LiveLaw Biz | Top 10 Corporate & Business Law Stories From Last Week
Sahyaja MS
28 Sept 2026 4:04 PM IST
The Supreme Court on Monday referred to a larger bench the question of whether State notifications notifying Civil Judges (Senior Division) as Commercial Courts can override the Trade Marks Act requirement that infringement suits be instituted before a District Court. The issue arises from Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It bars a suit seeking relief for trademark infringement from being filed before a court below the District Court having jurisdiction to try it
The Delhi High Court judge hearing a copyright dispute involving a content creator and Meta remarked in jest that “there should be a separate court, a META court, funded by META” after yet another Instagram copyright-strike dispute came up before the court.
The Supreme Court has recently clarified that the Centre can authorise any Central Government officer, in addition to the Director of the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), to institute a complaint under the second proviso to Section 212(6) of the Companies Act. The clarification came while dismissing the Centre's review petition against the Court's January 9 judgment. In that judgment, the Court held that an offence under Section 448 of the Companies Act is an offence “covered under Section 447” and therefore attracts the requirements under the second proviso to Section 212(6).
Byju's Settles Rights Issue Dispute With Aakash Before NCLT Bengaluru
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Bengaluru was on Wednesday informed that Think & Learn Private Limited, the parent company of Byju's, and Aakash Educational Services Limited have reached a settlement in their dispute over Aakash's rights issue.
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Chennai has held that it cannot exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction over a personal guarantor where the underlying corporate debtors are foreign entities with no registered office in India.
“This Code being domestic legislation of limited territorial reach, confers no extra territorial jurisdiction upon the Adjudicating Authority to adjudicate obligations arising from entities situated beyond the sovereign and statutory framework of India. The Foreign Company though recognized for a certain limited Regulatory purposes under Chapter XXII of the Companies Act, 2013 do not become a Company within the meaning of Section 2(20) of the Companies Act, 2013 and cannot be brought within the fold of Section 3(7) of IBC without any express inclusion of a Foreign Company as a Corporate Debtor ” the tribunal observed.
NCLT Delhi Issues Notice To CBI In Subhash Chandra's Personal Guarantor Insolvency Case
The Delhi Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on Wednesday issued notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in proceedings concerning a repayment plan proposed for Essel Group Chairman Emeritus Dr Subhash Chandra in his capacity as a personal guarantor of his group companies.
Subhash Chandra Moves NCLAT Against Restraint On Alienating Assets In Insolvency Case
Essel Group Chairman Dr. Subhash Chandra has moved the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) against a September 1 order of the Delhi Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) restraining him from alienating his assets in insolvency proceedings initiated against him as a personal guarantor. The appeal was taken up by a three-member NCLAT Bench comprising Officiating Chairperson Justice (retd) Yogesh Khanna and Technical Members Barun Mitra and Ajai Das Mehrotra on Wednesday.
Appeal Against Rejection Of Interim Relief Cannot Be Remitted To Arbitral Tribunal: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that a High Court cannot transfer an appeal against rejection of an interim-relief application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to an arbitral tribunal and direct the tribunal to treat it as an application for interim measures. A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale set aside a Bombay High Court direction to that extent in a dispute between the Union of India and Hariom Projects Pvt. Ltd
The Delhi High Court on Friday orally observed that treating a network or towers as a permanent establishment (PE) of a foreign enterprise could be a “very dangerous proposition," warning that such an approach could be misused across jurisdictions. “AAR's view that towers and network itself constitute a PE is a very dangerous proposition ... it can be misused anywhere,” a Division Bench comprising Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Aditi Choudhary observed while hearing afresh Mastercard Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd.'s challenge to a 2018 ruling of the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) at Delhi.
On 23 September, the Madras High Court held that the period during which assessment proceedings remain stayed by a court must be excluded while computing the limitation period before determining whether an extension under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) is available