B. Balaji held that the Registry had failed to give reasons for refusing the application, consider the company's reply or assess the mark as a whole. He observed: “it is not open to the authorities or the Courts to dissect a...

Interim Protection In Arbitration Can't Be Granted Merely On Disputed Money Claim: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on 5 October held that a party seeking interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, must demonstrate a real risk that recovery under a future arbitral award may become difficult, as a disputed monetary claim alone does not justify such relief. Justice Amit Borkar directed Alag Property Constructions Pvt. Ltd. to deposit Rs. 58,97,600 within four weeks in a dispute with flat purchaser Hemlata Ajay Ramani over the refund of money...

Bombay High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Tax Consultant Accused Of Misusing ₹45 Lakh Meant For GST Payment

The Bombay High Court has refused anticipatory bail to a tax consultant accused of retaining over ₹45 lakh given to him by a client for GST payments and allegedly preparing fake GST bills to show that the amount had been deposited with the government.Justice Madhav J. Jamdar was hearing an anticipatory bail application filed by Rakesh Rajendra Thakur, who was booked under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, for criminal breach of trust and cheating.The court...

Exclusive Jurisdiction U/S 42 Of Arbitration Act Requires First Court To Be Competent: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court on 12 October held that Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, grants exclusive jurisdiction to the court where an application is first filed only if that court has jurisdiction under the arbitration agreement. A Division Bench comprising Justices N. Sathish Kumar and G.K. Muthukumaar allowed an appeal filed by an investor, subsequently represented by his legal heirs, against Sharekhan Limited. It set aside a Single Judge's order dismissing the...

Gujarat High Court Holds ₹50 Cr. Nirma Trademark Sale Non-Taxable For Unascertainable Acquisition Cost

The Gujarat High Court on 9 October held that the Rs. 50 crore received by Shantaben K. Patel from the sale of the 'Nirma' and 'Nima' trademarks was not taxable as long-term capital gains because their cost of acquisition was unascertainable. A Division Bench comprising Justices Bhargav D. Karia and Pranav Trivedi dismissed the Revenue's appeals against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's orders and upheld the Tribunal's findings on the taxability of the receipt, the binding nature of the...

Developer's Ordinary Business Selling Flats Doesn't Give Partner Blanket Authority: Bombay High Court

On Tuesday, 13 October, the Bombay High Court held that a real estate developer's ordinary business of selling flats does not, by itself, establish a partner's authority to enter into every property transaction on behalf of the firm. Justice Amit Borkar partly allowed a petition filed by Aatif Javeed Merchant, a majority profit-sharing partner of S.S. Crown Infrastructure, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, granting limited interim protection against unauthorised...

Arbitrator Can't Make Independent Lease Termination Right Conditional On Default: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court on 16 September held that an arbitrator cannot interpret a contract in a manner that nullifies an independent right of termination expressly provided under its terms. A Division Bench comprising Justices D.K. Singh and H. Shanthi Bhushan dismissed an appeal filed by Padma, the landlord's legal representative, and upheld the Bengaluru Commercial Court's decision to partly set aside an arbitral award against Capgemini Technology Services India Limited. It observed: ...

Customs Can't Withhold Detained Goods Without Stay Of Confiscation Order: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that merely because the Customs Department has challenged an order before a revisional authority, it cannot withhold detained goods in the absence of any interim protection or stay against the operation of the order.The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain made the observation while dealing with a petition filed by a woman seeking release of her gold jewellery detained by Customs authorities at the Delhi airport.Petitioner had arrived from...

DRI/CBIC Headquarters In Delhi Cannot Confer Jurisdiction Over Goods Detained In UP: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the location of the headquarters of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) or the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) in Delhi does not confer territorial jurisdiction on the High Court to entertain a challenge against detention of goods at an Inland Container Depot (ICD) in Dadri, Uttar Pradesh.The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s Pradeep Industries and others, holding that...

GST Appeals Can't Be Dismissed Without Hearing Taxpayer On Pre-Deposit Shortfall: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on 12 October held that a GST appeal cannot be dismissed for a shortfall in mandatory pre-deposit without first giving the taxpayer notice or an opportunity to rectify the defect. A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Karnik and Sandesh D. Patil set aside the rejection of an appeal filed by Bhagyoday Agro Industries against a GST demand of approximately Rs. 14.77 crore. They observed: “The Appellate Authority ought to have applied the well settled principle that when an...