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

  • NPPA Cannot Apply Blanket Drug Price Ceiling Without Following DPCO Formula: Bombay HC Quashes Notifications and β‚Ή13-Crore-Plus Demand

    NPPA Cannot Apply Blanket Drug Price Ceiling Without Following DPCO Formula: Bombay HC Quashes Notifications and β‚Ή13-Crore-Plus Demand

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

    Date: 23.09.2026

    NPPA Cannot Apply Blanket Drug Price Ceiling Without Following DPCO Formula: Bombay HC Quashes Notifications and β‚Ή13-Crore-Plus Demand

    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 Bombay High Court has delivered a significant ruling on pharmaceutical price control, holding that the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) cannot bypass the statutory mechanism prescribed under the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 (DPCO 1995) and impose a ceiling price upon a formulation merely because it contains a scheduled drug as one of its ingredients.

    Allowing a writ petition filed by Pharmed Limited, the Division Bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat struck down NPPA’s notification dated 30 January 2009 in its entirety, while quashing the notification dated 27 September 2007 to the extent it was sought to be applied to Pharmed’s β€œCartigen Forte” formulation. Consequently, the authorities were restrained from acting upon the impugned recovery demands against the company.

    The dispute had culminated in recovery proceedings demanding amounts running beyond β‚Ή13 crore, including alleged overcharging and interest. Earlier, a recovery notice dated 21 November 2016 had sought β‚Ή13,41,06,802 under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.

    Dispute Over Price Control of Cartigen Forte

    • Pharmed Limited manufactures and markets pharmaceutical formulations. The dispute concerned its product β€œCartigen Forte Tablets”, a formulation used for treatment of osteoarthritis.
    • Pharmed’s central case was that the Government had never specifically fixed a ceiling price for Cartigen Forte, either for its formulation existing before January 2010 or for its altered composition thereafter.
    • The controversy arose under the DPCO 1995, issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. The statutory framework empowered the Government to fix, among other things, retail and ceiling prices of scheduled formulations.

    NPPA’s 2007 Notification Covered Multivitamin and Mineral Formulations

    • On 27 September 2007, NPPA issued a notification fixing ceiling prices for multivitamin and mineral tablets and capsules.
    • Pharmed contended that Cartigen Forte was not such a formulation and that the 2007 notification could not simply be extended to it. The company also challenged a subsequent NPPA notification dated 30 January 2009 as impermissibly broad and contrary to the DPCO itself.
    • The 2009 notification purported to provide that any formulation or composition not already covered in NPPA’s tables, but containing any scheduled drug as an ingredient, would become subject to the ceiling price mentioned against that ingredient in the relevant notification unless the manufacturer subsequently obtained a specific price from NPPA.
    • That blanket approach ultimately became central to the High Court’s ruling.

    Initial Overcharging Demand of β‚Ή10.97 Crore

    • NPPA issued a show-cause notice to Pharmed on 13 October 2010, alleging that Cartigen Forte had been sold above the applicable ceiling price.
    • The authority initially proposed recovery of approximately β‚Ή10.97 crore as estimated overcharging.
    • Pharmed replied on 31 January 2011, contending, among other things, that Cartigen Forte was not a multivitamin formulation, its composition had changed from January 2010, and NPPA could not impose a blanket ceiling in the manner proposed.

    Demand Continued to Escalate With Interest

    • In September 2014, NPPA recalculated the alleged overcharged amount at β‚Ή6,33,62,316 and added β‚Ή4,90,71,525 as interest, taking the amount to β‚Ή11,24,33,841.
    • A further demand dated 26 November 2014 called upon Pharmed to deposit β‚Ή11,42,82,631.
    • Subsequent recovery action under Section 267 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code demanded β‚Ή12,05,92,401 and threatened attachment proceedings. An earlier writ petition resulted in the matter being sent back to NPPA for reconsideration and a speaking order.
    • After remand, however, further demands followed: β‚Ή12,73,36,583 on 7 March 2016, β‚Ή12,93,41,609 on 12 May 2016, and eventually a recovery notice for β‚Ή13,41,06,802 on 21 November 2016.

    Bombay HC: Cartigen Forte Is Neither a Multivitamin Nor Mineral Tablet

    • A significant part of the Court’s analysis concerned the actual composition of Cartigen Forte.
    • Before January 2010, the formulation contained, among other ingredients, Glucosamine Sulfate Potassium Chloride, Chondroitin Sulfate Sodium, Methyl Sulfonyl Methane, Vitamin D3, Vitamin E and Vitamin C. From January 2010, its composition changed.
    • The Court observed that prior to January 2010, Vitamin C and Vitamin E were scheduled bulk drugs included in the First Schedule to DPCO 1995. However, those two ingredients were no longer present in the formulation from January 2010.
    • More importantly, the Court accepted Pharmed’s contention that the product’s active pharmaceutical ingredients for treatment of osteoarthritis were Glucosamine Sulfate Potassium Chloride, Chondroitin Sulfate Sodium and Methyl Sulfonyl Methane.
    • After examining the undisputed composition, the Bench agreed that Cartigen Forte was neither a multivitamin nor a mineral tablet/capsule.

    Presence of a Scheduled Ingredient Does Not Eliminate Statutory Price-Fixation Exercise

    • The Court did accept an important part of NPPA’s legal position.
    • It held that the authorities possess power under Paragraphs 4 and 11 of DPCO 1995 to fix a formulation’s price based on available information where a manufacturer fails to furnish the information or application required under the DPCO.
    • It also accepted that a formulation containing a bulk drug specified in the First Schedule could fall within the definition of a β€œscheduled formulation.”
    • But that did not end the statutory exercise.
    • The Court held that the Central Government or NPPA was still required to actually fix the ceiling price of the particular scheduled formulation, and while exercising power under Paragraph 9, the authority was required to do so in accordance with the formula prescribed by Paragraph 7.
    • Accordingly, merely establishing that a product contained a scheduled bulk drug could not substitute the statutory price-fixation process.

    Paragraph 7 Formula Must Be Applied

    The judgment places considerable emphasis on the pricing formula prescribed under Paragraph 7 of DPCO 1995:

    R.P. = (M.C. + C.C. + P.M. + P.C.) Γ— (1 + MAPE/100) + E.D.

    The calculation therefore required consideration of factors including:

    • Material Cost (M.C.)
    • Conversion Cost (C.C.)
    • Packing Material Cost (P.M.)
    • Packing Charges (P.C.)
    • Maximum Allowable Post-Manufacturing Expenses (MAPE)
    • Excise Duty (E.D.)

    The statutory provisions themselves contemplated that the Government would fix the retail price of a scheduled formulation in accordance with this formula.

    Similarly, Paragraph 9 contemplated fixation of a ceiling price for a scheduled formulation by notification in the Official Gazette in accordance with the Paragraph 7 formula.

    The High Court found that no such exercise had been undertaken specifically for Cartigen Forte.

    2007 Multivitamin Notification Could Not Be Applied to Cartigen Forte

    • The Court therefore rejected NPPA’s attempt to apply the notification dated 27 September 2007 to Pharmed’s product.
    • That notification had specifically fixed prices for multivitamin and mineral tablets/capsules. The Court found that Cartigen Forte was a different formulation and its ceiling price had not independently been calculated by applying the statutory formula.
    • The Court also noted the significant differences in composition. Before January 2010, Cartigen Forte contained Vitamin C and Vitamin E only in quantities lower than those specified in the multivitamin/mineral formulations covered by the 2007 notification. From January 2010, those ingredients were no longer present.
    • The High Court therefore held that the 2007 notification could not form the basis for treating Cartigen Forte as having breached a notified ceiling price.

    Specific Gazette Notification Required for the Formulation

    • The Court laid down an important principle concerning the structure of DPCO 1995.
    • Even where Paragraphs 4 and 11 empower the authorities to determine price on the basis of available information, the procedure prescribed by Paragraph 9 read with Paragraph 7 must still be followed.
    • A specific order by way of notification in the Official Gazette was required in respect of the formulation concerned before the authorities could assert that a particular ceiling price applied.
    • Since no such exercise was undertaken for Cartigen Forte, the Court found that the very foundation of NPPA’s allegation of overcharging disappeared.
    • Accordingly, the notification dated 27 September 2007 was liable to be set aside only insofar as NPPA sought to apply it to Pharmed’s Cartigen Forte formulation.

    2009 NPPA Notification Declared Ultra Vires DPCO 1995

    • The Court went considerably further with respect to the 30 January 2009 notification.
    • The notification essentially attempted to make a price ceiling fixed for a scheduled ingredient applicable to any formulation containing that ingredient, unless a specific price had subsequently been obtained.
    • The Bombay High Court found this approach fundamentally inconsistent with the DPCO 1995.
    • According to the Bench, the notification was β€œextremely widely worded” and effectively dispensed with the statutory formula under Paragraph 7.
    • The Court reasoned that if the ceiling price for a formulation could simply be deemed to exist because one of its ingredients was covered by another pricing notification, the entire statutory exercise of calculating a formulation-specific ceiling price under Paragraphs 7 and 9 would be bypassed.
    • The Court therefore held the notification dated 30 January 2009 to be ultra vires the DPCO 1995.

    Notification Was Overbroad and Beyond NPPA’s Power: Bombay HC

    • The High Court further characterised the 2009 notification as overbroad and expansive, operating contrary to the provisions of the DPCO itself.
    • The Bench found that it went beyond the power vested in NPPA and effectively amounted to an abdication of the responsibility imposed upon the Central Government and NPPA to specifically determine a ceiling price under Paragraph 9 by applying the rigorous formula prescribed under Paragraph 7.
    • The Court consequently held that NPPA’s exercise of power under Paragraphs 9 and 11 for issuing the 2009 notification was arbitrary and unsustainable.

    β‚Ή13-Crore-Plus Recovery Proceedings Lose Their Foundation

    • Once the Court found the two notifications incapable of supporting NPPA’s case, the consequential demands could not survive.
    • The Court reasoned that the very foundation of the allegation that Pharmed had overcharged customers for Cartigen Forte had been removed.
    • Consequently, the demand notices issued by NPPA and the recovery proceedings initiated by the Collector under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code were also liable to be quashed.
    • The Court held that there was no independent basis for the Collector to pursue recovery once NPPA’s underlying demand itself became unsustainable.

    Court Also Flags Interest Calculation

    • The High Court separately found substance in Pharmed’s challenge to the huge interest component.
    • It noted that considerable time had elapsed because of delay attributable to NPPA itself in granting a hearing, while earlier demand notices had also been set aside on natural justice grounds.
    • The Court held that time consumed because of the authority’s own fault could not operate to its advantage and to Pharmed’s detriment when calculating interest.
    • Relying on Franco Indian Remedies Private Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 16344, the Court observed that, at worst, interest could have been calculated from the demand notice issued after the earlier proceedings were remanded.

    Natural Justice and SSI Exemption Issues Left Open

    • Pharmed had also raised questions regarding violation of natural justice, including the alleged failure to pass a proper speaking order after remand, as well as its entitlement and that of its contract manufacturer to a small-scale industrial unit exemption.
    • However, the High Court found it unnecessary to finally determine those issues.
    • Since the notifications forming the foundation of the alleged overcharging were themselves unsustainable, the writ petition could be decided on that basis alone.

    Final Order: Pharmed Wins; NPPA Notifications and Demands Set Aside

    • The Bombay High Court ultimately allowed Pharmed Limited’s writ petition.
    • Crucially, the Court drew a distinction between the two impugned notifications:
    • Notification dated 27 September 2007 was quashed only to the extent it was sought to be applied to Pharmed’s Cartigen Forte formulation.
    • Notification dated 30 January 2009 was quashed and set aside in its entirety.
    • As a consequence, the authorities were directed not to act upon the impugned demand notices against Pharmed.
    • Thus, Pharmed Limited succeeded in eliminating the legal foundation of the substantial overcharging and interest demands raised against it.

    Why the Judgment Matters for Pharmaceutical Price Control

    The ruling is significant because it distinguishes between two separate propositions under DPCO 1995.

    A formulation may qualify as a scheduled formulation because it contains a scheduled bulk drug. But that classification does not, by itself, permit NPPA to automatically import the ceiling price of some other formulation or ingredient and impose it on the manufacturer’s product.

    Where the DPCO requires the ceiling price of a formulation to be determined under Paragraph 9 in accordance with the Paragraph 7 pricing formula, the authority cannot replace that statutory calculation with a blanket deeming mechanism.

    The judgment therefore reinforces the principle that drug-price regulation must remain within the pricing methodology and statutory powers conferred by the DPCO itself.

    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

  • Calcutta HC: Unexplained Increase in Seized Drug Weight Raises Doubt Over NDPS Investigation

    Calcutta HC: Unexplained Increase in Seized Drug Weight Raises Doubt Over NDPS Investigation

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

    Date: 23.09.2026

    Calcutta HC: Unexplained Increase in Seized Drug Weight Raises Doubt Over NDPS Investigation

    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 Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Port Blair, has granted bail to David Johnson in a case involving the alleged recovery of 54.01 grams of methamphetamine, after finding substantial and arguable questions concerning the change in weight of the seized substance, chain of custody, compliance with Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act and the manner in which the safeguard under Section 50 was communicated.

    Justice Prasenjit Biswas held that, when these circumstances were considered cumulatively at the bail stage, the petitioner had established reasonable grounds sufficient to satisfy the first limb of the stringent twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Court also found no material indicating that he was likely to commit a similar offence while on bail.

    Bail Sought in 54.01-Gram Methamphetamine Case

    • David Johnson approached the High Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking bail in Special NDPS Case No. 05 of 2026, arising from FIR No. 03 of 2026 registered by Police Station Anti-Narcotics.
    • The case was registered under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985.
    • The petitioner argued that despite the statutory embargo under Section 37, the material available on record gave rise to reasonable grounds for believing that he may not be guilty of the alleged offence and that he was not likely to commit an offence while on bail.

    Seized Methamphetamine Allegedly Increased From 54.01g to 54.11g

    • One of the most significant issues before the High Court concerned an apparent discrepancy in the weight of the alleged contraband.
    • According to the prosecution, 54.01 grams of methamphetamine had been seized from David Johnson. However, when the substance was subsequently weighed during sampling before the Magistrate, its total weight was recorded as 54.11 grams.
    • The defence questioned how the seized substance could have increased by 0.10 gram between seizure and subsequent sampling, particularly when the identity, quantity and integrity of the contraband were central to an NDPS prosecution.
    • The High Court found this discrepancy relevant. It observed that although the numerical difference might appear small, it could not be ignored altogether in an NDPS prosecution where the identity, quantity and integrity of the seized substance assume fundamental importance.
    • More importantly, the Court noted that no satisfactory explanation had been placed before it as to how the weight increased between seizure and sampling.

    Samples Not Sent Directly From Magistrate to Forensic Laboratory

    • The second major issue concerned the chain of custody.
    • The petitioner relied upon Rules 13 and 14 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022.
    • Rule 13, as noted by the Court, contemplates that samples after certification by the Magistrate should be sent directly to the jurisdictional laboratory for chemical analysis without delay, while Rule 14 deals with expeditious testing and submission of the chemical analysis report.
    • However, the materials before the High Court prima facie indicated that after inventory and sampling proceedings before the Magistrate, the samples were not transmitted directly to the jurisdictional forensic laboratory.
    • Instead, they were first retained in the police malkhana and were thereafter forwarded to the CFSL.

    Chain of Custody Intended to Prevent Alteration, Substitution or Contamination: HC

    • The High Court stressed the purpose behind the prescribed procedure.
    • It observed that the requirement governing transmission of samples is intended to maintain their integrity and minimise the possibility of alteration, substitution, contamination or uncertainty regarding the identity of the material ultimately examined by the forensic laboratory.
    • The Court held that the relevant question was not simply whether the seized substance eventually reached the CFSL. It was also necessary to consider whether the prescribed chain of custody and safeguards governing its movement had been duly maintained.
    • The manner in which the material had been retained and transmitted, when coupled with the unexplained weight discrepancy, raised an arguable issue concerning the integrity of the seized substance and the sample subjected to chemical examination.

    Section 42(2) Compliance Also Questioned

    • The petitioner additionally alleged non-compliance with Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act, particularly in relation to the alleged secret information upon which the investigating agency had acted.
    • The High Court found prima facie substance in this argument.
    • Justice Biswas observed that the safeguards under Section 42 cannot be treated as empty formalities, especially considering the stringent penal consequences under the NDPS Act.
    • Where the prosecution acts upon prior secret information, the statutory requirement concerning the recording and communication of that information assumes significance. On the material then before the Court, strict compliance had not been satisfactorily demonstrated so as to completely dispel the doubt raised by the petitioner.

    Section 50 Notice Also Came Under Scrutiny

    • The State argued that Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not applicable to the search in question. Nevertheless, according to the State, a Section 50 notice had been served upon David Johnson as a matter of abundant precaution, and the petitioner had acknowledged it by signing the notice.
    • The High Court nevertheless examined the notice because the State itself relied upon it as evidence of compliance.
    • The Court observed that where a personal search is undertaken, the statutory safeguard under Section 50 assumes importance and the right contemplated by the provision must be communicated clearly and unambiguously.
    • Significantly, the notice placed before the High Court did not appear to contain the name or sufficient particulars of the Gazetted Officer before whom the petitioner was allegedly offered the option of being searched.
    • Prima facie, this raised a substantial question as to whether the petitioner had actually been made aware of the specific statutory safeguard available to him.

    Supreme Court’s Parmanand Judgment Relied Upon

    • The petitioner relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand and Another, (2014) 5 SCC 345.
    • The High Court noted the Supreme Court’s emphasis that the right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not an empty formality, and its communication must be clear, individual and unambiguous.
    • The High Court also referred to Parmanand while examining the Section 50 notice in David Johnson’s case and reiterated the importance of the statutory safeguard.

    Earlier Calcutta HC NDPS Bail Orders Also Cited

    Apart from Parmanand, the petitioner relied upon orders passed by Coordinate Benches of the Calcutta High Court in:

    • Alok Kumar Mandal β€” CRM (NDPS) 8 of 2025
    • Shri Sandeep Bera β€” CRM (NDPS) 9 of 2025
    • Shri Raju Golder β€” CRM (NDPS) 5 of 2025

    These authorities were cited in support of the petitioner’s challenge to the procedural compliance in the NDPS investigation.

    State: Procedural Objections Should Be Tested at Trial

    • The State opposed bail and argued that the alleged discrepancies were matters that should properly be considered during trial after prosecution witnesses had been examined and subjected to cross-examination.
    • It maintained that the seizure memo recorded recovery of the contraband from the petitioner and that this fact could not be disregarded merely because of the discrepancies highlighted by the defence.
    • According to the State, the investigating agency had substantially followed the NDPS procedure, and the objections did not provide sufficient grounds for satisfying Section 37.

    Section 37 Does Not Require Mini-Trial at Bail Stage

    • The High Court clarified the standard applicable while considering bail under Section 37.
    • The Court stated that it was not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or record a finding of acquittal. At the same time, Section 37 requires reasonable satisfaction, based on the presently available material, regarding whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and whether he is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.
    • The Court explained that β€œreasonable grounds” requires something more substantial than a mere prima facie consideration, although it does not amount to a final adjudication of the prosecution case.

    Cumulative Procedural Defects Sufficient to Overcome Section 37 Embargo

    After examining the material, the High Court identified four circumstances which, when considered cumulatively, raised substantial and arguable questions:

    1. The unexplained increase in weight from 54.01 grams to 54.11 grams;
    2. The manner in which the samples were retained and subsequently transmitted to the forensic laboratory;
    3. The prima facie deficiency in compliance with Section 42(2); and
    4. The apparent infirmity in the notice purportedly issued under Section 50.
    5. According to the Court, these issues raised substantial questions concerning both the legality of the search and seizure and the integrity of the chain of custody.
    6. The Court consequently found reasonable grounds for the purposes of the first condition under Section 37.
    7. As regards the second condition, no material had been placed before the Court from which it could reasonably conclude that David Johnson, if released, was likely to commit a similar offence. The second limb of Section 37 could therefore also be satisfied by imposing appropriate conditions.

    Calcutta High Court Grants Bail to David Johnson

    • The High Court ultimately held that David Johnson had, at the present stage, overcome the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and was entitled to bail.
    • He was directed to be released on furnishing a bail bond of β‚Ή20,000 with two sureties of the same amount, one of whom must be a local surety, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair.
    • The Court imposed several conditions, including that Johnson must attend the concerned police station every alternate day, cooperate with the investigation, appear before the Trial Court on every hearing date unless exempted, and not leave the Islands without prior permission of the Trial Court.
    • He was also prohibited from influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence or obstructing the trial.

    Bail Order Does Not Amount to Acquittal

    • Importantly, the High Court expressly clarified that its observations were confined solely to consideration of the bail application and should not be construed as any final opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.
    • Thus, the Court’s prima facie observations concerning Sections 42 and 50, the weight discrepancy and chain of custody do not constitute a final determination that the investigation was illegal or that the petitioner is innocent. Those issues remain open for determination at trial.

    Key Takeaway

    The ruling demonstrates the importance of maintaining strict procedural safeguards in NDPS investigations, particularly where the stringent bail restrictions under Section 37 apply.

    In David Johnson’s case, the Calcutta High Court found that the unexplained increase in the weight of the alleged methamphetamine, intervening malkhana custody before transmission to CFSL, prima facie deficiency under Section 42(2), and apparent infirmity in the Section 50 notice, cumulatively created substantial and arguable questions sufficient at the bail stage to overcome the first limb of Section 37.

    With no material suggesting that the petitioner was likely to commit a similar offence while on bail, the Court found the second condition capable of being satisfied as well and granted conditional bail.

    Connected Matter

    Supreme Court: Accused Must Be Clearly and Individually Informed of Section 50 Right Before Personal Search

    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: Calcutta 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

  • Patna HC: Customs Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts Without Following Section 110(5) Safeguards

    Patna HC: Customs Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts Without Following Section 110(5) Safeguards

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

    Date: 23.09.2026

    Patna HC: Customs Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts Without Following Section 110(5) Safeguards

    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 .  

    In an important ruling governing the Customs Department’s power to provisionally attach bank accounts, the Patna High Court has held that the safeguards contained in Section 110(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 must be strictly followed, considering the drastic consequences that freezing a bank account can have on an ongoing business.

    The Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra partly allowed a writ petition filed by Nxtify Technologies Private Limited, a company engaged in digital and affiliate marketing and resale of gift vouchers/cards, challenging the freezing and provisional attachment of several bank accounts.

    The Court quashed attachment orders that had been issued without the required approval of the Commissioner and held that certain debit-freeze directions issued in October 2025 did not comply with Section 110(5). It also set aside extension orders for want of a pre-decisional hearing and reasons.

    At the same time, the Court declined to interfere with certain fresh provisional attachment orders dated 7 January 2026 that satisfied the statutory requirements. The ruling is therefore a significant clarification that Customs’ power to protect revenue is available, but only through strict compliance with the procedure prescribed by Parliament.

    Investigation Into Alleged Fraudulent Exports Led to Nxtify’s Accounts

    • The controversy originated from a Customs investigation initiated around October 2023 against certain exporters, including M/s Venus Exports, M/s Vidhur Enterprises and M/s B.K. Overseas.
    • The allegations concerned fraudulent export activities and wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit.
    • During the investigation, Customs found that substantial amounts had allegedly been transferred by entities under investigation into Nxtify’s accounts. Although the investigation was initially not against Nxtify itself, Customs formed the view that certain money allegedly arising from fraudulent activities had reached the company and proceeded to provisionally attach its bank accounts.
    • Nxtify was subsequently described as a third-party beneficiary of amounts allegedly fraudulently availed by exporters, and additional accounts maintained with different banks were subjected to attachment.

    Earlier Penalties and Appropriation From Attached Accounts

    • The dispute had a longer history.
    • Nxtify had earlier approached the Karnataka High Court challenging provisional attachments. During those proceedings, Customs passed adjudication orders dated 18 October 2024 relating to show-cause notices issued to exporters and imposed penalties of β‚Ή50 lakh and β‚Ή1.50 crore.
    • Those amounts were appropriated from Nxtify’s provisionally attached bank accounts.
    • The Karnataka High Court subsequently granted an interim stay on 29 October 2024. The judgment records that further amounts of β‚Ή87,924.64 and β‚Ή82 lakh were thereafter debited on 4 November and 14 November 2024 respectively.
    • Nxtify filed statutory appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), Patna, which were stated to be pending.

    Five Bank Accounts Put Under Debit Freeze in October 2025

    • The immediate controversy before the Patna High Court arose when several of Nxtify’s accounts were again subjected to debit freezes during October 2025.
    • The judgment records that five bank accounts maintained with ICICI Bank, RBL Bank, IDFC First Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank were placed under debit freeze.
    • Nxtify contended that it received no prior notice and initially came to know of the action through communications and SMS messages from the banks.
    • After making representations, the company received a communication dated 17 November 2025 stating that a trail of funds had been noticed during investigations involving certain exporters and that the accounts had been attached under Section 110(5) of the Customs Act.

    Nxtify: Written Attachment Order Cannot Come After Bank Freeze

    • Nxtify’s principal argument was that Customs could not first freeze the bank accounts and subsequently issue a formal order in an attempt to regularise the action.
    • The company argued that the exercise of power under Section 110(5) must precede the actual attachment.
    • According to Nxtify, the accounts were frozen in October 2025, whereas certain impugned written orders were issued only on 7 January 2026. It characterised this as an impermissible post-facto attempt to validate an action already taken without authority of law.
    • The company further contended that a valid attachment requires formation of an opinion based on tangible material, a written order, prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, and a demonstrated necessity to protect revenue or prevent smuggling.

    Customs: Fresh Investigations Revealed New Money Trails

    • The Customs Department disputed Nxtify’s case.
    • It alleged that the company had received substantial funds originating from fraudulent exporters through intermediaries and thereafter converted those amounts into prepaid instruments or gift cards.
    • According to Customs, statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act showed that amounts had been received from entities such as Venus Exports and used for issuing prepaid cards against commission.
    • Customs further stated that fresh investigations involving other exporters had revealed additional financial trails.
    • In the case of M/s Kumar Enterprises, Customs alleged that β‚Ή46.52 lakh had been transferred to Nxtify.
    • In another investigation concerning M/s Kentil Technosoft Private Limited, the Department claimed that a money trail exceeding β‚Ή3 crore had flowed into Nxtify’s accounts. Customs maintained that the subsequent attachments arose from separate investigations and fresh financial trails rather than merely continuing the earlier action.
    • These remained the Department’s allegations; the High Court was deciding the legality of the attachment procedure, not finally determining the underlying allegations.

    Section 110(5) Imposes Mandatory Safeguards

    • Section 110(5) of the Customs Act empowers the proper officer, during proceedings under the Act, to provisionally attach a bank account where the officer considers it necessary for protecting the interest of revenue or preventing smuggling.
    • However, the statute imposes several conditions.
    • The proper officer must form the required opinion; the attachment must be made by an order in writing; approval of the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs must be obtained; and the initial attachment cannot exceed six months.
    • An extension for a further period of up to six months requires reasons to be recorded in writing, with the extension communicated before expiry of the original period.

    Provisional Attachment Is a Drastic Power: High Court

    • The Patna High Court relied significantly on the Supreme Court’s decision in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2021) 6 SCC 771.
    • Although that case dealt with provisional attachment under GST legislation, the High Court considered the relevant statutory provisions to be in pari materia for purposes of examining the substantive and procedural safeguards governing provisional attachment.
    • The Supreme Court had emphasised that provisional attachment is a draconian power carrying serious consequences and therefore requires strict compliance with the statutory preconditions.
    • The formation of opinion cannot be based on unguided discretion. There must be a proximate and live nexus between the attachment and protection of government revenue, and the authority must establish necessity, rather than mere expediency.

    Customs Admitted Two Attachment Orders Lacked Commissioner’s Approval

    • A critical development occurred during the proceedings.
    • The Department’s own records showed that provisional attachment orders dated 10 October 2025 concerning Kentil Technosoft and 23 October 2025 concerning Kumar Enterprises had been issued without approval of the Commissioner.
    • The respondents admitted this position.
    • The High Court held that where the statutory approval required by Section 110(5) was absent, the provisional attachment orders as well as their subsequent extensions were illegal.
    • The Court accordingly quashed those attachment orders and their extensions.

    Debit Freeze Without Proof of Written, Reasoned and Approved Order Held Invalid

    • The Court also examined the freezing of other Nxtify accounts.
    • Customs maintained that the October 2025 directions themselves were provisional attachment orders and that the January 2026 orders related to different accounts or stages of the investigation.
    • However, the Department did not establish that the relevant October directions were written orders containing reasons and supported by approval of the competent authority.
    • The High Court therefore concluded that the October 2025 debit-freeze directions concerning those accounts were not in accordance with Section 110(5).
    • This aspect of the judgment is particularly important for Customs investigations: an instruction to a bank restricting operation of an account cannot be treated as a substitute for compliance with the formal statutory conditions governing provisional attachment.

    Written Order and Commissioner’s Approval Are Not Empty Formalities

    • The Court’s reasoning reinforces that the safeguards in Section 110(5) are substantive, not merely procedural technicalities.
    • A provisional attachment can severely disrupt working capital, employee payments, vendor payments and ordinary commercial operations. The statutory requirement of prior approval by a senior Customs authority therefore operates as an important check against arbitrary exercise of coercive power.
    • The High Court referred to Boxster Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 978, where the Bombay High Court identified the essential conditions for Section 110(5): a written order, pendency of proceedings under the Customs Act, formation of the necessary opinion, prior approval of the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner and adherence to the six-month statutory period.
    • The Court also considered Chokshi Arvind Jewellers v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 793, which stressed that the necessity for attachment must rest upon tangible material and that the written order should disclose why attachment is required to protect revenue or prevent smuggling.

    Not Every January 2026 Attachment Was Quashed

    • Importantly, Nxtify did not succeed in having every attachment set aside.
    • The High Court separately examined the provisional attachment orders dated 7 January 2026.
    • It found that these orders had been issued after obtaining the Commissioner’s approval. The orders were in writing and recorded reasons on the basis of which the proper officer formed the opinion that attachment was necessary in connection with investigations relating to Kumar Enterprises and Kentil Technosoft.
    • The Court therefore held that these provisional attachment orders did not require interference.
    • This distinction is central to understanding the judgment: the High Court did not hold that Customs lacked power to attach Nxtify’s accounts. Rather, it invalidated those exercises of power that failed to comply with Section 110(5), while leaving legally compliant attachment orders undisturbed.

    Extension of Attachment Requires Pre-Decisional Hearing: Patna HC

    • The judgment contains another significant ruling concerning extension of provisional attachment beyond the original period.
    • The Court examined an extension order and found that before extending the attachment, the competent authority had neither issued a show-cause notice nor afforded Nxtify an opportunity of hearing. The extension order also did not disclose reasons.
    • The Department attempted to provide a hearing during the pendency of the writ petition and passed a fresh order on 6 July 2026.
    • The High Court was sharply critical of that course.
    • It recorded its β€œreservations and unhappiness” with the authority taking fresh steps while the writ petition was pending and observed that the attempt to alter the position during the adjournment was not β€œfair play in action” and was in breach of judicial discipline. The ASG ultimately stated that the Department would not press the fresh order.

    Section 110(5) Requires Pre-Decisional, Not Post-Decisional, Hearing for Extension

    • The High Court ultimately accepted Nxtify’s submission that the requirement in the context of extension under Section 110(5) is one of pre-decisional hearing, not post-decisional hearing.
    • Since the extension orders had been passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and without properly recording reasons, the Court held them to be bad in law and liable to be set aside.
    • Thus, an authority cannot first extend the coercive attachment and subsequently attempt to cure the deficiency by offering a hearing after the decision has already been taken.

    Department Free to Proceed Afresh in Accordance With Law

    • The High Court, however, protected the Department’s statutory powers.
    • It clarified that setting aside the defective attachment/extension orders would not prevent Customs from continuing pending adjudication proceedings.
    • The Department was also left free, if so advised, to take such steps as are available under the Customs Act, including passing fresh provisional attachment or extension orders where legally permissible and after complying with statutory requirements.
    • Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed to the extent indicated in the judgment, rather than in absolute terms.

    Why This Judgment Matters for Customs Investigations

    • The ruling is significant for importers, exporters, intermediaries and even third parties whose accounts become connected to Customs investigations through an alleged money trail.
    • Section 110(5) gives Customs substantial protective power, but the judgment demonstrates that this power cannot be exercised through informal banking instructions or retrospectively regularised paperwork.
    • The key safeguards emerging from the ruling are clear: there must be a valid proceeding under the Customs Act; the proper officer must form an opinion based on relevant material; attachment must be necessary for protecting revenue or preventing smuggling; the decision must be embodied in a written order; prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is mandatory; and any extension must comply independently with the statutory safeguards, including reasons and the procedural protection recognised by the Court.
    • The judgment also underscores that procedural compliance assumes greater importance precisely because freezing a bank account can cripple an operating business.

    Key Takeaway

    The Patna High Court has drawn a clear line between the existence of Customs’ power to freeze a bank account and the lawful exercise of that power.

    Customs may invoke Section 110(5) where the statutory conditions exist, including in the course of investigations involving alleged fraudulent exports and money trails. But a debit freeze unsupported by a duly approved, reasoned written order cannot be sustained merely by issuing documentation later.

    Equally significant, an extension of attachment cannot be treated as automatic: according to the High Court, pre-decisional hearing and reasons are essential before continuing the coercive restriction beyond the initial period.

    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: Patna 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

  • Rajasthan High Court: 15-Year Delay in Trademark Application Violates Natural Justice

    Rajasthan High Court: 15-Year Delay in Trademark Application Violates Natural Justice

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

    Date: 22.09.2026

    Rajasthan High Court: 15-Year Delay in Trademark Application Violates Natural Justice

    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 Rajasthan High Court has held that trademark registration applications cannot be kept pending indefinitely, observing that excessive delay in deciding such applications violates principles of natural justice and that the right to their speedy and expeditious disposal is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

    Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand made the observations while dealing with a petition filed by Mrs. Nirmala Kabra, whose application for registration of the trademark β€œBreastone”, filed in June 2010, had remained undecided for more than 15 years.

    Trademark Application Pending Since 2010

    • The petitioner approached the High Court with a limited prayer seeking a direction to the Registrar of Trade Marks to decide her application for registration of the mark β€œBreastone.”
    • The application had been filed on 25 June 2010. According to the petitioner, despite the passage of considerable time, the Registrar had neither decided the application nor passed a reasoned and speaking order. She therefore sought a time-bound direction for disposal of the application.
    • The Registrar opposed the petition, though the Court recorded that counsel appearing for the Registrar was not in a position to controvert the petitioner’s submissions.

    Opposition Filed in 2013; Matter Stagnant After 2017

    • Examining the record, the High Court found that the application for β€œBreastone” was filed on 25 June 2010 and was subsequently opposed by Respondent No. 2, Hassnar Health and Personal Care, through an opposition dated 7 March 2013.
    • After completion of pleadings, the matter was posted for recording evidence on 25 July 2017. However, according to the judgment, nothing further had been done for more than eight years thereafter.
    • The case thus presented what the Court regarded as a striking example of delay in India’s trademark registration system.

    Rule 50 of Trade Marks Rules Provides Time-Bound Framework

    • The High Court examined Rule 50 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, which governs hearing and decision in trademark opposition proceedings.
    • Rule 50 requires the Registrar, after closure of evidence, to notify the parties of the first date of hearing. It also regulates adjournments and provides that no party should receive more than two adjournments, with each adjournment not exceeding 30 days.
    • The Court observed that these restrictions demonstrate that the Rules contain a mechanism intended to ensure expeditious disposal of trademark registration proceedings.

    15-Year Delay Violated Rule 50: High Court

    • The High Court strongly criticised the delay.
    • It observed that the trademark application had remained pending for more than one and a half decades, which the Court treated as a clear violation of the mandatory provisions of Rule 50.
    • The Registrar, the Court said, is expected to follow the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 in their β€œletter and spirit” and cannot be permitted to keep matters pending indefinitely.

    Excessive Delay Violates Principles of Natural Justice

    • The judgment also addressed the broader consequences of administrative delay in intellectual property proceedings.
    • According to the Court, prolonged pendency can lead to loss of evidence, increased costs and a sense of injustice among the parties. Such delays may also undermine public confidence in the fairness and efficiency of the statutory system and leave businesses in prolonged uncertainty.
    • Significantly, the Court held that excessive delay in disposal of trademark applications amounts to a violation of principles of natural justice, since statutory procedures are required to be conducted fairly and within a timely framework.

    Speedy Disposal of Trademark Applications Is Protected Under Article 21

    • One of the most significant observations in the judgment concerns Article 21 of the Constitution.
    • The High Court held that trademark registration applications cannot remain pending for decades and that the Registrar is expected to decide them within a reasonable period.
    • The Court went on to state that the right to speedy and expeditious disposal of such applications is a valuable and cherished right of the applicant guaranteed under Article 21, treating it as an integral and essential component of the fundamental right to life.
    • This gives the judgment significance beyond the individual trademark dispute, because the Court connected administrative efficiency in trademark proceedings with constitutional principles of timely decision-making.

    Registrar Directed to Decide β€œBreastone” Application Within Three Months

    • Taking serious note of the fact that the petitioner’s application had remained undecided for more than 15 years, the High Court issued both case-specific and general directions.
    • For Mrs. Kabra’s application, the Registrar was directed to decide the pending trademark application as expeditiously as possible and within three months from receipt of the certified copy of the order.
    • Importantly, the High Court did not direct registration of the trademark β€œBreastone” and did not decide the merits of the opposition. The relief was confined to ensuring a timely decision by the competent statutory authority.

    General Direction for All Pending Trademark Applications

    • The Court did not restrict its observations to the petitioner’s individual application.
    • It issued a general direction to the Registrar of Trade Marks to decide all pending applications expeditiously, as early as possible and in accordance with Rule 50 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.
    • This aspect gives the judgment wider administrative significance for applicants whose trademark registration or opposition proceedings have remained pending for extended periods.

    High Court Calls for Strategy to Address Trademark Backlog

    • Before concluding, the Court also addressed the systemic problem of pending trademark applications.
    • It expected the Registrar of Trade Marks to develop a strategy to tackle the backlog and observed that a fast and simple mechanism for securing intellectual property rights and protecting businesses is the need of the hour.
    • According to the Court, expeditious disposal of pending trademark applications would enable the system to resolve disputes more fairly and effectively while maintaining public confidence in the trademark administration framework. A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Registrar of Trade Marks for necessary compliance.

    Why the Judgment Matters

    • The ruling carries significance for trademark applicants and businesses facing prolonged delays before the Trade Marks Registry. It establishes three notable propositions from the Court’s reasoning: Rule 50 provides an expeditious procedural framework; excessive administrative delay can violate principles of natural justice; and the Court treated speedy disposal of trademark applications as protected by Article 21.
    • At the same time, the judgment should not be read as creating automatic registration rights merely because an application has remained pending for a long period. The Registrar retains authority to decide the application and any opposition on their merits.

    Key Takeaway

    The Rajasthan High Court has made it clear that the Trade Marks Registry cannot allow registration applications to remain undecided for decades. In Mrs. Nirmala Kabra’s case, a trademark application pending for more than 15 years prompted the Court not only to direct its disposal within three months but also to issue a broader direction for expeditious disposal of pending trademark applications and call upon the Registrar to formulate a strategy to tackle the backlog.

    Connected Matter

    Rajasthan High Court: Trademark Applications Cannot Remain Pending Indefinitely; Speedy Disposal Is a Right Protected Under Article 21

    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: Rajasthan 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

  • Andhra Pradesh HC Grants Bail as Charge Sheet Not Filed Even After 180 Days

    Andhra Pradesh HC Grants Bail as Charge Sheet Not Filed Even After 180 Days

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

    Date: 22.09.2026

    Andhra Pradesh HC Grants Bail as Charge Sheet Not Filed Even After 180 Days

    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 Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted bail to an accused in an NDPS case involving an alleged 59.160 kg of ganja, taking note of his 201 days of judicial custody, substantial completion of investigation, absence of adverse antecedents, and the fact that the charge sheet had not been filed even after expiry of the statutory period of 180 days.

    The order was passed by Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao in Pawan Kumar Yadav v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Criminal Petition No. 7886 of 2026, on September 21, 2026.

    Bail Sought in Commercial Quantity NDPS Case

    • The petitioner, Pawan Kumar Yadav, arrayed as Accused No. 4, approached the High Court under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking bail in Crime No. 41 of 2026 registered at Gokavaram Police Station, East Godavari District.
    • The case was registered for alleged offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
    • The Court recorded that the allegation against the petitioner concerned involvement in dealing with 59.160 kg of ganja, which constituted a commercial quantity.

    Petitioner Claimed False Implication

    • Counsel for the petitioner contended that Pawan Kumar Yadav was innocent and had been falsely implicated by the police. It was further submitted that he was the sole earning member of his family and that his continued incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependants.
    • The petitioner also undertook to comply with any conditions imposed by the High Court if released on bail.

    State Opposed Bail

    • The prosecution strongly opposed the application, arguing that the investigation was still underway and that several material witnesses remained to be examined.
    • The Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that releasing the petitioner at that stage could create a risk of his absconding, thereby affecting the ongoing investigation and the process of law.

    201 Days in Custody, But No Charge Sheet

    • A significant factor considered by the High Court was the length of the petitioner’s incarceration.
    • The petitioner had been arrested on March 4, 2026 and had remained in judicial custody for 201 days by the time the bail petition was considered.
    • The Court specifically recorded that although a substantial part of the investigation concerning the petitioner’s alleged role had been completed, the charge sheet had not been filed even after expiry of the statutory period of 180 days.

    The Court further noted that:

    • no application seeking custodial interrogation of the petitioner had been filed;
    • the period for filing such an application had expired;
    • no application seeking extension of the period of judicial custody had been filed; and
    • no adverse antecedents had been reported against the petitioner.

    Rajasthan Residence Not Sufficient to Deny Bail

    • The petitioner was a permanent resident of Rajasthan. Nevertheless, the High Court observed that he had a fixed abode and considered that stringent bail conditions could adequately address the prosecution’s apprehensions.
    • The Court found that, if released subject to such conditions, there was no likelihood of the petitioner absconding, threatening witnesses, tampering with evidence or hampering the further investigation.

    High Court Grants Bail With Stringent Conditions

    • Considering the facts and circumstances, nature and gravity of the allegations, period of incarceration and stage of investigation, the High Court held that the petitioner could be enlarged on bail subject to stringent conditions.
    • The Court accordingly allowed the criminal petition and directed his release on a β‚Ή50,000 bond with two sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram.
    • The petitioner was also directed to appear before the concerned Station House Officer every Saturday between 10:00 AM and 5:00 PM until filing of the charge sheet, and not to leave the district without prior permission of the SHO.
    • He must cooperate with further investigation, make himself available for interrogation when required, refrain from influencing or threatening persons acquainted with the case, and surrender his passport, if any. If he does not possess a passport, he must furnish an affidavit to that effect.

    Why the Decision Is Significant

    • The order is notable because the alleged quantity of ganja was expressly recorded as commercial quantity, yet the High Court considered the prolonged custody and procedural status of the investigation while deciding the bail application.
    • The particularly important factual circumstances recorded by the Court were the petitioner’s 201-day incarceration, failure to file the charge sheet after expiry of the 180-day period, substantial completion of investigation concerning his alleged role, absence of any application for extension of judicial custody, and lack of adverse antecedents.
    • The order, however, is only a bail decision. The High Court did not acquit the petitioner or finally determine whether the allegations under the NDPS Act were proved. Those questions remain matters for the criminal proceedings.

    Key Takeaway

    The Andhra Pradesh High Court granted bail to an accused allegedly involved in a 59.160 kg ganja case after finding that he had already spent 201 days in judicial custody, while the charge sheet remained unfiled beyond the 180-day statutory period and no application for extension of judicial custody had been made.

    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: Andhra Pradesh 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

  • Bombay HC Orders Return of Deposit and Discharge of Bank Guarantee

    Bombay HC Orders Return of Deposit and Discharge of Bank Guarantee

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

    Date: 22.09.2026

    Bombay HC Orders Return of Deposit and Discharge of Bank Guarantee

    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 Bombay High Court has permitted Kunal Sancheti Associates to withdraw the amount it had deposited before the Court pursuant to an interim stay order, along with accrued interest, if any, and has also ordered discharge of the corresponding bank guarantee after noting that the underlying recovery notice had already been declared illegal, null and void by the competent civil court.

    Justice Gauri Godse held that once the decree was in favour of the applicant and the impugned recovery notice stood declared illegal, there was no surviving liability requiring the applicant to make payment to the State.

    Dispute Originated From Section 48 Maharashtra Land Revenue Code Notice

    • The dispute originated from a notice issued against Kunal Sancheti Associates under Section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
    • The firm challenged the notice by instituting a civil suit. However, the plaint was initially rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, following which the applicant preferred First Appeal No. 784 of 2010 before the Bombay High Court.
    • During the pendency of the first appeal, the High Court granted an interim stay subject to conditions requiring the applicant to deposit part of the amount covered by the notice and furnish a bank guarantee for another part of the amount. The applicant complied with those conditions, and both the deposit and bank guarantee remained with the Court.

    Appeal Transferred to District Court; Suit Ultimately Restored

    • Subsequently, because of a change in pecuniary jurisdiction, the first appeal was transferred to the District Court.
    • The District Court allowed the appeal and restored the applicant’s civil suit. The litigation thereafter proceeded before the trial court.
    • Eventually, by a judgment and decree dated 20 October 2021, the suit was decreed in favour of Kunal Sancheti Associates.
    • The impugned notice was specifically declared β€œillegal, null and void”, and Defendant No. 3 was restrained from executing the order for recovery of the amount.

    Deposit and Bank Guarantee Continued Despite Decree in Applicant’s Favour

    • Despite the decree, the amount deposited before the High Court and the bank guarantee furnished pursuant to the earlier interim order dated 12 January 2011 continued to remain with the Court.
    • Kunal Sancheti Associates therefore filed Interim Application No. 3183 of 2026, seeking permission to withdraw the deposited amount and requesting discharge and cancellation of the bank guarantee.
    • The applicant argued that because the recovery notice itself had already been declared illegal and the decree in its favour had not been challenged, there was no longer any justification for retaining either the deposited money or the bank guarantee.

    State Unable to Confirm Any Challenge to Decree

    • The High Court recorded that the learned Assistant Government Pleader had been granted time on various occasions to verify whether the decree passed in favour of Kunal Sancheti Associates had been challenged.
    • However, the State’s counsel had no instructions as to whether any such challenge had been filed.
    • Counsel for Kunal Sancheti Associates stated that, to the applicant’s knowledge, the respondents had never challenged the decree.

    No Liability Survives After Recovery Notice Declared Illegal: Bombay HC

    • After examining the application and the decree passed by the trial court, Justice Gauri Godse accepted the applicant’s submission.
    • The High Court held that, in view of the decree in the applicant’s favour, there was no liability upon Kunal Sancheti Associates to make payment to the respondents under the impugned notice, because that notice had already been declared illegal.
    • The Court also emphasised the purpose for which the money had originally been deposited. It had not been deposited as satisfaction of a final adjudicated liability; rather, the deposit was made as a condition for obtaining an interim stay against implementation of the disputed recovery notice.
    • Once the underlying notice itself ceased to have legal effect following the decree, the basis for continuing to retain the security also disappeared.

    Bombay High Court Allows Withdrawal With Accrued Interest

    • The High Court accordingly allowed the interim application and permitted Kunal Sancheti Associates to withdraw the amount deposited pursuant to the order dated 12 January 2011, together with accrued interest, if any.
    • The Court further directed that the amount should be released in favour of the applicant upon production of an authenticated copy of the order.
    • This part of the order is particularly relevant in disputes where substantial sums remain deposited before courts for extended periods solely because of interim protection granted during litigation.

    Bank Guarantee Stands Discharged

    • The Court also granted the second substantive relief sought by the applicant.
    • The bank guarantee furnished pursuant to the High Court’s order dated 12 January 2011 was declared discharged.
    • The Court directed that the bank guarantee be returned to Kunal Sancheti Associates so that it could be submitted to the concerned bank for cancellation.
    • The Interim Application was consequently allowed in these terms.

    Legal Significance of the Order

    • The order illustrates an important procedural consequence when a litigant has furnished money or security merely as a condition for interim protection.
    • Where the underlying demand is subsequently adjudicated against the authority and declared illegal, continued retention of the security may lose its foundation. In the present case, the Bombay High Court expressly linked the applicant’s entitlement to withdrawal and cancellation of the bank guarantee to the fact that the recovery notice had been declared illegal and, consequently, no liability remained payable under that notice.
    • The ruling should, however, be understood in its procedural context. This order did not itself decide the original legality of the Section 48 notice. That issue had already been decided by the trial court through its decree dated 20 October 2021. The High Court’s order dealt specifically with the consequential release of the amount deposited and discharge of the bank guarantee.

    Key Takeaway

    The Bombay High Court’s order makes the position straightforward in this case: once the underlying recovery notice had been declared illegal, null and void, and the applicant consequently had no liability to make payment under that notice, the amount earlier deposited merely as a condition of interim stay could not continue to be retained.

    Kunal Sancheti Associates was therefore permitted to recover its court deposit along with accrued interest, if any, while the bank guarantee furnished in 2011 was ordered to be discharged and returned for cancellation.

    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

  • Calcutta High Court: Bona Fide Purchaser of Transferable DFIA Licence Cannot Be Saddled With Customs Duty for Exporter’s Fraud

    Calcutta High Court: Bona Fide Purchaser of Transferable DFIA Licence Cannot Be Saddled With Customs Duty for Exporter’s Fraud

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

    Date: 22.09.2026

    Calcutta High Court: Bona Fide Purchaser of Transferable DFIA Licence Cannot Be Saddled With Customs Duty for Exporter’s Fraud

    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 .  

    In a significant ruling concerning Duty Free Import Authorisation (DFIA) licences and the liability of bona fide transferees, the Calcutta High Court has held that a purchaser who acquires a transferable duty-free import licence for value and without notice of any fraud or irregularity committed by the original licence holder cannot be made liable for customs duty, interest and redemption fine when the licence has never been cancelled by the competent authority.

    A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Sudip Deb allowed the appeal filed by Comet Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and quashed a customs duty demand of β‚Ή22,87,654.95, the consequential interest and a β‚Ή15 lakh redemption fine that had earlier been sustained by CESTAT.

    Comet Overseas Purchased Transferable DFIA Licence for β‚Ή14.51 Lakh

    • Comet Overseas Pvt. Ltd., engaged in export-import bulk commodity trading, was a subsequent purchaser and transferee of DFIA Licence No. 0210100847 dated 16 May 2007.
    • The licence was one among 23 DFIA licences obtained by Gemini Overseas Ltd. from DGFT during 2007-08 and 2008-09 under Notification No. 40/2006-Cus dated 1 May 2006, permitting duty-free import of specified silk products.
    • Three of those licences were subsequently endorsed as transferable by the Regional Authority after certification of fulfilment of export obligation. Comet Overseas purchased the licence in question for β‚Ή14,51,795 through proper banking channels, through Customs House Agent M/s S.K. Saha & Co.
    • Acting upon the licence, Comet imported Mulberry Raw Silk Yarn duty-free under Bill of Entry No. 437910 dated 22 October 2008 at Kolkata Port. The assessable value was approximately β‚Ή74.03 lakh, while the customs duty foregone amounted to β‚Ή22,87,654.95.

    DRI Investigation Found Fraud by Original Licence Holder

    • The controversy arose after intelligence gathered by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) indicated irregularities in the manner in which Gemini Overseas had discharged its export obligation.
    • According to the judgment, Gemini Overseas had exported fabric made of Noil Yarn while declaring it as Natural Silk Fabric predominantly made of Mulberry Raw Silk.
    • Consignments were intercepted at N.S. Dock, Kolkata and at the factory of Eastern Silk Industries Ltd. in Falta SEZ in November 2008. Testing by the Central Silk Board indicated that the fabric consisted of Noil Yarn mixed with cotton.
    • Gemini Overseas subsequently admitted by letter dated 2 January 2009 that the description contained in its export documents was incorrect and that benefits not otherwise due could have been availed. It also expressed willingness to pay the duty foregone in relation to the three transferable licences.

    Customs Issued Show Cause Notice to Comet Overseas

    • A Show Cause Notice dated 11 May 2012 was issued jointly to Comet Overseas, Gemini Overseas and other persons.
    • Customs proposed recovery of β‚Ή22,87,654.95 under the erstwhile proviso to Section 28(1), read with Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, along with interest. Confiscation was proposed under Section 111(o) and penalty under Section 112.
    • Importantly, the High Court noted that the SCN, insofar as Comet Overseas was concerned, did not contain any allegation of collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts on its part.
    • The Order-in-Original dated 28 February 2014 nevertheless confirmed the duty demand, imposed a β‚Ή15 lakh redemption fine under Section 125, and imposed a penalty of β‚Ή10 lakh under Section 112.

    CESTAT Removed Penalty but Sustained Duty and Redemption Fine

    • On appeal, CESTAT partly granted relief to Comet Overseas.
    • The Tribunal set aside the β‚Ή10 lakh penalty after finding that Comet had no knowledge of the nature of the goods used and exported by Gemini Overseas/Eastern Silk Industries. However, CESTAT sustained the customs duty demand, interest and β‚Ή15 lakh redemption fine.
    • Comet Overseas therefore approached the Calcutta High Court.

    Core Question: Can an Innocent Transferee Be Liable for Original Exporter’s Fraud?

    The High Court had admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law:

    β€œWhether a bona fide purchaser of duty-free import licence for value can be required to pay duty, interest and redemption fine in respect of his import, when he has no notice of any irregularity on the part of the exporter who had obtained such licence and the licence is not cancelled by the authorities?”

    This placed the legal status of a bona fide transferee for value without notice at the centre of the dispute.

    Comet Overseas: Fraud Makes Licence Voidable, Not Automatically Void

    • The appellant argued that the DFIA licence had been genuinely issued by DGFT and the alleged fraud occurred later, at the stage of certification of fulfilment of export obligation by Gemini Overseas.
    • Relying on the Supreme Court judgments in East India Commercial Co. Ltd., Calcutta v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta and Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Sneha Sales Corporation, Comet argued that even a licence obtained through fraud is voidable rather than automatically void, and continues to operate until cancelled in accordance with law.
    • The appellant also relied upon Taparia Overseas (P) Ltd. v. Union of India to contend that a transferee who purchases a duty-free licence for valuable consideration through legitimate banking channels and without notice of the original holder’s fraud should not be saddled with duty, interest and redemption fine.

    Revenue: Fraud Went to Foundation of DFIA Benefit

    • Customs argued that Gemini Overseas’ fraud went to the foundation of the licence because the exporter had falsely declared the nature of goods exported for fulfilling its export obligation.
    • Revenue relied upon ICI India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Calcutta and Munjal Showa Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Delhi-IV) to contend that an instrument tainted by fraud could not confer exemption upon a subsequent holder merely because that holder was personally innocent.
    • Revenue also relied upon Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai on the extended period of limitation and Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad v. Pennar Industries Ltd. on compliance with conditions of exemption notifications.

    Genuine Licence Different From Forged or Non-Existent Scrip: High Court

    • A crucial distinction drawn by the High Court was between a genuinely issued licence subsequently affected by fraud and an instrument that was forged and never issued by the competent authority at all.
    • The Court observed that ICI India and Munjal Showa involved forged instrumentsβ€”DEPB scrips and Transfer Release Advicesβ€”which were never validly issued by the competent authority.
    • Comet Overseas’ case was materially different. The DFIA licence had been genuinely issued by DGFT and validly endorsed as transferable by the Regional Authority. The alleged fraud occurred in relation to the certification of export obligation by the original licence holder.
    • The High Court therefore declined to mechanically apply the proposition that β€œfraud vitiates everything” to an innocent subsequent purchaser.

    Fraudulent Licence Remains Effective Until Cancelled

    • The Court relied significantly upon the principles laid down in East India Commercial and Sneha Sales Corporation.
    • It held that a licence affected by fraud or misrepresentation is not automatically rendered non-est. Rather, such a licence remains effective in law until it is avoided or cancelled in the manner prescribed by law.
    • A decisive fact in Comet Overseas’ favour was that DFIA Licence No. 0210100847 had never been cancelled by DGFT or the Regional Authority.
    • The Court regarded this as a material and unrebutted circumstance demonstrating that the licence remained a valid and subsisting instrument when Comet made its import.

    Bona Fide Purchaser for Value Stands on Different Footing

    • The High Court also gave substantial weight to Comet Overseas’ status as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.
    • The company had paid β‚Ή14,51,795 for the licence through banking channels. More importantly, CESTAT itself had already found that Comet had no knowledge of the irregularities committed by Gemini Overseas or Eastern Silk Industries. Revenue had not challenged that finding.
    • Applying Taparia Overseas, the High Court held that an innocent transferee stands on a different footing from the person who committed or participated in the fraud.
    • The Court observed that the maxim β€œfraud vitiates everything” does not, without more, extend to defeat the rights of such a transferee.

    Pennar Industries Distinguished

    • The High Court also rejected Revenue’s reliance upon Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad v. Pennar Industries Ltd., (2015) 10 SCC 581 / 2015 (322) E.L.T. 402 (S.C.).
    • It explained that Pennar Industries concerned the original importer’s own failure to fulfil the conditions of an exemption notification.
    • It did not deal with the distinct question of whether liability arising from the default of a third party could subsequently be imposed upon an innocent transferee who purchased the licence for value without knowledge of that default.

    Tata Iron & Steel Decision Did Not Alter the Result

    • The Court similarly declined to treat Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, 2015 (319) E.L.T. 546 (S.C.) as controlling.
    • It observed that the reported decision was a brief order and did not clearly disclose whether the transferee in that case occupied the same position as Comet Overseasβ€”namely, a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.
    • The Court therefore regarded its precedential weight on the facts before it as limited and preferred the reasoning in East India Commercial, Sneha Sales Corporation and Taparia Overseas.

    Limitation Argument Not Independently Decided

    • Comet Overseas had also argued that the extended limitation period under Section 28 could not have been invoked because the SCN contained no allegation of collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression against it.
    • The High Court, however, noted that no substantial question of law concerning limitation had been framed when the appeal was admitted. It therefore declined to decide limitation as an independent ground at the final hearing.
    • Nevertheless, the Court expressly recorded that the SCN contained no allegation of collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression against Comet Overseas and treated that fact as relevant to its overall assessment, without independently adjudicating the limitation issue.

    Calcutta High Court Rules in Favour of Comet Overseas

    • The High Court ultimately held that because the DFIA licence had never been cancelled, and because the fraud attributable to Gemini Overseas arose at the export-obligation certification stage rather than at the original issuance of the licence, the licence had to be treated as voidable rather than void on the record before it.
    • Since Comet Overseas was an unimpeached bona fide purchaser for value without notice, the Court held that it could not be fastened with customs duty, interest and redemption fine arising from a third party’s fraud of which it had no knowledge.
    • The substantial question of law was accordingly answered in favour of Comet Overseas and against the Revenue.

    β‚Ή22.87 Lakh Duty Demand and β‚Ή15 Lakh Redemption Fine Quashed

    The High Court allowed Comet Overseas’ appeal and set aside CESTAT’s order dated 22 December 2015 to the extent that it had sustained:

    • Customs duty: β‚Ή22,87,654.95
      Interest: Consequential interest on the duty demand
      Redemption fine: β‚Ή15,00,000
    • All three were quashed.
    • CESTAT’s earlier decision setting aside the β‚Ή10 lakh penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act remained undisturbed because Revenue had not challenged that part of the Tribunal’s order.

    Key Takeaway

    The ruling provides important protection to bona fide purchasers of transferable DFIA licences. On the facts before it, the Calcutta High Court drew a clear distinction between a forged/non-existent instrument and a licence genuinely issued by DGFT and validly endorsed as transferable but subsequently affected by fraud attributable to the original exporter. Where the transferee purchased such a licence for value without notice of the irregularity, and the competent authority never cancelled the licence, the Court held that the transferee could not be saddled with the duty, interest and redemption fine arising from the original licence holder’s fraud.

    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: Calcutta 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

  • Punjab & Haryana HC: Mere Presence with Co-Accused Does Not Establish Conscious Possession of Commercial Quantity of Opium

    Punjab & Haryana HC: Mere Presence with Co-Accused Does Not Establish Conscious Possession of Commercial Quantity of Opium

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

    Date: 21.09.2026

    Punjab & Haryana HC: Mere Presence with Co-Accused Does Not Establish Conscious Possession of Commercial Quantity of Opium

    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 Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a man in an NDPS case involving the alleged recovery of 2.702 kg of opium, observing that the contraband was recovered from a bag carried by the co-accused and no contraband was alleged to have been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner.

    Justice Virinder Aggarwal observed that mere presence alongside the person from whom the contraband was recovered, in the absence of any specific recovery from the petitioner, is a matter requiring appreciation of evidence during trial.

    The ruling came in Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-52368-2026, decided on September 18, 2026. The petition was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), corresponding to Section 439 CrPC, seeking regular bail.

    Case Arose From Alleged Recovery of 2.702 Kg Opium

    • According to the prosecution, on March 20, 2026, officials of the Anti-Narcotics Cell, Karnal were conducting patrol and checking near NH-44 beneath Baldi Bypass Flyover, Karnal.
    • A secret informer allegedly told the police that Anil Kumar and Roshan Kumar, residents of District Chatra, Jharkhand, were involved in bringing opium from Jharkhand and supplying it in Haryana. The informer further claimed that the two had brought a large quantity of opium and were present near Karn Lake.
    • The information was reduced into writing and a report under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985 was sent to the police station.

    Police Claimed Compliance With Section 50 NDPS Act

    • The prosecution stated that attempts were made to associate independent witnesses with the proceedings. Two persons allegedly declined, while another individual agreed to join as an independent witness.
    • When the police reached near Karn Lake, they allegedly saw two persons standing on the roadside with a black bag. The secret informer identified them as Anil Kumar and Roshan Kumar.
    • Both accused were served notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and opted to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer.
    • A DSP thereafter reached the spot and directed the police officials to conduct the search.

    Opium Recovered From Bag Carried by Co-Accused Roshan Kumar

    • The critical factual circumstance noted by the High Court was the place of recovery.
    • The black shoulder bag was allegedly being carried by co-accused Roshan Kumar. During its search, police allegedly recovered a packet containing a black-coloured substance suspected to be opium.
    • The substance, together with its packing, weighed 2 kilograms and 702 grams.
    • The prosecution stated that the recovered material was sealed using the seals of the Investigating Officer and the DSP. The search proceedings were also allegedly videographed and uploaded on the e-Sakshya application.
    • However, the High Court specifically recorded that the alleged contraband was recovered from the bag carried by Roshan Kumar and not from Anil Kumar.

    Petitioner: Mere Association With Co-Accused Cannot Establish Conscious Possession

    • Anil Kumar argued that he had been falsely implicated and that no contraband was recovered from his conscious possession.
    • His counsel emphasised that although 2.702 kg of opium constituted commercial quantity, the recovery was made from the bag allegedly carried by co-accused Roshan Kumar.
    • It was argued that mere presence or association with a co-accused cannot, by itself, establish conscious possession of narcotic contraband.
    • The petitioner further submitted that the investigation had already been completed, the challan had been presented and no further recovery was required from him.
    • He also contended that material prosecution witnesses were yet to be examined, the trial was likely to take considerable time, and he had clean antecedents with no other NDPS or criminal case against him.

    Haryana Opposes Bail Citing Section 37 NDPS Act

    • The State opposed the bail application primarily on the ground that the recovery involved 2.702 kg of opium, which falls within commercial quantity.
    • It therefore argued that the stringent conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act applied.
    • The State also pointed out that Anil Kumar had been apprehended along with Roshan Kumar pursuant to secret information and contended that his involvement was a matter to be determined during trial.
    • The case therefore raised the familiar tension between the stringent bail restrictions applicable to commercial-quantity NDPS prosecutions and the constitutional protection of personal liberty under Article 21.

    Right to Speedy Trial Is Integral to Article 21: High Court

    The High Court devoted a substantial part of its order to the constitutional right to speedy trial.

    Justice Aggarwal observed that:

    • β€œThe right to a speedy trial is an integral facet of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21…”
    • The Court explained that the constitutional mandate does not merely require a fair trial. It also obligates the State to conclude criminal proceedings within a reasonable period so that the criminal process itself does not become punitive.

    Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention Cannot Become Punishment

    • The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81, which recognised speedy trial as an essential and integral component of Article 21.
    • It also referred to the Constitution Bench decisions in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225 and P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578.
    • The Court noted that these judgments recognise speedy trial as a fundamental right and require constitutional courts to intervene where inordinate and unexplained delay results in denial of substantive justice.

    Nature of Offence Does Not Eclipse Right to Speedy Trial

    • The High Court further relied upon Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 322 and Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 (2) SSC (Criminal) 271, as cited in the order.
    • Referring to these decisions, the Court stated that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence.
    • Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial without commencement or reasonable progress of trial can effectively transform pre-trial detention into punishment before conviction.
    • The Court further recorded the principle that where the State or prosecuting agency cannot secure the accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial, bail cannot be opposed merely by relying on the seriousness of the allegations where continued incarceration becomes oppressive.

    Section 37 NDPS Act Cannot Authorise Indefinite Incarceration

    • The High Court then considered the special restrictions contained in the NDPS Act.
    • It acknowledged that the NDPS Act is a stringent penal statute enacted to combat illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
    • However, relying upon the Supreme Court judgment in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352, the Court observed that Section 37 cannot be interpreted so rigidly as to compel indefinite incarceration of an undertrial merely because the trial has not progressed.
    • The order records the principle that a literal application of Section 37 divorced from constitutional values could result in punitive detention before conviction.
    • The Court further referred to the proposition that when the State is unable to conclude trial within a reasonable time, the restrictions under Section 37 must be considered alongside the constitutional mandate of Article 21.

    Mere Presence With Person Carrying Contraband Requires Evidence at Trial

    • Turning specifically to Anil Kumar’s case, the High Court found it important that the 2.702 kg of opium was recovered from the black bag carried by Roshan Kumar.
    • No contraband was alleged to have been recovered from Anil Kumar’s conscious possession.

    The Court observed:

    • β€œmere presence along with the person from whom the recovery was effected, in the absence of any specific recovery from the petitioner, would require appreciation of evidence during trial.”
    • The challan had already been presented and Anil Kumar remained in custody. In these circumstances, the Court concluded that his further incarceration would serve no useful purpose.
    • Importantly, this is a bail-stage finding, not a final determination that the petitioner had no connection with the alleged contraband. The question of his involvement and the prosecution evidence remains subject to adjudication at trial.

    Punjab & Haryana HC Grants Regular Bail

    • The High Court accordingly allowed Anil Kumar’s petition and ordered his release on regular bail, subject to furnishing the requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Illaqa Magistrate or Duty Magistrate.
    • The bail was made subject to several conditions designed to protect the integrity of the trial.
    • Among other things, the petitioner was directed not to induce, threaten or make promises to persons acquainted with the case and not to tamper with evidence or influence prosecution witnesses.
    • He was also prohibited from leaving India without prior permission of the Trial Court.

    Court Imposes Detailed Disclosure Conditions

    • The High Court additionally imposed detailed identification and disclosure requirements.
    • The petitioner must provide his permanent and current correspondence addresses with supporting documents. The Investigating Officer has been directed to verify those addresses within 48 hours of acceptance of the bail bonds.
    • The Court also directed the petitioner to furnish his PAN, Aadhaar number, particulars of all operative bank accounts and a declaration concerning immovable properties, if any.
    • Providing false information or concealing material particulars can constitute a ground for seeking cancellation of bail.
    • The petitioner must further notify the Investigating Officer and Trial Court of any change in his residential address or mobile number within seven days.
    • He must not commit a similar offence and must attend the trial unless his personal appearance is specifically exempted. Breach of these conditions may result in cancellation of bail and issuance of coercive process, including warrants of arrest.

    Cases Referred to by the High Court

    The order expressly referred to several important Supreme Court judgments concerning speedy trial, personal liberty and bail:

    1. Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81 β€” speedy trial is an essential and integral component of Article 21.
    2. A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225 β€” constitutional recognition of the right to speedy trial.
    3. P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578 β€” speedy trial flows from Article 21 and constitutional courts may intervene against inordinate delay.
    4. Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 322 β€” referred to regarding prolonged pre-trial incarceration and the constitutional right to speedy trial.
    5. Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 (2) SSC (Criminal) 271 β€” cited for the proposition that the right to speedy trial is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence.
    6. Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352 β€” Section 37 NDPS Act cannot be applied so rigidly as to justify indefinite incarceration where the trial fails to progress within a reasonable time.

    Why the Judgment Is Significant

    • The ruling is important for NDPS bail jurisprudence, particularly in cases where the prosecution relies on recovery of commercial quantity but the contraband is not physically recovered from the applicant seeking bail.
    • The judgment does not dilute the stringent requirements of Section 37 as a general proposition. Instead, it illustrates that the Court must consider the specific role attributed to the accused, the circumstances of recovery, stage of investigation, progress of trial and constitutional protection of personal liberty.
    • It is also significant that the Court treated the question of whether mere association with a co-accused establishes conscious possession as an issue requiring evidence at trial rather than assuming possession solely from the petitioner’s presence at the place of recovery.

    Key Takeaway

    The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail in a commercial-quantity NDPS case after noting that 2.702 kg of opium was recovered from a bag carried by the co-accused and not from the petitioner.

    The Court held at the bail stage that mere presence alongside the person from whom recovery was made, without a specific recovery from the petitioner, requires appreciation of evidence during trial. At the same time, the judgment reinforces the constitutional principle that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 remains relevant even in prosecutions governed by stringent special statutes such as the 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: Punjab & Haryana 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

  • Bombay High Court Quashes FIR After Parties Reconcile Redevelopment Dispute

    Bombay High Court Quashes FIR After Parties Reconcile Redevelopment Dispute

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

    Date: 21.09.2026

    Bombay High Court Quashes FIR After Parties Reconcile Redevelopment Dispute

    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 Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR arising from a dispute between a member of a co-operative housing society and persons allegedly involved with the new developer appointed for the society’s redevelopment, after the complainant and the accused reconciled their dispute and filed consent affidavits.

    Justice Milind N. Jadhav, while allowing a batch of six petitions, explained that Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) substantially reproduces the inherent powers earlier contained in Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and enables High Courts to intervene to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

    The order was passed on September 18, 2026, with the lead matter being Mohammed Jasim Bhati v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Criminal Writ Petition No. 4532 of 2026.

    Six Petitions Sought Quashing of Same FIR

    • The High Court was dealing with six petitions arising from FIR No. 0456 of 2026 registered with Versova Police Station, Mumbai.
    • The lead petition was filed by Mohammed Jasim Bhati. The connected petitions were filed by Rajeev Narayandas Bhathija, Samina Rayees Khan, Horace Poorekhorsandi, Abdul Kader Haji Noor Mohammed and Shakeel Ahmed Bhati.
    • All the petitions were filed under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of the FIR.

    FIR Arose From Society Redevelopment Dispute

    • The complainant was a member of a co-operative housing society and had a dispute concerning his gala premises in relation to the redevelopment undertaken by the society.
    • According to the order, the petitioners were accused by the complainant of having colluded with the new developer appointed by the society.
    • However, the Court specifically noted that the complainant’s grievance was restricted to his own gala premises.
    • The dispute subsequently took a different course when the complainant and petitioners reconciled and jointly sought to bring the criminal proceedings to an end.

    Former Developer Seeks to Intervene

    • An additional issue arose when the society’s former developer, whose Development Agreement had been terminated, sought to intervene in the criminal writ petitions.
    • Counsel appearing for the old developer argued that the FIR concerning the complainant’s gala also affected certain substantive rights of the former developer.
    • The Court was informed that several civil proceedings relating to the parties’ substantive rights were already pending before the High Court as well as in arbitration.
    • The old developer therefore sought time to intervene in the proceedings.

    Bombay HC Rejects Old Developer’s Intervention

    • The High Court rejected the intervention request outright.
    • Justice Jadhav observed that whatever substantive rights the old developer might have against the society concerning the terminated Development Agreement could be pursued in the appropriate proceedings available under law.
    • The Court noted that the former developer had already initiated civil proceedings before the High Court and arbitration proceedings.
    • His intervention in criminal petitions which the complainant and accused themselves wanted to have quashed by consent was therefore held to be not maintainable.
    • At the same time, the High Court protected the former developer’s position by expressly keeping open any rights he might have concerning his relationship with the society, the redevelopment or the terminated Development Agreement.
    • The Court made it clear that it was expressing no opinion on the merits of those substantive rights.

    Six Consent Affidavits Filed by Complainant

    • A decisive development was the filing of six consent affidavits dated September 12, 2026, one in each of the six petitions.
    • After examining the affidavits, the High Court recorded that the parties had β€œreconciled their dispute altogether.”
    • Justice Jadhav observed that the Court needed to intervene so that the β€œignominy of the criminal proceeding” concerning the complainant’s single gala was not carried forward after the underlying dispute had been resolved.
    • The Court therefore found it appropriate to allow the petitions.

    Section 528 BNSS Carries Forward Inherent Powers Under Section 482 CrPC

    The judgment is particularly relevant because it explains the relationship between Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS.

    The High Court observed that Section 482 CrPC conferred inherent powers upon High Courts to make orders necessary to:

    • Give effect to an order of the Court, prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise secure the ends of justice.
    • The Court then noted that under the BNSS, this power has been incorporated in Section 528, which substantially reproduces the language and intent of the former Section 482 CrPC.
    • The ruling therefore reinforces that the transition from the CrPC to the BNSS has not removed the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases.

    Section 528 BNSS Remains a Discretionary Power

    • Justice Jadhav emphasised that the inherent power is not mechanical or automatic.
    • The Court observed that High Courts may intervene where proceedings have been instituted with mala fide motives, to harass an accused, or where continuation of proceedings would result in procedural harassment.
    • The provision can also enable the Court to terminate FIRs or criminal proceedings where the circumstances justify exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.
    • Importantly, however, the High Court stated that exercise of powers formerly under Section 482 CrPC and now under Section 528 BNSS remains discretionary and depends upon the facts of each case.

    Bombay HC Relies on Supreme Court’s Bhajan Lal Judgment

    • The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 AIR 604.
    • The Court noted that Bhajan Lal laid down model categories and guidelines identifying circumstances in which FIRs may be quashed.
    • Justice Jadhav further observed that the Supreme Court had explained that the inherent power is an acknowledgment of powers already inherent in the High Court rather than the source of some additional jurisdiction.

    Even Non-Compoundable Offences May Be Quashed in Appropriate Cases

    • The Bombay High Court also reiterated an important distinction between compounding an offence and quashing criminal proceedings through the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.
    • Referring to the principles discussed in Bhajan Lal, the Court observed that even non-compoundable offences may be quashed where necessary, with the High Court required to consider whether continuation of the prosecution would further or undermine the interests of justice.
    • At the same time, the Court specifically cautioned that grave offences such as murder, rape and dacoity ordinarily cannot be quashed merely because the parties have reached a settlement, since such offences carry wider societal implications.
    • The order therefore does not lay down that every criminal case must be quashed once the parties settle. Rather, the inherent jurisdiction remains dependent upon the nature of the controversy and the interests of justice.

    Private Nature of Redevelopment Dispute Considered

    • In the present case, the criminal proceedings arose from a dispute connected with a society member’s own gala in a redevelopment project.
    • The complainant’s allegations against the petitioners concerned their alleged collusion with the new developer, but the grievance remained confined to the complainant’s premises.
    • With the complainant and petitioners having subsequently reconciled their dispute and filed consent affidavits, the High Court concluded that continuation of the criminal proceedings was unnecessary.

    FIR No. 0456 of 2026 Quashed

    • The Bombay High Court ultimately allowed all six writ petitions in terms of their respective prayer clauses.
    • The petitions sought issuance of an appropriate writ calling for the records concerning FIR C.R. No. 0456 of 2026 registered with Versova Police Station, Mumbai, and quashing the FIR after examining its legality, validity and propriety.
    • The connected petitions contained substantially identical reliefs concerning the same FIR.
    • The High Court accordingly recorded:
    • β€œAll six Petitions are allowed and disposed.”
    • Thus, Mohammed Jasim Bhati and the petitioners in the five connected matters succeeded in having the FIR quashed.
    • What Happens to the Former Developer’s Claims?
    • The order contains an important qualification concerning the former developer.
    • Quashing of the criminal FIR does not adjudicate or extinguish the former developer’s independent civil or contractual rights.

    The High Court expressly left open whatever rights the former developer may have regarding:

    • his relationship with the co-operative housing society;
    • the redevelopment project;
    • termination of his Development Agreement; and
    • remedies otherwise available to him under law.

    Those questions may continue to be litigated in the already pending civil or arbitration proceedings, and the High Court expressly refrained from giving any opinion on their merits.

    This distinction is important: the judgment terminates the criminal proceedings arising from the complainant’s individual gala dispute, but it does not determine the broader redevelopment dispute involving the former developer.

    Why the Judgment Is Significant

    • The ruling has significance under the new criminal procedural regime introduced by the BNSS because it expressly recognises the continuity between Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS.
    • The Bombay High Court has confirmed that Section 528 substantially preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to intervene where necessary to prevent abuse of judicial process and secure the ends of justice.
    • The judgment also illustrates the distinction between criminal proceedings arising from an essentially private dispute and independent civil or contractual disputes involving third parties. Settlement of the former may justify quashing in an appropriate case, while the latter can remain open for adjudication in their proper forum.

    Key Takeaway

    The Bombay High Court’s ruling makes clear that Section 528 BNSS carries forward the inherent quashing jurisdiction previously exercised under Section 482 CrPC.

    Where a criminal proceeding arises from a private dispute, the parties have fully reconciled, and continuation of the prosecution would no longer advance the interests of justice, the High Court may exercise its inherent powers to bring the proceedings to an end. However, settlement is not an automatic ground for quashing every offence.

    The nature and gravity of the alleged offence and its impact on society remain material considerations, with serious offences ordinarily standing on a different footing.

    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

  • Rajasthan High Court: Trademark Applications Cannot Remain Pending Indefinitely; Speedy Disposal Is a Right Protected Under Article 21

    Rajasthan High Court: Trademark Applications Cannot Remain Pending Indefinitely; Speedy Disposal Is a Right Protected Under Article 21

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

    Date: 21.09.2026

    Rajasthan High Court: Trademark Applications Cannot Remain Pending Indefinitely; Speedy Disposal Is a Right Protected Under Article 21

    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 Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has held that trademark registration proceedings cannot be kept pending indefinitely and that the right to a speedy and expeditious hearing and timely disposal of statutory applications is an inalienable right of every litigant.

    Justice Maneesh Sharma, allowing a writ petition filed by Mittal Commerce Classes Pvt. Ltd., directed the Registrar of Trade Marks, Ahmedabad to endeavour to decide the company’s pending trademark application along with the connected opposition expeditiously and preferably within four months from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

    The order was passed on September 14, 2026, in Mittal Commerce Classes Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9703/2026, Neutral Citation 2026:RJ-JP:36884.

    Trademark Application Pending Since 2018

    • Mittal Commerce Classes Pvt. Ltd., which provides educational coaching and training services, approached the High Court complaining of prolonged delay in adjudication of its trademark proceedings.
    • The company stated that it was already the registered proprietor of Trade Mark No. 2039137 dated October 18, 2010.
    • It subsequently filed Trademark Application No. 3944189 in Class 41 for the same/associated mark β€œMittal Commerce Class” before the Trade Marks Registry, Ahmedabad on September 13, 2018.
    • Despite completion of pleadings and filing of evidence, the trademark application remained undecided.
    • The petitioner argued that this prolonged pendency was causing serious prejudice and was inconsistent with the statutory scheme contemplated under the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.

    Opposition Filed in 2020, But Proceedings Remained Undecided

    • The High Court examined the procedural history and found that Trademark Application No. 3944189 had been filed on September 13, 2018.
    • Opposition No. 1043339 was subsequently filed on May 4, 2020.
    • After completion of pleadings by both parties, the matter was posted for evidence. However, the Court noted that nothing further had transpired despite the passage of more than six years.
    • By the time the High Court considered the matter, the trademark application had remained pending for approximately eight years, while the opposition had been pending for more than six years.

    Petitioner Invokes Rule 50 of Trade Marks Rules, 2017

    • Mittal Commerce Classes relied principally upon Rule 50 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, which governs hearing and decision in trademark opposition proceedings.
    • The company sought a direction requiring the Registrar to hear and finally dispose of the pending application and connected opposition without unnecessary adjournments or further avoidable delay.
    • The petitioner initially sought disposal preferably within 30 days, although the High Court ultimately fixed a preferred period of four months.

    What Does Rule 50 Require?

    • The High Court reproduced Rule 50 in detail.
    • Under Rule 50(1), after closure of evidence, the Registrar is required to issue notice to the parties specifying the first date of hearing. That hearing must be fixed for a date at least one month after the date of the first notice.
    • Rule 50(2) allows a party to seek an adjournment for reasonable cause through Form TM-M, accompanied by the prescribed fee and filed at least three days before the hearing.

    Crucially, the proviso imposes limits on adjournments:

    No party can be granted more than two adjournments, and each adjournment cannot exceed 30 days.

    • Rule 50 further provides consequences for non-appearance. If the applicant fails to appear on the adjourned hearing date, the application may be treated as abandoned; if the opponent fails to appear, the opposition may be dismissed for want of prosecution and the application may proceed toward registration, subject to Section 19.
    • The Registrar must also consider written arguments submitted by the parties and communicate the final decision in writing.

    Rajasthan HC: Rule 50 Shows Legislative Intent for Time-Bound Trademark Proceedings

    • The High Court interpreted the strict limits on adjournments under Rule 50 as reflecting a clear legislative intention.
    • Justice Sharma observed that the statutory restriction of a maximum of two adjournments, with each not exceeding 30 days, demonstrates that the Rules contemplate a complete and time-bound mechanism for expeditious disposal of trademark registration applications.
    • The Court held that the framework leaves β€œno room for unnecessary or avoidable delay.”
    • This observation is significant for applicants as well as opponents because prolonged pendency of trademark proceedings can create uncertainty regarding registration, enforcement and commercial exploitation of a mark.

    Registry: Petitioner Had Not Filed Rule 34 Application

    • The respondents opposed the writ petition.
    • They argued that a writ petition merely seeking expedition of pending proceedings was not maintainable in the form presented.
    • More importantly, they contended that Mittal Commerce Classes had not filed an application under Rule 34 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, and was therefore not entitled to seek the relief claimed before the High Court.
    • The High Court rejected this objection.

    Failure to File Rule 34 Application Cannot Be an Absolute Bar: Rajasthan HC

    Justice Sharma held that the petitioner’s failure to move a formal application seeking expedition under Rule 34 was merely a procedural omission and could not operate as an absolute bar against approaching the High Court for expeditious disposal of the trademark proceedings.

    The Court observed:

    β€œThe mere procedural omission of not having moved a formal application for expediting the proceedings under Rule 34 cannot operate as an absolute bar…”

    • Accordingly, the Registry’s procedural objection was rejected.
    • This aspect of the ruling is particularly relevant because it prevents procedural technicalities from becoming a justification for continued and excessive delay in deciding statutory applications.

    Excessive Delay in Trademark Proceedings Can Violate Natural Justice

    • The Rajasthan High Court relied upon an earlier decision of its Coordinate Bench in Mrs. Nirmala Kabra v. The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18998/2022.
    • In that case, the Court had emphasised that excessive delays in deciding trademark registration applications undermine the very purpose for which such applications are filed.

    The judgment observed that prolonged proceedings can result in consequences including:

    • loss of evidence;
    • increased costs;
    • continuing uncertainty for businesses and litigants; and
    • erosion of public confidence in the fairness and efficiency of the statutory system.

    Most importantly, the Coordinate Bench had held that excessive delay in disposal of applications amounts to violation of principles of natural justice, because statutory procedures must be conducted fairly and within a reasonable timeframe.

    Speedy Disposal of Trademark Applications Protected Under Article 21

    • The most significant constitutional aspect of the ruling concerns Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
    • Quoting the earlier Nirmala Kabra decision, the Court reiterated that trademark registration applications cannot be allowed to remain pending for decades and that the Registrar of Trade Marks is not expected to keep such applications pending for an indefinite period.

    The earlier judgment had declared:

    β€œThe right of speedy and expeditious disposal of these applications is one of the most valuable and cherished rights of the applicant guaranteed under Article 21…”

    • Justice Sharma applied that principle to the case before him.
    • The Court then independently observed that the right to a speedy and expeditious hearing and timely disposal of statutory applications is an inalienable right of every litigant.
    • Such a valuable right, it held, cannot be curtailed or defeated on the altar of procedural technicalities.

    Eight-Year Pendency Considered Unacceptable

    • The factual timeline played an important role in the Court’s decision.
    • The trademark application had been pending since September 13, 2018, while the opposition had remained pending since May 4, 2020.

    The High Court recorded that this amounted to approximately:

    ProceedingDatePendency noted by Court
    Trademark Application No. 3944189September 13, 2018About 8 years
    Opposition No. 1043339May 4, 2020More than 6 years
    ClassClass 41Educational/coaching services
    Order of Rajasthan HCSeptember 14, 2026Writ allowed

    The Court concluded that such prolonged pendency justified issuance of a direction to the Registrar.

    Registrar Directed to Decide Trademark Application Preferably Within Four Months

    • The Rajasthan High Court ultimately allowed the writ petition.
    • It directed the Registrar of Trade Marks, Ahmedabad to make an endeavour to decide Trademark Application No. 3944189 together with Opposition No. 1043339 expeditiously and preferably within four months from receipt of a certified copy of the High Court’s order.
    • All other pending applications in the writ proceedings were consequently disposed of.
    • Importantly, the High Court did not decide whether the β€œMittal Commerce Classes” trademark should ultimately be registered or whether the opposition should succeed.
    • The judgment concerns the delay in adjudication and the petitioner’s right to obtain a timely decision. The merits of the trademark application and opposition remain for the Registrar to determine.

    Why the Judgment Is Important for Trademark Applicants and Opponents

    • The ruling has wider implications for parties facing long-pending proceedings before the Trade Marks Registry.
    • First, it reinforces that statutory trademark proceedings are expected to progress within a reasonable and time-bound framework, particularly once evidence has been completed and the matter has reached the hearing stage.
    • Second, the Court’s interpretation of Rule 50 emphasises that repeated adjournments cannot be used to indefinitely postpone adjudication. The Rules themselves cap both the number and duration of adjournments.
    • Third, the ruling indicates that failure to first file a procedural application seeking expedition under Rule 34 does not necessarily prevent a litigant from approaching the High Court where extraordinary delay has already occurred.
    • Finally, by connecting speedy disposal with Article 21 and principles of natural justice, the Rajasthan High Court has treated delay not merely as an administrative inconvenience but as an issue capable of affecting substantive procedural rights.

    Important Legal Distinction

    • The judgment should not be interpreted as granting Mittal Commerce Classes registration of its trademark.
    • The High Court has not adjudicated the merits of Trademark Application No. 3944189 or Opposition No. 1043339. It has instead directed the Registrar to bring the long-pending statutory proceedings to a timely conclusion.
    • The eventual question of whether the mark should be accepted or refusedβ€”and whether the opposition should succeedβ€”remains within the jurisdiction of the Trade Marks Registry.

    Key Takeaway

    The Rajasthan High Court has sent a clear message against indefinite pendency of trademark applications and opposition proceedings.

    Where an application filed in 2018 and an opposition filed in 2020 remained unresolved despite completion of the procedural stages, the Court held that procedural technicalities such as failure to file a Rule 34 application could not defeat the litigant’s right to seek timely adjudication.

    The Court’s reliance on Rule 50 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, principles of natural justice and Article 21 of the Constitution makes the decision particularly relevant to trademark applicants and opponents facing prolonged delays before the Registry.

    Connected Matter

    Rajasthan High Court: 15-Year Delay in Trademark Application Violates Natural Justice

    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: Rajasthan 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