𝐀𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐚 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #Bombay High Court

Bombay High Court Overturns Arbitral Award in Stockbroker-Client Dispute
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 03.11.2026

Bombay High Court Overturns Arbitral Award in Stockbroker-Client Dispute

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Arbitrator Shobhit Malik. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his mob no- +91 9712924188 and email id shobhit.Ica23@gmail.com .

The Bombay High Court has set aside an NSE appellate arbitral award against 5Paisa Capital Ltd., finding that the tribunal failed to decide essential factual and legal issues behind losses allegedly caused by a trading-platform glitch.

Background of the dispute

The dispute arose from an online trading account held by Ankit Agarwal with 5Paisa Capital Ltd., a SEBI-registered stockbroker and trading and clearing member of the NSE and BSE. The account was opened in October 2016 under a Member-Client Agreement and was used for online trades through the client’s credentials.

Between September 18 and October 4, 2018, 5Paisa’s software reportedly displayed excess holdings or margin in the client’s Demat and trading account. According to the broker, this technical issue enabled additional trading exposure, while the client continued to receive contract notes, margin statements, and SMS alerts about declining margin cover and the risk of square-off.

The client disputed the broker’s position. He alleged that trades, including Futures and Options transactions, were unauthorized and that he had not received complete notifications or contract notes. He also argued that the broker liquidated his positions without proper notice and in breach of applicable exchange rules and its own risk policy.

Arbitration outcome

5Paisa claimed that, after it squared off the client’s positions under its risk policy, a debit balance of more than Rs. 6.5 lakh remained outstanding. The client instead sought compensation of approximately Rs. 15 lakh for alleged trading losses, along with the value of 1,260 Adani Gas bonus shares.

In June 2019, the sole arbitrator rejected 5Paisa’s recovery claim and partly allowed the client’s counterclaim. The award directed 5Paisa to pay:
- Rs. 14,30,509 towards the client’s alleged losses; and
- Rs. 1,62,162 towards the Adani Gas bonus shares.
The NSE Appellate Arbitral Tribunal upheld that decision in October 2019. It concluded that both sides had a responsibility to report abnormalities in the trading system, but held 5Paisa liable because it had acknowledged a system glitch that provided excess margin and had not notified clients promptly.

Why the High Court intervened

In its Section 34 petition, 5Paisa argued that the appellate tribunal had not actually decided the central controversies. The Bombay High Court agreed, emphasizing that judicial review of arbitral awards is limited but remains available where an award is patently illegal or lacks adjudicatory findings on material issues.

The Court held that the appellate award largely reproduced the parties’ submissions and reached a conclusion without explaining how the evidence supported it. In particular, the tribunal had not determined:
- Whether the technical glitch in fact gave the client excess margin or credit;
- Whether the client’s trades and losses were caused by that glitch;
- Whether the Member-Client Agreement required either party to report the system issue;
- Whether 5Paisa had a contractual or regulatory duty to monitor and warn the client about the excess margin;
- Whether timely notice would have prevented or reduced the losses;
- Why the broker alone should bear the loss when the tribunal found both parties had notification responsibilities;
- Whether an email-address discrepancy was merely a typographical error; and
- Whether the broker could square off positions and sell the bonus shares under its risk policy because the account had a debit balance.
Court’s ruling

Justice Aarti Sathe found that the absence of findings on these core questions made the appellate award a non-speaking and perverse award. The Court ruled that it could not supply missing reasoning or independently decide the merits in a Section 34 proceeding.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the NSE appellate award that had confirmed the earlier arbitral award. The petition was allowed without costs, and any amount deposited in court was directed to be released after one month from upload of the judgment.

The parties were left free to commence fresh arbitration proceedings in accordance with law.

Legal significance

The decision reinforces that an arbitral tribunal must do more than summarize arguments and announce a result. Even within the narrow scope of court intervention under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an award can be set aside when it fails to address the disputed issues that are necessary to determine liability.

For brokers, investors, and trading-platform operators, the case highlights the importance of documented system alerts, accurate margin records, clear contractual risk-allocation terms, and reasoned dispute-resolution decisions when technology failures affect trading exposure and losses.

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
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
November 3, 2026
Bombay High Court Sets Aside Registrar’s NOC for Commercial Use of Residential Society Flat
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 03.11.2026

Bombay High Court Sets Aside Registrar’s NOC for Commercial Use of Residential Society Flat

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 mob no- +91 8726929060 and email id jhamadhumita27@gmail.com .

The Bombay High Court has held that a Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies cannot issue, or compel a housing society to issue, a no-objection certificate (NOC) for converting a residential flat to commercial use when no such statutory duty exists.

The dispute

Surya Lok Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., a Mumbai housing society whose sanctioned building plan contained only residential flats, challenged an administrative NOC that supported commercial use of Flat No. 3 on the ground floor.

The flat had changed hands several times before being transferred in January 2016 to Fazal Abbas Sayed and Aafreen Fatima Fazal Abbas Sayed. The purchasers sought membership in the society and were ultimately admitted after an undertaking that the flat would be used for residential purposes. They later pursued permission to use it commercially.

Because the society declined to issue an NOC, the purchasers approached the Deputy Registrar. On 8 December 2016, the Deputy Registrar issued a letter stating that the office had no objection to commercial use of the flat. The society’s challenge to that letter was rejected in revision by the Divisional Joint Registrar in January 2018, leading to the writ petition before the High Court.

What the society argued

The society contended that the Deputy Registrar had no power under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to approve a change in the use of a flat from residential to commercial. It also argued that:
- Flat No. 3 was sanctioned for residential use under the municipal plan.
- The purchasers had expressly undertaken to use the premises only for residential purposes.
- The society had withdrawn an earlier 2000 resolution allowing commercial use of ground-floor flats through later resolutions in 2007 and 2014.
- The NOC was issued without notice to, or a hearing for, the society.
What the flat owners argued

The flat owners submitted that ground-floor premises in the area were commonly used commercially and that Flat No. 3 had allegedly been used for commercial activity in the past. They relied on municipal assessment records, electricity bills, stamp-duty valuation and transfer-deed recitals to support that position.

They also argued that the membership order issued in 2016 had already addressed the commercial-use issue, and that the society was improperly withholding its consent.

The Court’s ruling on the Registrar’s powers

Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that the Deputy Registrar lacked jurisdiction to issue the NOC.

At the time of the 2016 NOC, Section 79 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act applied. That provision permits the Registrar to enforce action that a society is legally required to take under the Act, rules or bye-laws. The Court found that it does not create a duty requiring a society to issue an NOC for conversion from residential to commercial use.

The Court also examined Section 154B-27, introduced later for co-operative housing societies. It concluded that this provision similarly does not give the Registrar broad authority to resolve every dispute between a member and a society or to compel support for planning-related changes. Its scope is limited to enforcing obligations already created by co-operative law, rules or bye-laws.

The judgment emphasized a key distinction: even if a Registrar could direct a society to perform a legally mandated act, that would not empower the Registrar to issue the society’s NOC personally.

Why the NOC was invalid

The Court identified several defects in the Deputy Registrar’s action:
- No statutory authority: The Act, rules and bye-laws did not obligate the society to issue an NOC for change of user.
- Registrar acted beyond supervisory power: The Deputy Registrar directly stated that the office had no objection to commercial use, effectively substituting the Registrar’s view for the society’s decision.
- No hearing for the society: The NOC was issued after the purchasers’ request without giving the society notice or an opportunity to be heard.
- Lack of application of mind: The Court noted that the Registrar did not verify whether the building contained commercial premises or whether the society supported the proposed conversion.
The Court described the NOC as arbitrary, without jurisdiction and void from the outset.

Membership did not authorize commercial use

The Court rejected the argument that the 2016 membership order had conclusively allowed commercial use. That order dealt with admission to membership, not permission to alter the use of the premises.

The Court found that membership and use of a flat are distinct issues. Observations in the membership order about commercial activity in other flats or municipal assessments did not amount to legal permission for commercial use of Flat No. 3.

The owners’ residential-use undertaking was also material. The Court recorded that membership was granted after an undertaking that the flat would be used exclusively for residential purposes and that no change of use would occur without the society’s prior written permission.

Municipal records and utility connections are not enough

The judgment clarified that commercial municipal assessment, a commercial electricity connection or payment of stamp duty based on commercial valuation do not automatically convert a residential flat into commercial premises.

The Court held that, in a tenant co-partnership housing society, the society owns the land and building while members hold rights to occupy allotted premises. Therefore, a change in use from residential to commercial requires the society’s NOC where the building consists exclusively of residential premises.

Final order and legal remedy

The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside:
1. The Deputy Registrar’s letter/NOC dated 8 December 2016; and
2. The Divisional Joint Registrar’s revisional order dated 15 January 2018.
The flat owners remain free to pursue a dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act before the appropriate Co-operative Court to seek the society’s NOC. Any such dispute must be decided independently on its merits, without being influenced by the High Court’s observations in this case.

Key takeaway for housing societies and members

A Deputy Registrar cannot be used as a substitute decision-maker for a housing society on a proposed change from residential to commercial use. Where a member disputes a society’s refusal to grant an NOC, the proper course is adjudication before the legally competent forum, rather than an administrative NOC issued by the Registrar.

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
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
November 3, 2026
Bombay High Court Upholds Compassionate Appointments After Years of Service
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 02.11.2026

Bombay High Court Upholds Compassionate Appointments After Years of Service

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 mob no- +91 8726929060 and email id jhamadhumita27@gmail.com .

The Bombay High Court has set aside attempts to cancel the compassionate appointments of two Maharashtra government employees after finding that the State had wrongly treated their deceased fathers’ posts as Group B solely because of the pay scale attached to them.

Background of the dispute

The case combined petitions filed by Avinash Kondiram Wagh and Abhay Chandrakant Khond against the State of Maharashtra and officials in the Vocational Education and Training Department.

Both petitioners had received government employment on compassionate grounds after their fathers died while in service:
- Avinash Wagh was appointed as a Group Instructor in 2004 after his father, a junior clerk, died in service.
- Abhay Khond was appointed as a Junior Clerk-cum-Typist in 2008 after his father, a Training Officer, died in service.
They completed probation, were confirmed in service, and continued working for years. In 2010, however, departmental authorities issued show-cause notices proposing to cancel their appointments. The authorities argued that the posts held by the deceased employees carried the pay scale of Rs. 6,500–10,500 and therefore fell within Group B, whose dependants were allegedly not eligible for compassionate appointment under the policy then relied upon by the State.

The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissed the petitioners’ challenges in 2014. The High Court had meanwhile protected their employment during the litigation.

Court’s key finding: Pay scale alone does not determine classification

The central issue was whether the State could classify the relevant posts as Group B merely because of their pay scale.

The Division Bench held that it could not. It found that the authorities had selectively relied on the Government Resolution of 2 July 2002 and an internal departmental letter dated 19 May 2010, without considering later government resolutions that specifically classified the posts in question.

For Wagh’s case, the Court noted that multiple government resolutions treated the post of Group Instructor, carrying the disputed pay scale, as a Group C (Technical) post. These included resolutions dated:
- 22 October 2008;
- 31 March 2010;
- 14 May 2010; and
- 31 August 2010.
The State did not establish that any of these resolutions had been withdrawn, superseded, or invalidated. The Court also observed that the departmental letter did not reconcile its position with these specific classifications.

In Khond’s case, the respondents had admitted that his father was employed in a Class III post. The Court found no valid basis for subsequently treating that post as Group B. Khond himself had been appointed to a Group C post as Junior Clerk-cum-Typist.

Long service and absence of wrongdoing mattered

The High Court also relied on fairness and equity. Both petitioners had been appointed by competent authorities, completed probation, and served continuously for nearly two decades. Neither was accused of fraud, misrepresentation, suppression of facts, or misconduct.

The Court held that it would be seriously prejudicial and disproportionate to unsettle their employment after such a long period, particularly because they had crossed the usual age limits for entering government service.

Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Md. Zamil Ahmed v. State of Bihar, the Court reiterated that the State should not take advantage of its own alleged mistake after a long delay when the employee had not secured appointment through deception or concealment.

Compassionate appointment is a beneficial measure

The judgment restated that compassionate appointment is an exception to ordinary recruitment rules. Its purpose is to provide immediate financial support to a family facing hardship after the death of its earning member.

The Court held that cancelling confirmed appointments decades later would undermine that objective. Once the petitioners had become confirmed employees, their service could not be taken away except in accordance with law and applicable service rules.

The Court also noted that Maharashtra expanded its compassionate-appointment policy in September 2021 to cover dependants of employees in Groups A and B as well as Groups C and D. While this later policy did not retrospectively decide the petitioners’ entitlement, it showed that the earlier restriction had since been broadened.

Outcome

The High Court allowed both writ petitions and set aside the Tribunal’s 2014 order insofar as it had dismissed the petitioners’ original applications. The proposed cancellation of their compassionate appointments was held unsustainable.

The ruling is expressly confined to the particular facts of these cases and is not to be treated as a precedent for other matters. Its core message is nevertheless clear: government authorities must consider all applicable classification rules and cannot undo long-standing compassionate appointments on a narrow or inconsistent reading of policy, especially where the employees acted in good faith and have served for many years.

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
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
November 2, 2026
Bombay HC: Trademark Registration Does Not Automatically Protect a Pharma Company from Infringement Proceedings
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 26.10.2026

Bombay HC: Trademark Registration Does Not Automatically Protect a Pharma Company from Infringement Proceedings

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 Bombay High Court granted Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. an interim injunction restraining Corona Remedies Pvt. Ltd. from using the mark STIMULET for pharmaceutical products, finding it deceptively similar to Franco Indian’s long-standing STIMULIV mark.

The dispute at a glance

The case concerned two pharmaceutical companies and competing marks:
- Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals: owner of STIMULIV, an Ayurvedic liver-related preparation sold as syrup and tablets.
- Corona Remedies: user of STIMULET, an allopathic product used in treatments relating to breast cancer disorders and infertility.
Although the medicines served different therapeutic purposes, the Court held that the similarity of the names created an unacceptable risk in the pharmaceutical context.

Why the Court found the marks similar

The Court treated similarity as the threshold issue. Visually, the two marks share the same dominant portion, “STIMUL,” and differ only in their last two letters: “IV” versus “ET.” The Court concluded that this was not enough to create a reliable phonetic distinction, particularly in India, where English pronunciation may vary widely.

The Court also rejected the argument that the products’ distinct uses eliminated the risk of confusion. Instead, it emphasized that even slight confusion should be avoided when medicines are involved, especially where one product concerns sensitive treatments such as cancer and infertility.

Franco Indian’s stronger prior rights

Franco Indian adopted STIMULIV on 28 June 1974 and obtained registration in 1976 for pharmaceutical preparations related to liver and allied disorders. Its mark was registered in Part A of the old trade mark register, which required distinctiveness.

The Court found prima facie evidence of sustained and substantial use:
- Invoices and documentation traced use of STIMULIV back decades.
- STIMULIV sales reached Rs. 1,311.70 lakhs in 2019–20.
- Franco Indian’s sales had continued without interruption and showed growth over time.
By contrast, Corona Remedies claimed adoption of STIMULET in 2010. Its own records showed a multi-year gap in use after 2011–12, before sales resumed. The Court noted that Corona’s 2019–20 sales of approximately Rs. 346.51 lakhs were materially lower than Franco Indian’s sales.

This evidence supported Franco Indian’s claim to stronger goodwill, reputation, and common-law rights as the prior and continuous user.

Registration did not end the dispute

Corona Remedies argued that, because both marks were registered, Franco Indian could not pursue an infringement action. The Court rejected that position.

It held that a defendant’s registration does not bar an infringement suit. In a conflict between registered proprietors of similar marks, the Court may assess which party has better rights under common law, including priority, continuity of use, sales, and goodwill.

On those factors, the Court found that Franco Indian’s position was substantially stronger: it had earlier registration, earlier use by decades, continuous sales, and a stronger commercial presence.

A key inconsistency in Corona Remedies’ defence

Corona Remedies contended that “STIMUL” or similar expressions were common to the trade. But it had also sought registration for STIMULET and asserted that its own mark was distinctive and capable of identifying its goods.

The Court found this position difficult to sustain. A party claiming distinctiveness for its own STIMULET mark could not persuasively deny the distinctiveness of the earlier STIMULIV mark on the basis that the shared element was generic or widely used.

The Court’s order

The Court made Franco Indian’s interim application absolute and restrained Corona Remedies from using STIMULET in relation to pharmaceutical products. It also dismissed Corona Remedies’ application seeking rejection of Franco Indian’s plaint, finding no fraud, suppression, or material concealment.

No order as to costs was made.

What this decision means

The ruling reinforces the heightened caution applied to pharmaceutical trade marks. Differences in medical use, patient category, or prescription status may not defeat an injunction where the names are visually and phonetically close. In such disputes, priority of use, continuity, sales evidence, and goodwill can outweigh a later user’s registration of a similar mark.

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

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
October 26, 2026
Bombay High Court Upholds Maha RERA Appellate Tribunal’s Power to Restore Defaulted Proceedings
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 26.10.2026

Bombay High Court Upholds Maha RERA Appellate Tribunal’s Power to Restore Defaulted Proceedings

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Narendra Singh. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id amitnaren@outlook.com .

The Bombay High Court has held that the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal may restore proceedings dismissed for non-prosecution when sufficient cause is shown, even though RERA does not expressly state that power.

Background of the dispute

Hubtown Ltd. challenged an order of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal that revived an allottee’s delayed appeal. The allottee had originally filed a complaint under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, seeking relief from Maha RERA. Maha RERA dismissed that complaint on 23 April 2024.

The allottee then appealed to the Appellate Tribunal, accompanied by an application seeking condonation of a 25-day filing delay. On 3 July 2025, the application was dismissed for want of prosecution because the allottee did not appear. As a consequence, the appeal was also disposed of.

The allottee subsequently sought restoration of both the delay-condonation application and the appeal, along with condonation of the delay in making the restoration request. The Appellate Tribunal allowed those applications, relying in part on its inherent powers under Regulation 25 of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 2019.

The promoter’s challenge

Hubtown argued that the Appellate Tribunal, as a statutory body, could exercise only those Civil Court powers expressly specified in Section 53(4) of RERA. While that provision permits dismissal for default or ex parte proceedings, it does not specifically confer a power to restore a matter dismissed in default.

The promoter also contended that Regulation 25 could not enlarge the Tribunal’s jurisdiction beyond RERA and its rules, and that the allottee had not shown adequate cause for delay.

High Court’s reasoning

Justice N. J. Jamadar rejected the narrow reading of Section 53. The Court emphasized three connected principles:
- Natural justice governs the Tribunal’s procedure. Section 53(1) states that the Appellate Tribunal is not bound by the strict procedure of the Code of Civil Procedure and must be guided by natural justice.
- The Tribunal can regulate its own procedure. Section 53(2) authorizes it to do so, subject to RERA.
- Necessary incidental powers are implied. A tribunal must possess powers that are ancillary and essential to perform its statutory functions effectively, unless the statute expressly prohibits their use.
The Court found that the power to restore a case dismissed for default is a natural counterpart to the power to dismiss it for non-appearance. A tribunal may dismiss a matter when a party does not appear, but fairness may require it to restore the matter if the party later establishes good cause for the absence.

Supreme Court precedents relied upon

The judgment drew support from established Supreme Court decisions:
- In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. R. Srinivasan, the Supreme Court recognized that a judicial or quasi-judicial body which may dismiss a proceeding for non-prosecution also has inherent jurisdiction to restore it upon a showing of good cause.
- In Union of India v. Paras Laminates (P) Ltd., the Court held that statutory tribunals have powers expressly granted as well as powers necessarily incidental to making their jurisdiction effective.
- In Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, the Supreme Court held that a tribunal may set aside an ex parte award in the interests of justice even without an express provision, absent any statutory prohibition.
Applying these principles, the Bombay High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal’s restoration power exists independently of Regulation 25 because it is essential to achieving RERA’s purpose and to deciding matters fairly.

Limited scope for interference with delay condonation

The Court also declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s decision to condone delay. It observed that once the first adjudicatory forum has exercised positive discretion to condone delay after assessing the explanation and supporting documents, an appellate or supervisory court should not lightly overturn that decision.

Interference would generally be justified only where the order is perverse or where delay has been condoned without any reasons. The Court found neither circumstance present and held that no substantial question of law arose.

Outcome and legal significance

The Bombay High Court dismissed Hubtown’s second appeal and disposed of the related interim application. The ruling confirms that the Maha RERA Appellate Tribunal is not confined to a mechanical reading of its expressly listed powers. Consistent with natural justice, it may restore a proceeding dismissed in default where sufficient cause is established and no statutory prohibition applies.

This ensures that procedural lapses do not automatically defeat a party’s substantive right to have a real-estate dispute adjudicated on its merits.

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
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
October 26, 2026
Bombay HC: Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Used to Settle Purely Civil Disputes
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 26.10.2026

Bombay HC: Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Used to Settle Purely Civil Disputes

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 criminal proceedings against M/s. Akansha Developers, holding that the dispute over an Aundh redevelopment project was fundamentally civil and did not disclose a prima facie case of cheating or criminal breach of trust.

Background of the dispute

The case arose from a redevelopment arrangement involving properties bearing CTS Nos. 773, 774, 776 and 784 at Mouje Aundh, Taluka Haveli, Pune. The complainant claimed ownership rights in the ancestral properties and asserted that CTS No. 784 had been purchased by his grandfather through a registered sale deed dated 6 May 1955.

The parties had entrusted development of the property to M/s. Akansha Developers. Under the development arrangement, the developer was to carry out the project and provide compensation along with an allotted flat and shop. A dispute later emerged over the inclusion of CTS No. 784 in the project. The complainant contended that certain family members had no right, title or possession authorising them to execute a development agreement concerning that parcel.

Criminal complaint and earlier proceedings

In 2012, the complainant initiated RCC No. 581 of 2012 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune, alleging offences including cheating, breach of trust and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

The Magistrate issued process on 9 August 2012 for offences under Sections 403, 406, 420, 423, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Other allegations, including those under Sections 404, 426, 447 and conspiracy-related provisions, were rejected on the ground that no offence was made out. A revision challenge before the Sessions Court was dismissed on 28 October 2014.

Akansha Developers then approached the Bombay High Court seeking to quash the remaining criminal proceedings.

Developer’s case: a contractual dispute already addressed in civil court

The developer argued that the same dispute had already been the subject of civil proceedings since 2009. According to the developer, the civil suit was decreed on 27 April 2012, before the criminal complaint was filed, and the complaint was therefore a retaliatory attempt to reopen issues already considered in the civil litigation.

It was also submitted that the development agreement and power of attorney authorised the developer to undertake the project and negotiate matters connected with possession of CTS No. 784. The developer maintained that it remained willing to provide the complainant’s earmarked flat and shop.

The civil court had concluded that cancellation of the development agreement was not appropriate because the project had been completed, the agreement had been acted upon and third-party rights had crystallised. Instead, it awarded damages of Rs. 5 lakh to the complainant. The decree was under challenge in a first appeal.

Complainant’s allegations

The complainant opposed the petition, alleging that CTS No. 784 was not covered by an earlier civil decree and that the family members who executed the development agreement lacked ownership rights in that property. It was alleged that the developer acted in concert with them, incorporated the disputed parcel into the larger project and failed to pay amounts promised under the development agreement.

High Court’s reasoning

Justice Milind N. Jadhav held that the parties’ rights and obligations were governed by executed and registered documents, including the development agreement, power of attorney and revenue records. The Court noted that the civil court had already ruled that the development agreement could not be cancelled, while the complainant’s appeal against that decision remained pending.

The Court found that the dispute was amenable to civil adjudication and that parallel criminal proceedings could not be sustained on the same facts without a prima facie showing of criminal intent. It specifically held that there was no element of cheating in the circumstances of the case.

The judgment also observed that, once allegations under certain related provisions had not been made out, the cheating charge under Section 420 was unsustainable on the facts presented.

Outcome

By its judgment dated 22 October 2026, the Bombay High Court quashed the Sessions Court’s order of 28 October 2014 and set aside the Magistrate’s order issuing process dated 9 August 2012. The writ petition filed by M/s. Akansha Developers was allowed.

Key legal takeaway

The decision reinforces that a property-development dispute governed by contractual and title documents will ordinarily remain a civil matter. Criminal proceedings for cheating or breach of trust require clear, prima facie allegations of criminal intent; they cannot be used merely because a party disputes contractual performance or property entitlements already being litigated before a civil court.

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
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
October 26, 2026
Bombay HC: Section 27A NDPS Cannot Be Invoked Merely for Paying for Drugs Intended for Personal Consumption
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 24.10.2026

Bombay HC: Section 27A NDPS Cannot Be Invoked Merely for Paying for Drugs Intended for Personal Consumption

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 Bombay High Court granted bail to actor Rhea Chakraborty on 7 October 2020, holding that the material then available did not show her involvement in commercial-quantity drug offences or in financing illicit drug trafficking under Section 27A of the NDPS Act.

Background of the case

Rhea Chakraborty was arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) on 8 September 2020 in connection with Crime No. 16/2020. The case arose from an NCB investigation into an alleged drug-supply network. The agency alleged that Chakraborty had helped procure drugs for Sushant Singh Rajput, managed or contributed to payments, and was connected to deliveries involving his associates and her brother, Showik Chakraborty.

The NCB relied on statements of co-accused persons, alleged WhatsApp communications, and claimed financial transactions. It argued that Chakraborty had facilitated drug deliveries and payments and was therefore liable for offences including financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders under Section 27A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Chakraborty denied that Section 27A applied. Her defence emphasized that no contraband was recovered from her or from Rajput’s residence, that the allegations concerned procurement for alleged personal consumption, and that she had no connection with the commercial quantity of LSD recovered from another accused, Anuj Keshwani.

NCB investigation was separate from the death investigation

One preliminary issue was whether the NCB had authority to investigate because the Supreme Court had directed the CBI to investigate the death of Sushant Singh Rajput and related circumstances.

The High Court rejected the challenge to the NCB’s jurisdiction. It found that the NCB inquiry began independently after information led to the arrest of Abbas Lakhani and later expanded through disclosures and recoveries involving multiple alleged drug suppliers. The court held that the drug-trafficking investigation was distinct from the inquiry into Rajput’s death, even though allegations regarding Rajput’s alleged drug use emerged during the investigation.

All NDPS offences are non-bailable, court says

The judgment examined whether offences involving small quantities under the NDPS Act could be treated as bailable under the Criminal Procedure Code.

The court concluded that all offences under the NDPS Act are non-bailable. It relied on the Supreme Court’s interpretation in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, which described Section 37 as making all NDPS offences cognizable and non-bailable. The court distinguished between two issues:
- Whether an offence is bailable: The court held that NDPS offences are non-bailable.
- Whether Section 37’s stricter bail conditions apply: Those special restrictions apply to offences under Sections 19, 24 and 27A, and to offences involving commercial quantities.
This distinction was important because a non-bailable offence does not automatically trigger the stringent “twin conditions” of Section 37.

What the court said about financing and harbouring

The High Court’s central legal finding concerned Section 27A, which punishes financing illicit traffic and harbouring persons engaged in it.

The court held that “financing” means more than paying money for a particular drug purchase. In its interpretation, financing requires providing funds or financial support that makes an illicit drug trade or business operational or sustains it. Treating every payment connected with a drug transaction as financing would erase the NDPS Act’s separate punishment framework based on quantity.

Similarly, the court found that “harbouring” requires more than allowing a person to reside somewhere or providing ordinary support. It involves sheltering or concealing a person engaged in the prohibited activity, with the necessary mental element and in a manner connected to avoiding apprehension.

Applying these principles, the court held that allegations that Chakraborty spent money to procure drugs for Rajput’s alleged consumption did not, by themselves, amount to financing illicit traffic. It also found no basis to say that she harboured him: he lived in his own house, no criminal case was pending against him at the relevant time, and there was no indication that he was being concealed from law enforcement.

Why bail was granted

The court noted that no contraband was recovered from Chakraborty or from Rajput’s residence. It also found that the investigation had not produced material showing that her alleged conduct involved a commercial quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances.

The court further observed that:
- Chakraborty had no criminal antecedents.
- The available allegations did not show that she was part of a chain of drug dealers.
- There was no allegation that she forwarded drugs to others for monetary or other gain.
- The NCB did not seek her custodial interrogation at her first remand, which the court treated as relevant to whether continued custody was necessary.
- The concern that she would alert others or cause destruction of evidence had no identified factual basis.
The court also rejected the argument that a celebrity or public figure should face a harsher approach to bail. It stated that everyone is equal before the law and that neither special privilege nor special liability should follow from a person’s status.

Bail conditions

The court directed Chakraborty’s release on a personal-recognizance bond of Rs. 1 lakh with one or two sureties of the same amount. It imposed several conditions, including:
- depositing her passport with the investigating agency;
- not leaving India without prior permission from the NDPS Special Court;
- informing the investigating officer in advance before travelling outside Greater Mumbai;
- reporting monthly to the investigating agency for six months;
- attending court proceedings unless prevented by reasonable cause; and
- not tampering with evidence or the investigation.
She was initially allowed to furnish cash bail of Rs. 1 lakh for one month while arranging sureties. The court also required her to report to the nearest police station for ten days after release.

Significance of the ruling

The ruling is significant for its detailed interpretation of Section 27A of the NDPS Act. It draws a clear legal boundary between an allegation of paying for or arranging drugs for consumption and the far more serious accusation of financing an illicit drug-trafficking operation. The decision also reinforces that Section 37’s strict bail restrictions apply independently to Section 27A and commercial-quantity offences.

However, the prosecution must first show material capable of connecting the accused to those specific offences. In Chakraborty’s case, the High Court found that threshold was not met at the bail stage, while making clear that its observations were confined to deciding bail rather than determining guilt at trial.

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

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
October 24, 2026
Bombay High Court Upholds Rs. 2.675 Crore Arbitration Award in Goregaon Redevelopment Dispute
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 24.10.2026

Bombay High Court Upholds Rs. 2.675 Crore Arbitration Award in Goregaon Redevelopment Dispute

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Arbitrator Shobhit Mallik. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id shobhit.Ica23@gmail.com .

The Bombay High Court has dismissed Kumar Urban Development Private Limited’s challenge to an arbitral award requiring it to pay the Jal Ratn Deep Co-operative Housing Society Rs. 2.675 crore, reaffirming that a genuine liquidated-damages clause can be enforced when delay is established and actual loss is difficult to quantify.

The dispute at a glance

The case arose from the proposed redevelopment of Jal Ratn Deep Co-operative Housing Society’s property at Bangur Nagar, Goregaon (West), Mumbai. The society owns land containing five buildings and 97 occupied flats. After its members approved redevelopment in 2010, Kumar Builders Mumbai Realty Private Limited was appointed as developer; its rights and obligations later vested in Kumar Urban Development Private Limited through a merger.

The parties executed their original Development Agreement on 12 January 2011. It included a time-bound construction schedule and a liquidated-damages provision. Under Clause 26, if the developer failed to complete the work and hand over the completed new building within the prescribed period, and the default continued beyond 60 days, it had to pay Rs. 10 lakh per week of delay or part thereof. The clause expressly described the amount as liquidated damages and “not as penalty.”

How the redevelopment stalled

The redevelopment was affected by delays in approvals, revised plans, negotiations with members, and changes in development-control rules. The developer had initially paid the society Rs. 1.10 crore as security deposit and stated that it had also paid Rs. 2.425 crore towards hardship compensation and corpus.

Following the introduction of fungible FSI in 2012, the developer offered larger rehabilitation flats and submitted revised proposals. The parties eventually entered into a fresh development agreement in August 2013, under which the developer was to load sufficient TDR for rehabilitation premises first and load the remaining TDR later.

However, disagreements emerged over the sequence of obligations, including members’ vacation of flats, loading of TDR, payment of corpus and provision of a bank guarantee. The situation was further complicated by regulatory developments, including changes following the Supreme Court’s decision in the Kohinoor Mills matter. The society ultimately invoked Clause 26 and claimed liquidated damages for the developer’s alleged delay.

Arbitration award and court challenge

A sole arbitrator found that the developer had committed delays and awarded liquidated damages for 62 weeks at Rs. 10 lakh per week, totaling Rs. 6.20 crore. After adjusting the security deposit and hardship compensation/corpus amounts, the arbitrator directed payment of Rs. 2.675 crore, together with interest and quantified costs.

The developer challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Its central argument was that the society had not proved any real loss or legal injury. The developer stressed that members had continued to live in their existing flats and had not been displaced or required to obtain alternative accommodation. It also argued that the stipulated weekly amount had no demonstrated commercial basis and was, in substance, a penalty rather than a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The society responded that Clause 26 was a negotiated commercial term, expressly excluded a penalty character, and operated as a genuine pre-estimate of loss. It argued that the arbitrator had already found delay and breach, and that the nature of a delayed construction and redevelopment project made precise quantification of the loss difficult.

Why the High Court refused to interfere

Justice Aarti Sathe held that the court’s role under Section 34 is narrow. It cannot reassess evidence or substitute its own view merely because another interpretation may be possible. Interference is reserved for exceptional cases, such as awards affected by patent illegality, perversity, lack of reasons or findings based on no evidence.

The Court found that Clause 26 clearly fixed Rs. 10 lakh per week as the agreed consequence of continuing delay and expressly stated that the payment was not a penalty. It accepted the arbitrator’s conclusion that the clause represented a genuine pre-estimate of loss in a construction-related redevelopment arrangement, where exact loss may be difficult to prove.

The Court also noted the arbitrator’s findings of significant inaction and delay by the developer, including periods of approximately five months and eleven months in processing approvals. The arbitrator had also considered correspondence showing the society’s frustration with the prolonged delays and its loss of confidence in the developer.

On this basis, the Court held that proof of actual loss or legal injury was not required in the circumstances. It distinguished authorities relied on by the developer by emphasizing that Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act permits reasonable compensation up to the stipulated amount, and that genuine pre-estimated damages may be awarded where actual loss is difficult to establish.

Key legal principles from the ruling
- Contractual wording matters: A carefully drafted liquidated-damages clause can be enforceable where it identifies the trigger for payment, specifies the agreed rate and indicates that the sum is not penal.
- Delay can support liquidated damages: Once breach and delay are established, precise proof of financial loss may not be necessary if the stipulated sum is a genuine pre-estimate and the loss is difficult to quantify.
- Section 34 review is limited: A court will not re-evaluate evidence or replace an arbitrator’s plausible interpretation of a contract with its own view.
- Reasoned arbitral findings are protected: Findings based on the contract, correspondence and evidence will generally withstand challenge unless they are perverse, unsupported by evidence or fundamentally unlawful.
- Adjustments may be permitted: The arbitrator’s adjustment of sums already paid by the developer against the liquidated-damages award was upheld because the relevant amounts arose under the parties’ contractual arrangement.
Outcome

The Bombay High Court dismissed the developer’s petition and left the arbitral award intact. The developer remains liable for the adjusted award of Rs. 2.675 crore, along with interest and costs as determined in arbitration.

The Court also directed that any money deposited in court be released after one month from the judgment’s upload date, and it made no separate order as to costs.

This decision highlights the importance of precise delay-damages clauses in redevelopment agreements and confirms the high threshold for setting aside a reasoned arbitral award in India.

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
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
October 24, 2026
Bombay HC: Standing on Bus Footboard Does Not Automatically Disqualify Passenger from Accident Compensation
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 24.10.2026

Bombay HC: Standing on Bus Footboard Does Not Automatically Disqualify Passenger from Accident Compensation

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 awarded ₹2,10,365 plus 7.5% annual interest to an injured bus passenger, holding that the Thane Municipal Transport (TMT) bus driver was primarily responsible for an accident while overtaking a stationary MSRTC bus.

Case overview

In Mohan Laxman Chavan v. Transport Manager, Thane Municipal Transport & Ors., the Court considered an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal decision that had dismissed the claimant’s petition entirely. The Tribunal had concluded that the passenger alone caused the accident by standing on a crowded bus’s footboard.

The High Court disagreed. It found that the claimant did contribute to the risk, but the TMT driver failed to take adequate care while overtaking a stationary Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) bus. The Court apportioned negligence at 75% to the TMT driver and 25% to the claimant.

How the accident occurred

On 4 August 1998, Mohan Laxman Chavan boarded a crowded TMT bus near Castle Mills, Thane, after completing work at a bank. Because of the crowd, he could not move fully inside and stood on the footboard.

According to the claimant’s evidence, the conductor signalled the driver to proceed. While overtaking a stationary MSRTC bus, the TMT bus grazed it. Chavan’s hand struck the other bus and he was thrown from the moving vehicle. He was initially treated at Civil Hospital, Thane, and later admitted to Arogya Hospital for 12 days.

His injuries included a compound comminuted fracture of the right humerus and a Colles fracture of the left radius. A plate was fitted in his right arm, and he later produced evidence of physical disability.

Why the Tribunal’s finding was overturned

The Tribunal had relied on several factors to reject the claim: the claimant did not identify the registration numbers of either bus, no accident report was found in the transport authorities’ records, and the claimant had been standing on the footboard.

The High Court held that these factors did not justify rejecting the claim altogether.

Vehicle numbers were not essential in these circumstances

The Court accepted that the claimant had not recorded the registration numbers of the buses. However, it reasoned that a person who falls from a moving bus immediately after an accident cannot reasonably be expected to note vehicle numbers. It was sufficient that the claimant identified the vehicles as a TMT bus and an MSRTC bus.

The Court emphasized that motor accident claims are assessed on the preponderance of probabilities, not the criminal-law standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Oral evidence explaining how the accident occurred could therefore be considered alongside police papers.

Absence of a report did not disprove the accident

The transport authorities’ witnesses stated that they had no report of an accident involving their buses on that day. The Court found that this absence could have different explanations, including a failure to report the incident. It did not conclusively establish that the accident had not occurred.

The passenger’s conduct was contributory, not exclusive negligence

The Court acknowledged that standing on the footboard was unsafe and that the claimant might not have fallen had he been inside the bus. This justified attributing some responsibility to him.

However, the Court found that the driver also had a duty to overtake safely. The TMT bus grazed a stationary MSRTC bus, showing that the driver had not exercised proper caution, whether because of speed, inattention, or inadequate clearance. The driver then continued ahead without taking the necessary precaution after the impact.

MSRTC bus driver not held liable

The Court upheld the finding that the MSRTC driver was not negligent. The MSRTC bus was stationary, and there was no evidence that it had been parked improperly or in a dangerous location. As a result, liability was not imposed on MSRTC.

Compensation awarded

Although the claimant produced a disability certificate assessing 30% disability, the Court declined to award compensation for future loss of earning capacity. The assessment was made nearly eight years after the accident, and there was no evidence showing how the disability affected his work. The claimant had also been promoted from Inspector to Senior Inspector.

Still, the Court awarded compensation for lost income during sick leave, medical treatment, future treatment, pain, and reduced comfort and amenities:
- Loss of income for three months: ₹32,169
- Future medical expenses: ₹15,000
- Medical bills: ₹16,716
- Arogya Hospital bills: ₹16,480
- Pain and suffering: ₹50,000
- Attendance charges: ₹10,000
- Loss of comfort and amenities: ₹50,000
- Conveyance charges: ₹10,000
- Special diet: ₹10,000
The total enhanced compensation was ₹2,10,365. The TMT Transport Manager and the Government of Maharashtra’s Director of Insurance were directed to pay the amount jointly and severally within 12 weeks, with 7.5% interest per year from the date of the claim petition until payment. Any no-fault compensation already received would be deducted.

Legal significance

The ruling reinforces that a motor accident claimant does not necessarily fail merely because they cannot provide a vehicle registration number or because an official accident record is unavailable. Courts must evaluate the complete evidence and determine whether the account is probable.

It also illustrates the principle of contributory negligence: a passenger’s unsafe conduct may reduce responsibility, but it does not erase the transport operator’s duty to drive safely. Here, the claimant’s footboard travel was a contributing factor, while the TMT driver’s unsafe overtaking was found to be the dominant cause of the accident.

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
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
October 24, 2026
Bombay High Court: Newspaper Title Registration Does Not Invalidate Trademark Rights — Section 124 Stay Plea Rejected
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 23.10.2026

Bombay High Court: Newspaper Title Registration Does Not Invalidate Trademark Rights — Section 124 Stay Plea Rejected

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 Bombay High Court has refused to stay a trademark infringement suit over the name “Pune Mirror,” finding that the defendants’ late challenge to the plaintiffs’ trademark registrations was procedurally defective and unsupported by the pleadings.

The dispute

The suit was brought by Metropolitan Media Company Ltd., Bennett Coleman and Company Ltd., and Lexicon Media Pvt. Ltd. against Kothrud Mitra Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and its publisher, Sunnjoy Manohar Dahake.

The plaintiffs claim registered rights in “Pune Mirror” and “Sunday Pune Mirror,” along with a broader group of “Mirror” newspaper marks, including “Mumbai Mirror,” “Ahmedabad Mirror,” and Bangalore-related titles. They allege that the defendants’ use of “Pune Mirror” and “KM Kothrud Mirror” infringes their registrations and is likely to cause public confusion. The suit seeks permanent injunctive relief and Rs. 100 crore in damages.

The defendants maintain that they began publishing a fortnightly newspaper titled “Pune Mirror” on 1 October 2010 and received a registration certificate from the Registrar of Newspapers for India (RNI) on 14 December 2010. They argued that the plaintiffs had not completed RNI-related compliance for their own titles, resulting in those titles being deblocked under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867.

Why the defendants sought a stay

When the suit reached final arguments, the defendants relied on three rectification applications filed in 2023 and 2024. Those applications sought cancellation or rectification of certain plaintiff registrations on the basis of alleged non-use.

They asked the court to stay the infringement suit under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, until the rectification proceedings were decided. Alternatively, they sought framing of an issue on the validity of the plaintiffs’ registrations and time to bring a rectification challenge before the appropriate forum.

The plaintiffs opposed the request as a delaying tactic. The suit had been filed in 2015; pleadings, issues, amendments, and evidence had already been completed, and both sides’ evidence closed in August 2025.

The court’s ruling

Justice Gauri Godse rejected the interim application. The court held that the defendants had not established a basis to either pause the suit or add an issue concerning trademark invalidity.

Rectification applications were before the wrong forum

The defendants’ rectification applications were pending before the Registrar of Trade Marks. The court held that, once an infringement suit is pending and validity of a registered mark is questioned, Section 125 of the Trade Marks Act requires the rectification issue to be pursued before the High Court.

Because the applications had been filed before an authority that lacked jurisdiction in the circumstances, their pendency could not support a stay under Section 124.

No pleaded challenge to trademark validity

The defendants’ written statement relied mainly on their use of “Pune Mirror,” their RNI registration, and allegations that the plaintiffs’ newspaper titles were deblocked. But it did not specifically challenge the validity of the plaintiffs’ trademark registrations under the Trade Marks Act.

The court found that an issue on invalidity can be framed only where such an issue arises from the parties’ pleadings. A party cannot obtain a stay merely by later asserting in an application that a registered trademark is invalid.

Press-title registration and trademark registration are distinct

A central feature of the decision is the distinction between registration of a newspaper title under the Press and Registration of Books Act and registration of a trademark under the Trade Marks Act.

The court held that RNI-related proceedings, including deblocking or registration of a newspaper title, do not automatically create a ground to cancel or invalidate a trademark registration. A non-use challenge must be expressly pleaded and assessed against the statutory requirements of trademark law.

Section 124: a low threshold, but not no threshold

The court considered the principles laid down in Patel Field Marshal Agencies v. P.M. Diesels and Franco India Pharmaceuticals v. Corona Remedies. These cases recognise that a court should frame an invalidity issue where the challenge is prima facie tenable, applying a relatively low threshold.

But that threshold still requires a genuine, legally recognisable challenge. Courts may refuse to frame an issue where the proposed invalidity plea is false, frivolous, or untenable.

Here, the court found that the defendants had not pleaded invalidity under the Trade Marks Act and had not made even a low-threshold prima facie case that the plaintiffs’ registrations were invalid. Their reliance on RNI proceedings did not fill that gap.

Final outcome

The Bombay High Court dismissed the defendants’ interim application and directed that the main trademark suit be listed for final arguments before the court having the appropriate assignment.

Key legal implications
- Trademark invalidity must be specifically raised: A challenge to a registered mark should be tied to grounds available under the Trade Marks Act, rather than general assertions about competing title registrations.
- The correct forum matters: In a pending infringement suit, a rectification challenge to the relevant registration must be filed before the High Court as required by Section 125.
- Separate legal regimes serve separate functions: Registration of a newspaper title under press law does not, by itself, determine trademark validity, ownership, or infringement.
- Late procedural applications face close scrutiny: A stay request made after completion of evidence and at the final-arguments stage will not succeed without a clear legal foundation in the existing pleadings.
The ruling preserves the distinction between newspaper-title regulation and trademark protection, while confirming that Section 124 cannot be used to interrupt an advanced infringement suit on the basis of an unpleaded and improperly filed validity challenge.

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

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
October 23, 2026