Supreme Court & High Courts
After Pan Products Company Agrees to Deposit ₹3.5 Crore Of GST Demand, Supreme Court Stays Coercive Action
The Supreme Court has directed Simla Gomti Pan Products Pvt. Ltd. to deposit Rs 3.5 crore in a GST dispute and ordered that no coercive action be taken against it for now. A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan was hearing the company's challenge to a November 3, 2025, judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had refused to entertain its writ petition. The company had earlier approached the High Court against assessment orders for 2021–22 and 2022–23, contending that...
Delhi High Court Stays Attachment Against M3M On Condition of 50% Payment Of Decretal Amount To Homebuyers
The Delhi High Court has recently stayed the operation of warrants of attachment issued against M3M India Private Limited in execution proceedings tied to a refund order passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The relief is conditional. M3M must deposit 50% of the decretal amount within 15 days, failing which the interim protection will automatically stand vacated. “Subject to payment of 50% of the decretal amount by the petitioner to the respondent/decree holder...
Limitation For Plea-Seeking Arbitrator Appointment Begins From Failure Of Opposite Party To Act On Invocation Notice: J&K&L High Court
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh recently held that an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which allows a party to approach the court for appointment of an arbitrator when the other side fails or refuses to do so, must be filed within three years from the date of such failure or refusal. The court clarified that the cause of action arises upon such failure or neglect, and once limitation begins to run, it continues without...
Shareholder Has No Proprietary Rights Over Company's Digital Assets: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court recently refused to quash an FIR registered against the Director of a Bengaluru-based algorithmic trading company for allegedly stealing, copying, and deleting the company's proprietary source code and trading algorithms, holding that a shareholder's stake does not confer any proprietary right over the company's digital assets. The single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that the issue was not purely civil in nature; the court observed that the allegations...
Delhi High Court Lets Meta Approach NCDRC Against ₹10 Lakh Penalty In Walkie-Talkie Listings Case
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday permitted Meta Platforms Inc. to withdraw its writ petition challenging a Rs. 10 lakh penalty imposed by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) for alleged misleading advertisements and unlawful listing of walkie-talkies on its Facebook Marketplace platform, and granted liberty to approach the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).A single-judge bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav gave Meta liberty to challenge the order...
Supreme Court Dismisses Fox Mandal's Appeal In ₹3.89 Crore Service Tax Case
The Supreme Court recently (March 25) dismissed an appeal filed by Fox Mandal and Company against the Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Noida, declining to interfere with the CESTAT order, which upheld service tax and CENVAT-related demands aggregating to about Rs. 3.89 crore.While refusing to interfere with the CESTAT judgment dated December 11, 2024, which had upheld substantial service tax demands and remanded certain issues for reconsideration, a bench of Justices Pamidighantam...
LiveLawBiz Arbitration Weekly Digest: March 23- March 28, 2026
NOMINAL INDEX JioStar India Pvt Ltd vs Green Bean Sports Marketing, 2026 LLBiz SC 123Gini AND Jony Ltd v. Benetton India Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LLBiz SC 133Bharat Udyog Ltd. (formerly known as M/s Jai Hind Contractors Pvt. Ltd.) v. Ambernath Municipal Council through Commissioner & Anr., 2026 LLBiz SC 129Kalanithi Maran vs SpiceJet Ltd, 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 292M/s National Highways Authority of India v. M/s BEL-ACC (JV), 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 300ERA Infra Engineering Limited v. National Highways...
Illegality Of Search Does Not Make Evidence Gathered Inadmissible In GST Fraud Cases: Karnataka High Court
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru has ruled that the legality of search and seizure proceedings does not, by itself, make the material collected during such proceedings inadmissible for initiating action under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, so long as such material is relevant to the issues involved.Section 74 of the CGST Act covers cases of tax not paid, short-paid, erroneously refunded, or Input Tax Credit (ITC) wrongly availed due to fraud, wilful...
Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To Accused In ₹42 Crore GST ITC Fraud Case
The Gujarat High Court has granted regular bail to Keyur Dipakkumar Shah, accused of allegedly availing and passing on fraudulent input tax credit (ITC) of around Rs 42 crore under GST laws, noting that he has no criminal antecedents and faces a maximum sentence of five years. “Without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail,” Justice Nikhil S. Kariel said while...
Gujarat High Court Quashes Reassessment Based On GST Proceedings Set Aside, Finds No Independent Material
The Gujarat High Court has quashed reassessment proceedings initiated against an individual taxpayer, holding that reopening of assessment was uncalled for where it was based on GST proceedings that had already been set aside by the appellate authority and where no independent material existed to indicate escapement of income. “Apart from this, there is no other material which is in possession of the respondent No.1, which could prove that there has been an escapement of income and hence the...
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...