ALS

π€πšππ«π’π€πšπš π‹πžπ πšπ₯ π’πžπ«π―π’πœπžπ¬ (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #Advocate

  • Delhi High Court Invalidates Trademark Assignment, Affirms Corporate Ownership of ‘Su-Kam’ Brand

    Delhi High Court Invalidates Trademark Assignment, Affirms Corporate Ownership of ‘Su-Kam’ Brand

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 07.09.2026

    Delhi High Court Invalidates Trademark Assignment, Affirms Corporate Ownership of ‘Su-Kam’ Brand

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    The Delhi High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the legal battle over the ownership and rights to the “Su-Kam” trademarks. The dispute, between Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. (the plaintiff) and its former managing director, Mr. Kunwer Sachdev, along with others (the defendants), centered on the rightful ownership and use of the “Su-Kam” brand, especially in relation to inverters and related products under Class 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

    Background of the Dispute

    Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. is a well-known manufacturer of power backup solutions, including inverters and batteries. The conflict arose when Mr. Sachdev, after leaving the company, claimed ownership of the “Su-Kam” trademarks based on a Deed of Assignment and other historical agreements. The plaintiff, through its resolution professional and later a liquidator, sought a declaration of exclusive ownership, invalidation of the assignment deed, and an injunction against the defendants from asserting any rights over the trademarks.

    Key Arguments

    Plaintiff’s Position

    1. Continuous Use and Registration: Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. had registered the “Su-Kam” marks in Class 9 and used them extensively since 1998, with no objection from Mr. Sachdev during his tenure as managing director and majority shareholder.
    2. Admissions by Defendant: Multiple instances were cited where Mr. Sachdev, in official documents and agreements (including with Reliance India Power Fund and in a 2015 infringement suit), acknowledged the company as the rightful owner of the trademarks.
    3. Estoppel: The plaintiff argued that Mr. Sachdev was estopped from denying the company’s ownership due to his prior representations and conduct.
    4. Invalid Assignment: The Deed of Assignment was challenged as invalid due to breach of fiduciary duty, lack of proper board authorization, and being executed by Mr. Sachdev in conflicting roles.

    Defendant’s Position

    1. Original Proprietorship: Mr. Sachdev claimed to have coined and used the “Su-Kam” mark since 1986, licensing it to his partnership firm and later to the company.
    2. Validity of Assignment: He argued that the Deed of Assignment was valid and that the company was merely a licensee.
    3. Need for Trial: The defense insisted that issues of fraud and document authenticity required oral evidence and could not be decided summarily.

    Court’s Analysis and Findings

    • Summary Judgment Justified: The court held that, under the Commercial Courts Act and Order XIIIA of the CPC, summary judgment was appropriate as the defendants had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim and there was no compelling reason for a full trial.
    • Exclusive Proprietorship: The court found that Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. is the exclusive registered proprietor of the “Su-Kam” trademarks in Class 9, with valid and subsisting registrations renewed during Mr. Sachdev’s management.
    • Invalidity of Assignment: The Deed of Assignment was declared void due to breach of fiduciary duty, lack of proper board quorum, and failure to register the assignment as required by law.
    • Estoppel: Mr. Sachdev was estopped from claiming ownership, having repeatedly represented the company as the owner in various legal and commercial contexts.
    • Limitation: The suit was held to be within limitation, as the cause of action arose only when Mr. Sachdev asserted ownership in 2018.

    Final Judgment and Reliefs Granted

    The court decreed the suit in favor of Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd., granting the following reliefs:

    1. Declaration: The Deed of Assignment dated March 16, 2006, is invalid.
    2. Declaration: The License Agreement dated July 7, 1995, never was and is not applicable to the plaintiff.
    3. Directions: The Trade Marks Registry was directed not to proceed with the defendant’s request for recordal of assignment.
    4. Permanent Injunctions: The defendants were restrained from:
      • Claiming ownership of the “Su-Kam” marks.
      • Applying for or obtaining registration of the marks in any form.
      • Using the marks as a trade name, domain, or in any other manner.
    5. No Order as to Costs: The court did not award costs to either party.

    Significance of the Judgment

    This decision reinforces the importance of proper corporate governance, the binding nature of admissions and representations by company directors, and the legal protections afforded to registered trademark proprietors. It also clarifies the application of summary judgment procedures in commercial disputes, emphasizing efficiency and the avoidance of unnecessary trials.

    Conclusion

    The Delhi High Court’s ruling provides clarity on trademark ownership in corporate contexts and sets a precedent for similar disputes. Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. retains exclusive rights to the “Su-Kam” trademarks in Class 9, ensuring brand continuity and legal certainty for its business operations.

    Connected Matter

    Delhi High Court Safeguards PHENSEDYL Mark from Infringement and Passing Off

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Delhi High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Section 42 NDPS Act

    Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Section 42 NDPS Act

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 07.09.2026

    Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Section 42 NDPS Act

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment, acquitted Boota Singh and others who were previously convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) for possession and sale of poppy straw. This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision.

    Background of the Case

    On January 28, 2002, police officials received secret information that the accused were selling poppy straw from a jeep on a public road. Acting on this tip, the police conducted a raid and apprehended Boota Singh, Gurdeep Singh, and Gurmohinder Singh at the scene, while a fourth accused, Major Singh, managed to escape. The police recovered two bags containing a total of 75 kg of poppy straw from the jeep. The accused were charged under Section 15 of the NDPS Act.

    Trial and Conviction

    During the trial, the prosecution presented four witnesses and documentary evidence. The trial court acquitted Major Singh but convicted the other three accused, sentencing them to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 each. The court held that since the recovery was made from a public place (the jeep on a public road), Section 43 of the NDPS Act applied, not Section 42, which deals with search and seizure in private places.

    Appeal and Legal Issues

    The convicted accused appealed to the High Court, which upheld the trial court’s decision. The main legal issue revolved around whether the search and seizure should have complied with Section 42 (which requires recording secret information in writing and informing a superior officer) or Section 43 (which applies to public places and does not require such formalities).

    The appellants argued that:

    1. The vehicle was a private jeep, not a public conveyance.
    2. The police did not record the secret information in writing or obtain search warrants.
    3. Section 42 should apply, and its non-compliance entitled them to acquittal, as established in previous Supreme Court rulings.

    Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment

    The Supreme Court examined the facts and relevant legal precedents, including the Constitution Bench decision in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana and State of Rajasthan v. Jagraj Singh alias Hansa. The Court noted:

    • The jeep was a private vehicle, not a public transport vehicle.
    • Section 43 applies to public places and public conveyances, but a private vehicle does not fall under this definition, even if parked on a public road.
    • Total non-compliance with Section 42 is impermissible. The police failed to record the secret information in writing or inform their superior, as required by Section 42.

    The Court concluded that the lower courts erred in applying Section 43 instead of Section 42. Since there was total non-compliance with Section 42, the conviction could not be sustained.

    Outcome and Implications

    The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and ordered the immediate release of the appellants unless required in connection with any other offence. This judgment reinforces the importance of strict compliance with procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act, especially regarding search and seizure based on secret information.

    Key Takeaways

    1. Distinction Between Section 42 and Section 43: Section 42 applies to private places and vehicles, requiring written recording of information and communication to a superior officer. Section 43 applies to public places and public conveyances.
    2. Procedural Safeguards: Non-compliance with Section 42 is fatal to the prosecution’s case. Delayed compliance may be excused with satisfactory explanation, but total non-compliance is not permissible.
    3. Impact on Future Cases: The judgment sets a precedent for strict adherence to procedural requirements in NDPS cases, ensuring protection against arbitrary search and seizure.

    This case serves as a reminder that procedural lapses by law enforcement can lead to acquittal, even in serious offences under the NDPS Act.

    Connected Matter

    Kerala High Court Clarifies Mandatory Compliance with Section 42 NDPS Act for Searches of Private Vehicles at Night: Bail Granted for Procedural Lapses in Narcotics

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Supreme Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • Delhi High Court Orders Immediate GST Refund: Upholding Taxpayer Rights and Rule of Law

    Delhi High Court Orders Immediate GST Refund: Upholding Taxpayer Rights and Rule of Law

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 07.09.2026

    Delhi High Court Orders Immediate GST Refund: Upholding Taxpayer Rights and Rule of Law

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Madhumita Jha. The views expressed are based on her interpretation of the law. She can be reached at her email id jhamadhumita27@gmail.com .  

    The Delhi High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Brij Mohan Mangla vs. Union of India & Ors., addressing the issue of delayed GST refunds and the obligations of tax authorities to comply with appellate orders. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the case, its background, the legal proceedings, and the implications for taxpayers and authorities under the GST regime.

    Background of the Case

    Brij Mohan Mangla, a manufacturer of liquid printing inks, was registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act). During the period from May 2019 to December 2019, he accumulated an input tax credit (ITC) of β‚Ή74,02,337 due to an inverted duty structure, which occurs when the tax rate on inputs is higher than the tax rate on outputs. Unable to utilize the ITC fully, Mangla filed six separate refund applications for the relevant period.

    Timeline of Refund Applications

    Date of FilingPeriodAmount (INR)
    09.12.2020May 20198,89,402
    23.12.2020June 20197,39,443
    07.01.2021July 201910,62,596
    07.01.2021August 201911,12,574
    22.01.2021September 20199,72,486
    16.03.2021Oct–Dec 201926,25,836
    Total74,02,337

    Initial Rejection and Appeals

    The refund claims were not processed. Instead, the authorities issued show cause notices, citing two main reasons for rejection:

    1. Non-existence at Registered Premises: Physical verification allegedly found the business non-existent at the declared address.
    2. Cancellation of GST Registration: The GSTIN was cancelled with effect from 19.02.2021.

    Mangla responded, clarifying that he had shifted his business premises after the relevant period. Despite this, the refund applications were rejected on the grounds that he was not a “registered person” at the time of application, as required under Section 54(3) of the GST Act.

    Mangla appealed these decisions. The Appellate Authority ruled in his favor, confirming that he was indeed a registered person during the relevant period and entitled to the refund. The Authority also directed restoration of his GST registration.

    Continued Non-Compliance by Authorities

    Despite the appellate orders, the authorities did not process the refunds. Instead, they issued deficiency memos and repeated the same objections already settled by the Appellate Authority. The authorities argued that they intended to appeal the appellate orders and thus withheld the refunds.

    High Court’s Judgment

    The Delhi High Court found the authorities’ conduct unacceptable, emphasizing the following points:

    1. Obligation to Implement Appellate Orders: Authorities cannot ignore or withhold implementation of appellate orders merely because they intend to file an appeal, unless a stay is obtained.
    2. Rule of Law: Allowing authorities to disregard appellate decisions undermines the rule of law.
    3. Direction to Disburse Refunds: The Court directed the authorities to process and disburse the refunds, including applicable interest, without further delay.
    4. Right to Appeal Preserved: The authorities retain the right to challenge the appellate orders, but must comply with them unless and until they are set aside.

    Implications and Takeaways

    • For Taxpayers: This judgment reinforces the rights of taxpayers to timely refunds and the enforceability of appellate decisions.
    • For Authorities: Tax authorities must comply with appellate orders unless a stay is granted by a higher forum. Delays or non-compliance can be challenged in court.
    • For the GST Regime: The case highlights the importance of procedural fairness and the need for efficient dispute resolution mechanisms under GST.

    Conclusion

    The Brij Mohan Mangla case sets a precedent for the prompt implementation of appellate orders in GST matters. It serves as a reminder that administrative authorities are bound by the rule of law and must respect judicial and quasi-judicial decisions, ensuring justice for taxpayers.

    Connected Matter

    Bombay High Court Orders Refund of Pre-Deposit for Dropped GST Demand Despite Pending Appeal

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Delhi High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Judicial Scrutiny of Confiscation and Penalty Orders on Restricted Second-Hand Imports

    Judicial Scrutiny of Confiscation and Penalty Orders on Restricted Second-Hand Imports

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 07.09.2026

    Judicial Scrutiny of Confiscation and Penalty Orders on Restricted Second-Hand Imports

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    The recent decision by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, in the case of M/s. Ascent Circuits Pvt. Ltd. versus the Commissioner of Customs, highlights critical aspects of Indian customs law, particularly regarding the import of second-hand goods and the exercise of discretion in confiscation and penalty proceedings. This article provides a detailed overview and analysis of the case, its legal context, and its broader implications for importers and regulatory authorities.

    Case Background

    M/s. Ascent Circuits Pvt. Ltd. imported a “Posalux Machine DLR Measuring Unit.” Upon examination, customs authorities determined the goods were second-hand and classified as restricted under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP). The original adjudicating authority ordered the goods to be released upon payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 30,000 under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Section 112(a) of the Act.

    Both the importer and the Revenue appealed. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the importer’s appeal, allowed the Revenue’s appeal, ordered absolute confiscation (no redemption), and enhanced the penalty to Rs. 1,00,000 under Section 114AA.

    Key Legal Issues

    1. Classification and Restriction of Goods

    • The core issue was whether the imported machine was a second-hand good and thus restricted under the FTP.
    • The examination report and a Chartered Engineer’s certificate confirmed the goods were second-hand, aged over six months, with a residual life of over six years.
    • As per FTP 2015-2020, import of second-hand goods (other than capital goods) is restricted and requires authorization.

    2. Confiscation and Redemption Fine

    • Section 125 of the Customs Act allows authorities discretion to offer redemption of confiscated goods upon payment of a fine, except in cases where absolute confiscation is warranted.
    • The Tribunal emphasized that this discretion must be exercised judiciously, with clear reasoning, and not as a mere formality.
    • The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on Supreme Court precedent (Union of India vs. Raj Grow Impex LLP) to justify absolute confiscation, but the Tribunal found the facts distinguishable and the reasoning insufficient for denying redemption.

    3. Penalty Provisions and Enhancement

    • The original penalty was imposed under Section 112(a), but the Commissioner (Appeals) enhanced it under Section 114AA, which deals with fraudulent documents.
    • The Tribunal held that these sections address different types of violations and that the enhancement was not justified in this context.

    Tribunal’s Findings and Decision

    • The Tribunal found that the goods were indeed second-hand and restricted, but not absolutely prohibited.
    • There was no evidence of fraud or mala fide intent by the importer.
    • The original authority’s decision to allow redemption on payment of fine was appropriate.
    • The enhancement of penalty and order of absolute confiscation by the Commissioner (Appeals) were set aside.
    • The appeal was allowed, restoring the original order: goods could be redeemed on payment of fine, and the lower penalty was reinstated.

    Legal and Practical Implications

    1. Discretion in Confiscation: Authorities must provide clear, reasoned justification when exercising discretion, especially when opting for absolute confiscation over redemption.
    2. Penalty Assessment: Penalties must be proportionate and based on the specific nature of the violation; enhancement requires a solid legal basis.
    3. Importer Responsibilities: Importers must ensure compliance with FTP and maintain documentation to establish the nature and condition of imported goods.
    4. Precedent Value: The case clarifies the application of Supreme Court judgments and the limits of administrative discretion in customs matters.

    Conclusion

    The Ascent Circuits Pvt. Ltd. case underscores the importance of reasoned decision-making in customs adjudication and the need for proportionality in penalties. It serves as a valuable reference for importers, legal practitioners, and customs officials navigating the complexities of restricted goods under Indian law.

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: CESTAT Bangalore

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • Supreme Court Sets Zero Tolerance for AI-Generated Fake Legal Citations

    Supreme Court Sets Zero Tolerance for AI-Generated Fake Legal Citations

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 07.09.2026

    Supreme Court Sets Zero Tolerance for AI-Generated Fake Legal Citations

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya vs. Union of India & Anr., addressing the critical issue of artificial intelligence (AI)-generated fake legal citations in judicial proceedings. This article explores the background, key findings, and broader implications of the judgment for the legal community and the use of AI in courts.

    Background of the Case

    • Case Origin: The appellant, Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya, was penalized by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Surat, for mis-declaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to evade higher tariffs. The penalty imposed was Rs. 425,27,99,100 under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.
    • Legal Journey: Gadiya’s challenge to the penalty was dismissed by the High Court of Gujarat. The matter was then appealed to the Supreme Court.

    Discovery of AI-Generated Fake Citations

    • Appellant’s Contention: During the Supreme Court proceedings, it was argued that several judgments and articles cited by the customs authority in their original order were generated using AI and were either non-existent or had fake citations.
    • Supreme Court’s Verification: The Court independently verified these references and found that:
      • Some cited case laws did not exist or had fabricated citations.
      • Some existing cases were misrepresented, with AI “hallucinating” legal principles not actually present in those judgments.

    Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling

    Zero Tolerance for Fake AI-Generated Precedents

    • The Court emphasized a zero-tolerance policy for producing, citing, or using AI-generated precedents without proper verification.
    • It declared that:
      1. Advocates citing such unverified AI-generated judgments commit misconduct.
      2. Judges relying on fake or hallucinated AI-generated material commit a serious lapse.
      3. Any decision influenced by such material is invalid and must be set aside, even if the fake material had only an indirect impact.

    Integrity in Judicial Decision-Making

    • The Court stressed the necessity of maintaining the sanctity and integrity of the adjudication process.
    • It clarified that while AI can be a valuable assistive tool, it must never replace human adjudication. AI should serve as “training wheels,” not as the “pilot” in judicial decision-making.

    Outcome of the Case

    • The Supreme Court set aside both the High Court’s order and the original penalty order.
    • The case was remanded for fresh adjudication by a different officer of the same rank.
    • The Court left it to the appointing authority to consider disciplinary action against the author of the flawed order.

    Broader Implications for the Legal System

    Responsible Use of AI in Courts

    • The judgment acknowledges the growing role of AI in legal research and court processes, referencing the Supreme Court’s draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts (2026).
    • However, it draws a clear line: AI-generated content must be rigorously verified before being used in legal arguments or judgments.

    Safeguarding Legal Integrity

    • The ruling serves as a warning to both the Bar and the Bench against the uncritical adoption of AI-generated legal materials.
    • It reinforces the principle that the legitimacy of judicial decisions depends on the authenticity and accuracy of the sources relied upon.

    Conclusion

    The Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya judgment is a pivotal moment in the intersection of law and technology in India. It sets a strong precedent for the responsible use of AI in the legal system, ensuring that technological advancements do not compromise the integrity of judicial decision-making. Legal professionals and courts must exercise due diligence and uphold the highest standards of verification when engaging with AI-generated content.

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Supreme Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • Bombay High Court on Rejection of Suit for Joint Ownership of Common Amenities

    Bombay High Court on Rejection of Suit for Joint Ownership of Common Amenities

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 05.09.2026

    Bombay High Court on Rejection of Suit for Joint Ownership of Common Amenities

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Madhumita Jha. The views expressed are based on her interpretation of the law. She can be reached at her email id jhamadhumita27@gmail.com .  

    A recent judgment by the Bombay High Court has brought clarity to the rights of cooperative housing societies regarding common amenities and conveyance of property in large residential layouts. The case, involving Laxmi Charitable Trust and several cooperative societies, revolved around the ownership and use of recreation grounds and internal roads within a multi-plot layout in Andheri, Mumbai.

    Background of the Dispute

    The plaintiffs, three cooperative housing societies, filed a suit seeking joint ownership and conveyance of common amenitiesβ€”specifically, recreation grounds (RG) and internal access roadsβ€”under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA) and its Rules. The societies had already secured deemed conveyance of their respective plots (A, B, and C) but claimed further rights over RGs and roads situated on plots D, E, and F, which were owned by educational trusts.

    The defendants, including Laxmi Charitable Trust and Mathuradas Vissanji Female Education Trust, challenged the suit, arguing that:

    • The trusts acquired ownership of plots D and E before MOFA came into force.
    • The trusts were not promoters under MOFA and had no statutory obligation to convey land to the societies.
    • The suit was based on non-existent legal provisions and lacked a valid cause of action.

    Key Legal Issues

    1. Cause of Action: Did the societies have a legal basis to claim joint ownership and conveyance of common amenities on plots not owned by them?
    2. Applicability of MOFA: Could MOFA obligations be enforced against trusts that acquired property before the Act’s commencement and were not promoters?
    3. Validity of Cited Rules: The plaintiffs relied on sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 9 of the MOF Rules, which, as the Court found, do not exist.
    4. Interpretation of Layout Conditions: Did the sanctioned layout and municipal conditions mandate joint ownership or only maintenance of RGs?

    Court’s Analysis and Findings

    1. Ownership and Timing

    • The trusts acquired plots D and E in 1962 and 1963, before MOFA became applicable in Mumbai (1964).
    • The societies admitted in their pleadings that the trusts were the owners of these plots prior to MOFA.

    2. No Statutory Obligation for Conveyance

    • The trusts were not promoters under MOFA and thus had no statutory duty to convey land or amenities to the societies.
    • The plaintiffs’ reliance on non-existent sub-rules of Rule 9 was unfounded; Rule 9 only prescribes the period for conveyance, not the obligation to convey common amenities in the manner claimed.

    3. Misinterpretation of Layout and FSI

    • The sanctioned layout required maintenance of RGs but did not mandate joint ownership for the entire layout.
    • Each society’s building plans and FSI (Floor Space Index) calculations were plot-specific, not based on the entire layout.
    • The plaintiffs’ claims that RGs and FSI were shared across all plots were contradicted by the sanctioned plans and municipal records.

    4. Vexatious Litigation and Lack of Cause of Action

    • The Court found that the suit was based on false premises and clever drafting, creating an illusion of a cause of action where none existed.
    • The suit was deemed vexatious and an abuse of the judicial process, as it sought to claim playgrounds used by schools and colleges for the societies’ benefit.

    Final Judgment

    • The Bombay High Court set aside the City Civil Court’s order and allowed the revision applications filed by the trusts and Wallace Flour Mills Co. Ltd.
    • The plaint in L.C. Suit No. 3712 of 2017 was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for not disclosing a cause of action.
    • The suit was dismissed, and all interim applications were disposed of.

    Key Takeaways for Housing Societies and Trusts

    1. Statutory Rights Must Be Clearly Established: Societies must base their claims on existing statutory provisions and not on imagined or non-existent rules.
    2. Ownership and Timing Matter: Rights under MOFA cannot be enforced against parties who acquired property before the Act’s commencement and are not promoters.
    3. Layout Conditions Are Binding: Maintenance obligations in sanctioned layouts do not automatically confer ownership rights over common amenities.
    4. Courts Will Dismiss Vexatious Suits: The judiciary will not entertain cleverly drafted suits that lack real substance or are contrary to documentary evidence.

    Conclusion

    This judgment reinforces the importance of clear legal foundations for property claims and the need for societies to carefully examine statutory provisions and documentary evidence before initiating litigation. It also protects educational trusts and similar entities from unwarranted claims over their properties by neighboring societies.

    Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Bombay High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Kerala High Court Clarifies Mandatory Compliance with Section 42 NDPS Act for Searches of Private Vehicles at Night: Bail Granted for Procedural Lapses in Narcotics

    Kerala High Court Clarifies Mandatory Compliance with Section 42 NDPS Act for Searches of Private Vehicles at Night: Bail Granted for Procedural Lapses in Narcotics

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 05.09.2026

    Kerala High Court Clarifies Mandatory Compliance with Section 42 NDPS Act for Searches of Private Vehicles at Night: Bail Granted for Procedural Lapses in Narcotics

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    A recent order by the Kerala High Court, delivered by Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath on June 22, 2026, has significant implications for bail applications under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The order addresses the procedural requirements for search and seizure in narcotics cases, especially when conducted in private vehicles at public places between sunset and sunrise.

    Background of the Case

    The order pertains to two bail applications:

    1. Bail Appl. No. 2849 of 2026: Filed by Muhammed Sahal, accused in Crime No. 60/2025 of Malappuram Excise Range Office.
    2. Bail Appl. No. 2650 of 2026: Filed by Akshay Saju and Revins Raj, accused in Crime No. 111/2026 of Peechi Police Station, Thrissur.

    All applicants were charged under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act for alleged possession of narcotic drugs in commercial quantities and had been in judicial custody for several months.

    Core Legal Issue

    The central question was whether the search and seizure of narcotics from private vehicles, conducted between sunset and sunrise based on prior information, complied with the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 42 of the NDPS Act. The applicants argued that the authorities failed to obtain a warrant or properly record and forward the grounds of belief as required by law, thus vitiating the search and entitling them to bail.

    Legal Provisions Discussed

    Section 42 NDPS Act

    • Governs search, seizure, and arrest without warrant in buildings, conveyances, or enclosed places based on prior information.
    • Requires the officer to record information in writing and, if the search is between sunset and sunrise, to record and forward the grounds of belief to a superior within 72 hours.

    Section 43 NDPS Act

    • Applies to search and seizure in public places or in transit.
    • Does not require the same procedural safeguards as Section 42 for searches in public places.

    Judicial Reasoning

    • The Court clarified that private vehicles, even when located in public places, are considered private places for the purpose of Section 42.
    • Supreme Court precedents (e.g., Boota Singh v. State of Haryana, Jagraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan) were cited, affirming that compliance with Section 42 is mandatory for searches of private vehicles in public places, especially between sunset and sunrise.
    • In both cases, the officers failed to provide adequate grounds of belief justifying the absence of a warrant, as required by the proviso to Section 42(1).
    • The documents labeled as “grounds of belief” did not contain the statutory satisfaction that obtaining a warrant would have led to concealment of evidence or escape of offenders.

    Outcome and Bail Conditions

    Given the total non-compliance with Section 42, the Court granted bail to the applicants, subject to strict conditions:

    1. Execution of a bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties.
    2. Full cooperation with the investigation.
    3. Mandatory weekly appearance before the investigating officer.
    4. No commission of similar offences while on bail.
    5. No contact with prosecution witnesses or tampering with evidence.
    6. No travel outside Kerala without court permission.
    7. Any application for modification or cancellation of bail conditions to be filed in the jurisdictional court.

    Significance of the Order

    • Reinforces procedural safeguards: The order underscores the importance of strict compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, especially in cases involving private vehicles.
    • Sets precedent for future cases: The decision provides clear guidance for law enforcement and the judiciary on the distinction between public and private places under the NDPS Act.
    • Protects individual rights: By insisting on adherence to statutory procedures, the Court ensures that the rights of the accused are protected against unlawful search and seizure.

    Conclusion

    This Kerala High Court order is a landmark in the interpretation of procedural requirements under the NDPS Act. It highlights the judiciary’s role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring that investigative agencies strictly follow legal mandates, especially in serious offences involving narcotics.

    Connected Matter

    Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Section 42 NDPS Act

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Kerala High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • Delhi High Court Sets Aside Pre-CIRP Demand Notices: Application of Clean Slate Theory Post-IBC Resolution Plan Approval

    Delhi High Court Sets Aside Pre-CIRP Demand Notices: Application of Clean Slate Theory Post-IBC Resolution Plan Approval

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 05.09.2026

    Delhi High Court Sets Aside Pre-CIRP Demand Notices: Application of Clean Slate Theory Post-IBC Resolution Plan Approval

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    A recent decision by the Delhi High Court in the case of GARG INOX LTD & ANR. vs. Union of India & Ors. has reaffirmed the legal principle that once a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) is approved, all prior claims not included in the plan are extinguished. This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, its background, the legal arguments, and the implications for stakeholders in insolvency proceedings.

    Background of the Case

    GARG INOX LTD (the petitioner company) underwent a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) initiated by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 25 July 2017. The successful resolution applicant’s plan was approved by the NCLT on 4 December 2018, as per Section 31 of the IBC.

    Despite the approval, various government authoritiesβ€”including the Income Tax Department, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Commissioner of Customs, DGGSTI Department, and Gram Panchayat Karegaonβ€”issued demand notices for dues that arose before the CIRP commencement date. The petitioners challenged these notices, arguing that such claims were settled or extinguished by the approved resolution plan.

    Key Legal Issues

    1. Whether statutory and other claims arising before the CIRP date can be enforced after approval of the resolution plan.
    2. Whether the successful resolution applicant can be held liable for such pre-CIRP claims not included in the resolution plan.

    Court’s Analysis and Findings

    Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents

    The petitioners relied on landmark Supreme Court judgments:

    • Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.: The Supreme Court held that once a resolution plan is approved, all claims not included in the plan are extinguished and cannot be enforced later.
    • Essar Steel India Ltd. Committee of Creditors vs. Satish Kumar Gupta: The Court emphasized that a successful resolution applicant must not face undecided claims after the resolution plan is approved, ensuring certainty and a “fresh slate” for the new management.

    Application of the “Clean Slate Theory”

    The Delhi High Court reiterated the “Clean Slate Theory,” stating that the resolution applicant should not be burdened with past liabilities not accounted for in the resolution plan. This approach ensures finality and encourages resolution applicants to revive distressed companies without fear of unforeseen liabilities.

    Extinguishment of Pre-CIRP Claims

    The Court found that all demand notices issued for periods prior to the CIRP initiation date (25 July 2017) were invalid, as those claims were not part of the approved resolution plan. The Court set aside these notices, reinforcing that such claims cannot be enforced post-approval.

    Implications of the Judgment

    1. Certainty for Resolution Applicants: Prospective applicants can confidently take over distressed companies, knowing that only liabilities included in the resolution plan will bind them.
    2. Finality in Insolvency Proceedings: The judgment discourages endless litigation and claims, promoting closure and efficient resolution.
    3. Binding Effect on All Stakeholders: The decision is binding on all creditors, including government authorities, ensuring uniformity in the treatment of claims.

    Conclusion

    The Delhi High Court’s judgment in GARG INOX LTD & ANR. vs. Union of India & Ors. is a significant reaffirmation of the principles underlying the IBC. It upholds the sanctity of the resolution plan and provides much-needed clarity and confidence to resolution applicants and stakeholders in the insolvency process. This decision is expected to further streamline insolvency proceedings and promote the revival of distressed assets in India.

    Connected Matter

    Delhi High Court- Customs Department Cannot Enforce Pre-Insolvency Claims Not Submitted During CIRP

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Delhi High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • Delhi High Court Safeguards PHENSEDYL Mark from Infringement and Passing Off

    Delhi High Court Safeguards PHENSEDYL Mark from Infringement and Passing Off

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 05.09.2026

    Delhi High Court Safeguards PHENSEDYL Mark from Infringement and Passing Off

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    A recent judgment by the Delhi High Court has set a significant precedent in the field of pharmaceutical trademark protection. The case, Opella Healthcare Group vs. Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd, revolved around the alleged infringement and passing off of the well-known trademark “PHENSEDYL” by the defendant’s use of the mark “PHENSERYL”. This article provides a detailed overview of the case, the court’s findings, and its broader implications for intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical sector.

    Background of the Case

    • Plaintiff: Opella Healthcare Group, part of the global Sanofi Group, a major player in pharmaceuticals.
    • Defendant: Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd.
    • Dispute: The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s use of the mark “PHENSERYL” and similar packaging was deceptively similar to their registered trademark “PHENSEDYL”, leading to trademark infringement and passing off.

    Key Facts

    1. History of the PHENSEDYL Mark:
      • Adopted in 1954 for pharmaceutical products treating symptoms like running nose, sneezing, and throat irritation.
      • Registered in India since 21 July 1954 in Class 05 (pharmaceutical preparations for human and veterinary use).
      • Widely marketed in India since 1995, with distinctive blue and pink packaging.
    2. Defendant’s Actions:
      • Registered the mark “PHENSERYL” in Class 05, claiming use since December 2016.
      • Adopted similar trade dress and packaging, leading to confusion among consumers.
    3. Legal Proceedings:
      • Plaintiff filed for a permanent injunction and rectification of the defendant’s trademark and copyright registrations.
      • The court had previously cancelled the defendant’s registrations, finding them deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s mark.

    Court’s Analysis and Findings

    • Ex Parte Proceedings: The defendant failed to appear in court, and the matter proceeded ex parte.
    • Prior Use and Goodwill: The court recognized Opella Healthcare Group as the prior adopter and continuous user of the “PHENSEDYL” mark, with substantial goodwill and reputation in India.
    • Deceptive Similarity:
      • The marks “PHENSEDYL” and “PHENSERYL” were found to be visually and phonetically similar.
      • The packaging and trade dress used by the defendant closely resembled that of the plaintiff, increasing the likelihood of consumer confusion.
    • Public Interest in Pharmaceuticals:
      • The court emphasized that confusion in pharmaceutical products can be life-threatening, not just inconvenient, citing Supreme Court precedent.
      • A higher threshold for proving confusing similarity applies in the pharmaceutical sector.
    • Summary Judgment:
      • The court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, noting that the defendant had no real prospect of defending the claims.
      • The suit was decreed in favor of Opella Healthcare Group, granting a permanent injunction against the defendant.

    Implications of the Judgment

    1. Strengthening Trademark Protection:
      • The judgment reinforces the importance of protecting established pharmaceutical trademarks against deceptively similar marks.
    2. Consumer Safety:
      • By preventing confusion between medicinal products, the court prioritized public health and safety.
    3. Judicial Efficiency:
      • The use of summary judgment procedures in commercial disputes ensures timely resolution, especially when the defendant lacks a credible defense.

    Conclusion

    The Delhi High Court’s decision in Opella Healthcare Group vs. Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd is a landmark in pharmaceutical trademark law. It underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting intellectual property, ensuring consumer safety, and promoting fair competition in the pharmaceutical industry.

    Connected Matter

    Delhi High Court Invalidates Trademark Assignment, Affirms Corporate Ownership of ‘Su-Kam’ Brand

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: Delhi High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • CESTAT Mumbai confirming that SAD exemption claims are valid when statutory taxes are paid on domestic sales

    CESTAT Mumbai confirming that SAD exemption claims are valid when statutory taxes are paid on domestic sales

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 04.09.2026

    CESTAT Mumbai confirming that SAD exemption claims are valid when statutory taxes are paid on domestic sales

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    A recent decision by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has significant implications for manufacturers importing goods through Free Trade Warehousing Zones (FTWZ) and claiming Special Additional Duty (SAD) exemptions. The case involved M/s Emerson Process Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. and its Managing Director, Amit Paithankar, challenging customs duty demands and penalties imposed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, JNCH, Nhava Sheva.

    Background of the Case

    Emerson Process Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. manufactures process management equipment and imports raw materials via FTWZs. These goods are processed at their Navi Mumbai factory and sold domestically, with applicable VAT/sales tax paid on final products. The company availed SAD exemption under Notification No. 45/2005-Customs, based on the undertaking that VAT/CST would be paid on domestic sales.

    However, the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) alleged that Emerson wrongly availed SAD exemption on goods used in manufacturing, leading to a Show Cause Notice demanding over Rs. 1.79 crore in SAD, interest, and penalties. The Principal Commissioner confirmed these demands, prompting appeals from both the company and the Revenue (the latter seeking higher penalties).

    Key Legal Issues

    The central question was whether SAD exemption under Notification No. 45/2005-Customs applies to goods cleared from FTWZ to Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) units on a stock transfer basis, especially when VAT/sales tax is eventually paid on the final product.

    Arguments Presented

    For the Appellants

    1. Precedent and Industry Practice: The issue was already settled in favor of appellants in several tribunal and Supreme Court decisions, confirming eligibility for SAD exemption when VAT is paid on final sales.
    2. Full Disclosure: Emerson argued there was no suppression of facts, as all clearances followed prescribed procedures and were supervised by customs officers.
    3. No Malafide Intent: The company relied on approvals from the Development Commissioner of SEZ/FTWZ and industry-wide interpretations, negating any intent to evade duty.
    4. Limitation Period: The demand was time-barred, as the Show Cause Notice covered a period beyond the normal limitation period.

    For the Revenue

    1. Circular Interpretation: The Revenue cited a Ministry of Finance circular clarifying that SAD exemption is not available for stock transfers from SEZ/FTWZ to DTA for self-consumption.
    2. Mandatory Penalty: The Revenue sought imposition of a penalty equal to the duty amount under Section 114A of the Customs Act.

    Tribunal’s Findings

    1. Precedent Supports Exemption: The Tribunal cited multiple decisions, including CRI Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs and Serum Institute of India, confirming that SAD exemption applies when VAT is paid on final sales, regardless of whether the initial transfer is a sale or stock transfer.
    2. No Suppression or Malafide: The Tribunal found no evidence of suppression or malafide intent, as the company acted in line with industry practice and customs approvals.
    3. Limitation Period Applies: Since the demand was raised beyond the normal limitation period and there was no suppression, the extended period could not be invoked.
    4. Revenue’s Appeal Dismissed: The Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s demand for a higher penalty, as the underlying duty demand itself was unsustainable.

    Outcome

    • The Tribunal set aside the duty demand, confiscation order, and penalties against Emerson and its Managing Director.
    • The Revenue’s appeal for a higher penalty was dismissed.
    • The decision reinforces the principle that SAD exemption is available when VAT/sales tax is paid on final sales, even if goods are initially transferred on a stock basis from FTWZ/SEZ to DTA units.

    Implications for Industry

    This ruling provides clarity and relief for manufacturers using FTWZ/SEZ facilities, confirming that SAD exemption claims are valid when statutory taxes are paid on domestic sales. It also underscores the importance of following prescribed procedures and maintaining transparent documentation to defend against future disputes.

    Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

    Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

    Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

    Source: CESTAT Mumbai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi