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: #cbic

  • Delhi High Court Rejects Bare Refusal of Slogan Trademark Application

    Delhi High Court Rejects Bare Refusal of Slogan Trademark Application

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

    Date: 04.11.2026

    Delhi High Court Rejects Bare Refusal of Slogan Trademark Application

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

    The Delhi High Court held that the slogan β€œWHAT DO YOU SEE?” could function as a trademark and set aside its refusal because the Trade Marks Registry gave no adequate reasons to treat it as non-distinctive or descriptive.

    Background of the dispute

    A Dot Limited applied to register β€œWHAT DO YOU SEE?” as a trademark for goods and services in Classes 16, 25, 26, 41 and 45. These classes broadly cover items such as printed matter, clothing, lace and embroidery-related goods, education and entertainment services, and certain personal or legal services.

    The Trade Marks Registry refused the application in December 2018. Its stated basis was Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which bars registration of marks that are:

    • devoid of distinctive character; or
    • exclusively descriptive of the kind, quality, purpose, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services.

    Although the refusal order also referred to Section 11, which concerns conflict with earlier trademarks, the accompanying grounds did not explain any such objection or identify conflicting marks. The Court therefore confined its review to the Section 9 objections.

    Why the Court disagreed with the refusal

    The Court found that the Registry had not provided a reasoned basis for concluding that β€œWHAT DO YOU SEE?” lacked distinctiveness or described the applicant’s goods and services.

    The phrase is made up of ordinary English words, but that alone does not make it unregistrable. The Court treated it as a tagline or slogan capable of operating as a source identifier, provided it does not directly describe the relevant products or services.

    In ordinary use, β€œWhat do you see?” is a question inviting a person’s perception, interpretation, opinion, or observation. It does not describe the time, quality, quantity, intended purpose, or another characteristic of the goods and services covered by A Dot Limited’s application. As a result, the phrase was not inherently descriptive in the way Section 9(1)(b) requires.

    The Court also noted its earlier view that slogans and taglines should be assessed like word marks when a trademark application is examined.

    Additional factors considered

    The decision records that A Dot Limited had obtained registrations for the identical mark in jurisdictions including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Israel. It also noted that an Indian device mark containing the same phrase as a tagline had already been registered.

    These facts did not replace the statutory analysis under Indian law, but they supported the conclusion that the phrase was capable of functioning as a trademark.

    The Court’s directions

    The High Court allowed the appeal and issued the following directions:

    1. Set aside the refusal order and statement of grounds.
    2. Direct the Trade Marks Registry to process the application.
    3. Require advertisement of the mark within three months.
    4. Preserve the right of third parties to oppose, with any opposition to be decided independently on its merits.
    5. Limit protection to the complete phrase β€œWHAT DO YOU SEE?” used as a combination of words.
    6. Deny exclusive rights in the individual words β€œWHAT,” β€œDO,” β€œYOU,” or β€œSEE?” separately. This limitation must be reflected in the Trade Marks Journal if the application proceeds to registration.

    Key legal takeaway for trademark applicants

    This ruling reinforces that a slogan cannot be rejected merely because it consists of dictionary words. The relevant question is whether, in relation to the specified goods and services, the phrase directly describes their characteristics or is incapable of distinguishing one trader’s offerings from another’s.

    For brand owners, the decision is particularly useful where a proposed mark is a short tagline, question, or expressive phrase. A clear explanation of how the phrase functions as a badge of commercial origin, coupled with evidence of use or registration where available, can help address objections based on lack of distinctiveness or descriptiveness.

    At the same time, the case illustrates an important limitation: registration of a phrase may protect only the phrase as a whole, not the ordinary words within it.

    The outcome preserves room for others to use common words fairly and independently while allowing the combined expression to proceed through the trademark-registration process.

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

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

    Source: Delhi High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • Delhi HC Says Right to Speedy Trial Can Prevail Over Section 37 NDPS Rigours

    Delhi HC Says Right to Speedy Trial Can Prevail Over Section 37 NDPS Rigours

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

    Date: 04.11.2026

    Delhi HC Says Right to Speedy Trial Can Prevail Over Section 37 NDPS Rigours

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

    The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to an accused in a commercial-quantity narcotics case, holding that the prolonged delay in trial and the absence of any delay attributable to the accused justified relief despite the stringent bail conditions under the NDPS Act.

    Case background

    In Harikrishnan PS v. Narcotics Control Bureau, decided on 2 November 2026, the accused sought regular bail in a case registered under Sections 8(c), 21(c), and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. These provisions concern possession, dealing, and conspiracy relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

    According to the prosecution, authorities intercepted a DTDC parcel bearing the accused’s name and particulars. The parcel allegedly contained 480 grams of charas and 60 grams of methamphetamine. The prosecution further alleged that, after the accused was apprehended from a guesthouse, an additional 140 grams of methamphetamine was recovered at his instance.

    Because the alleged recovery involved commercial quantity, the restrictive β€œtwin conditions” for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act ordinarily applied.

    Why the Court granted bail

    The central issue was not the alleged quantity of contraband, but the continued incarceration of the accused amid a trial that had made limited progress.

    The accused had been in custody since 7 December 2021. Of the 26 prosecution witnesses listed, only eight had been examined by the time the bail application was considered. Further delay was expected because co-accused Nafi had been arrested later, requiring the witnesses already examined to be recalled.

    Importantly, the Narcotics Control Bureau fairly accepted before the Court that the delay in trial could not be attributed to the accused. The Court also noted that another co-accused, Paschal, had already been granted bail on 12 August 2026 on the ground of trial delay.

    Expeditious trial and Section 37 of the NDPS Act

    Section 37 makes bail in commercial-quantity NDPS cases particularly difficult. Generally, a court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

    However, the High Court reaffirmed that the constitutional requirement of an expeditious trial can affect the application of these strict conditions. Where an accused remains in custody for a substantial period, the trial is moving slowly, and the accused is not responsible for the delay, continued detention may become unjustified.

    The Court found that the trial was not likely to conclude within a reasonable time. In those circumstances, it held that there was no reason to deprive the accused of liberty any further.

    Bail conditions

    The Court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the accused on furnishing:

    • a personal bond of Rs.50,000; and
    • one surety of the same amount,

    subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court or Duty Magistrate.

    The order was also directed to be promptly sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent so that the accused could be informed.

    Key legal significance

    This ruling highlights an important safeguard in NDPS prosecutions: stringent statutory bail restrictions do not eliminate the accused’s right to a timely trial. Even in cases involving alleged commercial quantities, courts may grant bail where detention becomes prolonged, the prosecution has examined only a small portion of its witnesses, and the accused has not caused the delay.

    The decision reinforces that criminal trials must proceed with reasonable speed, particularly where a person’s liberty has been restricted for years without a foreseeable conclusion to the case.

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

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

    Source: Delhi High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • CESTAT Allahabad Holds Customs Refund Claim Not Time-Barred Where Amount Was Security

    CESTAT Allahabad Holds Customs Refund Claim Not Time-Barred Where Amount Was Security

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

    Date: 04.11.2026

    CESTAT Allahabad Holds Customs Refund Claim Not Time-Barred Where Amount Was Security

    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 Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, has held that Rs. 30 lakh deposited by Tin Manufacturing Company of India under directions of the Allahabad High Court was a court-directed deposit, not customs duty, and therefore the one-year refund limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 did not apply.

    Background of the dispute

    The dispute dates back to 1987, when M/s Tin Manufacturing Company of India imported tin sheets at Mumbai. Customs alleged that the goods had been misdeclared, after which they were transferred to the Central Warehousing Corporation’s public bonded warehouse at Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad.

    The then Collector of Customs, Bombay decided the matter in the company’s favour in October 1989. When the company later sought clearance of the warehoused goods, Customs required it to file an ex-bond bill of entry. The company challenged this requirement before the Allahabad High Court.

    During the writ proceedings, the High Court directed the company to deposit Rs. 30 lakh in cash and furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 13.15 lakh to secure release of the goods. The company complied and obtained release.

    The writ petition was later dismissed for want of prosecution in 2009. Subsequent recall applications were unsuccessful. However, in February 2018, the High Court clarified that, if entitled to a customs refund, the company could pursue the appropriate legal remedy.

    Why the refund claim was rejected earlier

    The company filed a refund claim for Rs. 18,91,396. The Customs department rejected it, initially in 2019 and again after remand in 2022. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection on two principal grounds:

    • The claimant had not produced documents considered sufficient under Section 27(1A) of the Customs Act.
    • The claim had been filed almost 20 years after the amount was paid, far beyond the one-year limitation applicable to refunds of customs duty.

    The appellate authority treated the Rs. 30 lakh payment and the Rs. 13.15 lakh bank guarantee as part of a customs-duty liability said to be Rs. 43.15 lakh.

    Tribunal’s key finding: the amount was a deposit, not duty

    CESTAT disagreed with that approach. It found that no proper customs assessment had been made when the cash deposit and bank guarantee were furnished. Both were provided solely because the High Court had required security for release of the goods.

    The Tribunal placed particular weight on the nature of the bank guarantee. Customs duty is not paid through a bank guarantee; its presence showed that the amounts were security deposits toward a possible future liability rather than assessed customs duty.

    Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the payment could not be treated as customs duty merely because Customs later sought to characterize it that way. Since the claim concerned recovery of a court-directed deposit rather than a refund of assessed duty, the limitation and evidentiary requirements relied upon under Section 27(1A) did not govern the case.

    Legal principles applied by CESTAT

    The Tribunal relied on the principle that an amount paid without a legally determined tax liability does not automatically acquire the character of tax or duty. It referred to decisions including Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. KVR Construction and the ruling upheld in Credible Engineering v. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise.

    Those decisions recognize that statutory refund limitation provisions do not bar repayment where the amount was paid under a mistake of law or was not legally payable as tax in the first place. The underlying rationale is that the government cannot retain money when it had no authority to treat it as a legally due tax or duty.

    Final order and implications

    CESTAT set aside the order rejecting the refund. It held that Tin Manufacturing Company of India is entitled to the refund, together with applicable interest calculated from the date of the High Court-directed deposit until the date the refund is made.

    The ruling is significant for customs disputes involving deposits, pre-deposits, securities, or payments made under court directions. It reinforces that the substance of a payment matters more than its label: where there is no final assessment or established duty liability, a court-directed payment may remain a refundable deposit rather than customs duty subject to the standard statutory refund deadline.

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

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

    Source: CESTAT Allahabad

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • Delhi HC: Trademark Registry Cannot Reject Marks Based on Imaginary or Conjectural Descriptiveness

    Delhi HC: Trademark Registry Cannot Reject Marks Based on Imaginary or Conjectural Descriptiveness

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

    Date: 03.11.2026

    Delhi HC: Trademark Registry Cannot Reject Marks Based on Imaginary or Conjectural Descriptiveness

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

    The Delhi High Court has set aside the Trade Marks Registry’s refusal to register β€œDOUBLE-CHOICE” for rice, flour and cereal preparations, holding that the mark must be assessed as a whole and that a proposed-to-be-used application cannot be rejected for lacking acquired distinctiveness through use.

    Background of the dispute

    Kapil Goyal applied on 20 June 2023 to register β€œDOUBLE-CHOICE” in Class 30 for rice, flour and preparations made from cereals. The application was filed on a proposed-to-be-used basis, meaning the mark had not yet been used in the marketplace.

    The Trade Marks Registry objected under Sections 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It concluded that the mark lacked distinctiveness, was composed of non-distinctive words, and was descriptive of the kind and intended purpose of the relevant goods. The Registry also found that the mark had not acquired secondary meaning because it had not been used in the market.

    Following a hearing, the application was refused on 24 January 2025. Kapil Goyal appealed to the Delhi High Court under Section 91 of the Act.

    Key issues before the Court

    The dispute centred on three connected questions:

    • Whether β€œDOUBLE-CHOICE” was inherently incapable of distinguishing one trader’s goods from those of another.
    • Whether the expression directly described rice, flour or cereal preparations.
    • Whether the absence of prior market use could justify refusal of an application filed on a proposed-to-be-used basis.

    The Court’s findings

    A composite trademark cannot be broken into isolated words

    The Court held that a trademark must be evaluated in its entirety. Although β€œDOUBLE” and β€œCHOICE” are individually common English words, their combination had to be assessed as the composite expression β€œDOUBLE-CHOICE”.

    On that basis, the Court found that the expression was not so common or devoid of distinction that it could not identify the commercial source of the applicant’s goods. The Registry had not identified any identical or similar marks, nor had it explained why use of β€œDOUBLE-CHOICE” would make it impossible for consumers to distinguish the applicant’s goods from those of other traders.

    The mark was not shown to be descriptive

    The Registry had reasoned that β€œDOUBLE-CHOICE” referred to a situation involving two options and therefore described a variety or consumer choice connected with the products. The Court rejected that reasoning as unsupported by evidence.

    It noted that the refusal order did not clarify which products consumers would supposedly be choosing between. There was no factual material showing that the mark denoted product variety, two alternatives, or any feature of the rice and cereal goods. The Court characterized this conclusion as conjectural rather than evidence-based.

    A mark is not descriptive merely because its words have dictionary meanings. To attract the statutory bar, the expression must directly indicate a characteristic, quality, kind, purpose or other attribute of the specific goods. The Court found no such direct connection between β€œDOUBLE-CHOICE” and rice, flour or cereal preparations.

    Non-use is irrelevant for a proposed-to-be-used application

    The Court also held that the Registry’s reliance on non-use and lack of secondary meaning was legally misplaced. Where an application is expressly filed on a proposed-to-be-used basis, the applicant cannot be expected to show that the mark has acquired distinctiveness through actual market use.

    Requiring proof of prior use in such cases would undermine the statutory recognition of proposed-to-be-used trademark applications. The relevant inquiry was whether the mark was registrable on its own merits, not whether it had already acquired a reputation through use.

    Outcome

    The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the refusal order dated 24 January 2025, and directed the Trade Marks Registry to advertise β€œDOUBLE-CHOICE” in Class 30. After advertisement, the application is to proceed in accordance with the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.

    Why the ruling matters

    This decision reinforces important principles for trademark applicants and examiners:

    • Assess the mark as a whole: Common individual words do not automatically make their combination non-distinctive.
    • Require a direct descriptive link: A refusal for descriptiveness must be tied to a real and immediate characteristic of the claimed goods, not a speculative association.
    • Give reasoned decisions: A refusal should explain why the mark cannot distinguish the applicant’s goods and should be grounded in relevant material.
    • Respect proposed-to-be-used filings: Absence of market use cannot be treated as a defect where the application is validly filed on that basis.

    The ruling offers a clear reminder that trademark examination must rest on the actual commercial impression created by a mark and on evidence-based reasoning, rather than on the separate meanings of its component words.

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

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

    Source: Delhi High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • CESTAT Delhi- Related-Party Imports Alone Cannot Justify Rejection of Declared Value

    CESTAT Delhi- Related-Party Imports Alone Cannot Justify Rejection of Declared Value

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

    Date: 03.11.2026

    CESTAT Delhi- Related-Party Imports Alone Cannot Justify Rejection of Declared Value

    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 Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi, has allowed the appeals of Diyas Mantra Lighting Pvt. Ltd. and its directors, ruling that Customs had not established that the company’s relationship with its UK supplier influenced the declared import prices.

    Background of the dispute

    The case arose from imports of electric decorative lighting fixtures under the brands β€œDiyas” and β€œmAntra.” Diyas Mantra Lighting Pvt. Ltd. filed a bill of entry at ICD Tughlakabad on 21 January 2015 for clearance of a consignment valued at Rs. 19.01 lakh.

    Customs alleged that the importer had not declared the brands on its import documents and had undervalued the goods to reduce customs duty. The department also examined earlier imports and contended that the company’s UK supplier, Inspired Lighting Ltd., was a related party.

    The department relied on several circumstances to support its case, including common directorship and shareholding involving Anil Kumar Anand, financial dealings between the entities, and catalogue references identifying Diyas Mantra as the India office of the UK supplier’s brand.

    Earlier proceedings and Supreme Court remand

    In the original adjudication, Customs rejected the declared value of the live consignment and 20 earlier bills of entry. It re-determined the assessable value using a deductive method based on domestic sale prices, imposed differential duty, ordered confiscation, levied redemption fines, and imposed penalties on the importer and its directors.

    CESTAT initially upheld that decision in 2017. However, the Supreme Court set aside both the original Customs order and CESTAT’s earlier ruling in April 2019. It held that the Customs Valuation Rules require a sequential approach:

    • First, authorities must assess whether transaction value can be accepted under Rule 3.
    • If it cannot, they must examine identical goods under Rule 4 and similar goods under Rule 5.
    • Only after those methods are unavailable may they proceed to later valuation methods, including deductive valuation under Rules 7 to 9.

    The Supreme Court observed that data from non-related suppliers in China and Spain could be relevant to the valuation exercise, subject to appropriate adjustments.

    Customs’ de novo order

    After remand, Customs again held that the UK supplier and Diyas Mantra were related parties and that the relationship had influenced prices. It rejected the declared values for the live consignment and 13 past UK bills of entry.

    The de novo order:

    • Re-determined the live consignment’s value from Rs. 19.01 lakh to Rs. 52.22 lakh.
    • Re-determined the value of 13 earlier UK imports from Rs. 2.16 crore to Rs. 4.46 crore.
    • Confirmed differential duty of Rs. 9.53 lakh for the live shipment and Rs. 74.85 lakh for the past UK imports.
    • Imposed redemption fines of Rs. 10 lakh and Rs. 89 lakh in relation to the goods.
    • Imposed equivalent penalties on the company under Section 114A of the Customs Act.
    • Imposed penalties of Rs. 10 lakh each on directors Rahul Mehta and Anil Kumar Anand under Section 112(b).

    At the same time, Customs dropped a differential-duty demand of Rs. 48.41 lakh concerning seven imports from Spain and China, finding no evidence that those suppliers were related to the importer.

    CESTAT’s reasoning

    CESTAT found that, even if the importer and the UK supplier were related, that fact alone did not justify rejection of the transaction value. Under Rule 3(3)(a) of the Customs Valuation Rules, Customs needed to establish that the relationship actually affected the price.

    The Tribunal noted a central inconsistency in the department’s case: Customs accepted the transaction values for comparable goods imported from unrelated suppliers in Spain and China, but did not demonstrate how the UK prices were distorted by the related-party relationship.

    The Tribunal emphasized that the declared transaction value is normally the basis for customs assessment. To reject it, the department must provide cogent evidence that the declared price is not genuine or that the relationship affected pricing. Mere suspicion, related-party status, or assertions of possible financial flow-back are insufficient without a demonstrated impact on the import price.

    CESTAT also relied on the Supreme Court’s earlier direction that the valuation rules must be applied sequentially. It held that Customs could not move to a deductive valuation method under Rules 7 and 9 without adequately establishing why Rules 3 to 5 could not support the assessment.

    Final outcome

    CESTAT set aside the entire adverse order against Diyas Mantra Lighting Pvt. Ltd. and its directors. Specifically, it:

    • Accepted the declared value for the live consignment covered by Bill of Entry No. 8059523 dated 21 January 2015.
    • Set aside the re-determination of value for the UK imports.
    • Set aside the differential-duty demand and related interest.
    • Set aside confiscation of the live shipment and goods seized from the importer’s godown.
    • Set aside redemption fines.
    • Set aside penalties imposed on the importer under Section 114A.
    • Set aside personal penalties imposed on the two directors under Section 112(b).

    The appeals were allowed by Final Order Nos. 51642-51644/2026, pronounced on 29 October 2026.

    Key legal takeaway for importers

    The ruling reinforces that a related-party relationship does not automatically invalidate an import transaction value. Customs must establish, with evidence, that the relationship influenced the price. Where comparable imports from unrelated suppliers are available and accepted, authorities must meaningfully address that evidence before rejecting the declared value or resorting to alternative valuation methods.

    For customs valuation disputes, the decision underlines two important safeguards: transaction value remains the primary method of valuation, and the Customs Valuation Rules must be applied in their prescribed sequence.

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

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

    Source: CESTAT Delhi

    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

  • Karnataka HC Grants Regular Bail After Treating Ganja Seizure as Intermediate Quantity

    Karnataka HC Grants Regular Bail After Treating Ganja Seizure as Intermediate Quantity

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

    Date: 03.11.2026

    Karnataka HC Grants Regular Bail After Treating Ganja Seizure as Intermediate Quantity

    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 Karnataka High Court granted regular bail to Kiran Kumar, finding that the alleged seizure fell within the intermediate-quantity category, the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply, and the investigation was nearly complete.

    Background of the case

    The case arose from Crime No. 105/2026 registered at Mandya West Police Station. Police alleged that, on 11 August 2026, they received information that two individuals were attempting to sell ganja to members of the public and students within the station limits.

    Following the information, police conducted a raid and apprehended two accused persons. The prosecution alleged that a total of 1 kg and 25 grams of ganja was recovered and seized under a panchanama. Of this, 810 grams was alleged to have been recovered from Kiran Kumar, who was arraigned as Accused No. 1.

    Kiran Kumar was arrested on 11 August 2026 and remanded to judicial custody. His earlier bail application was rejected by the trial court on 15 September 2026. He then approached the High Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail in the case registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

    Why the High Court granted bail

    Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty considered the quantity allegedly seized, the petitioner’s criminal record, and the status of the investigation.

    1. The alleged quantity was treated as intermediate quantity

    The Court noted that the total alleged recovery was slightly more than 1 kg of ganja. It treated this as an intermediate quantity rather than a commercial quantity. This classification was important because the stricter bail limitations applicable to commercial-quantity NDPS cases were not attracted.

    2. Section 37’s stringent bail restriction was held inapplicable

    The Court specifically observed that the rigor of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act could not be applied against the petitioner in the circumstances of the case. Section 37 imposes additional restrictions on bail in specified serious NDPS matters, particularly those involving commercial quantities.

    3. No prior NDPS case was shown against the petitioner

    The order records that Kiran Kumar had no other case registered against him for offences under the NDPS Act. The absence of prior NDPS allegations weighed in favour of granting bail.

    4. Investigation was almost complete

    The Court also took into account that the investigation was nearly complete. This reduced the concern that the petitioner’s release could interfere with the investigative process.

    Bail conditions imposed by the Court

    Although the petition was allowed, the High Court made the release subject to safeguards intended to secure the petitioner’s participation in the trial and protect the prosecution process. Kiran Kumar must:

    • Execute a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties for the same amount, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
    • Appear regularly before the trial court on every hearing date, unless exempted for valid reasons.
    • Refrain from directly or indirectly threatening, influencing, or tampering with prosecution witnesses.
    • Not commit similar offences in the future.
    • Remain within the jurisdiction of the trial court unless permission is granted to leave, until the criminal case is disposed of.

    Legal significance of the order

    The order illustrates that bail in an NDPS prosecution depends heavily on the alleged quantity of contraband, the applicability of Section 37, the accused person’s prior record, and the stage of investigation. The Court did not decide guilt or innocence; it made a limited determination that regular bail could be granted with conditions while the case proceeds before the trial court.

    The petition was allowed on 30 October 2026, and Kiran Kumar was ordered to be released on bail subject to compliance with the stated conditions.

    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: Karnataka 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

  • Telangana High Court Quashes Customs Confiscation of Used MFD Imports

    Telangana High Court Quashes Customs Confiscation of Used MFD Imports

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

    Date: 02.11.2026

    Telangana High Court Quashes Customs Confiscation of Used MFD Imports

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

    The Telangana High Court has ruled that a later amendment imposing a 100-unit-per-model annual threshold could not be used to confiscate Arka Business Solutions’ consignment of used multi-function devices (MFDs) imported before that amendment took effect.

    Background of the dispute

    Arka Business Solutions, an importer and seller of used digital multi-function devices, imported 73 used MFDs from the United States. The company filed its Bill of Entry on 4 June 2026 at ICD Thimmapur.

    Customs examined the consignment on 19 June 2026. A Chartered Engineer appointed at Customs’ instance found that the machines were functional second-hand capital goods, had more than six years of residual life, were neither hazardous waste nor electronic waste, and each weighed more than 80 kg.

    Those findings were significant because the weight criterion placed the devices within the exemption for Highly Specialised Equipment (HSE) under the Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirements for Compulsory Registration) Order, 2021 (CRO 2021).

    Customs’ decision to confiscate the goods

    Despite the technical certification, Customs issued a show-cause notice alleging that the importer required DGFT authorisation under the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023, and had not met BIS registration requirements. The adjudicating authority subsequently divided the 73 machines into two categories:

    • 36 units were treated as prohibited goods because their models allegedly exceeded a 100-unit annual threshold when imports by all importers across India were counted. These units could be redeemed only for re-export, subject to a redemption fine of Rs. 1,33,257.
    • 37 units were treated as restricted goods. Customs allowed redemption for home consumption on payment of a Rs. 3,95,021 redemption fine.

    The order was based on the view that the 100-unit threshold under the amended Paragraph 8 of CRO 2021 applied nationally and across unrelated importers.

    Court’s findings: the amendment could not operate retrospectively

    The High Court set aside the confiscation order, holding that the amendment adding the quantitative limit came into force only on 15 June 2026. Since Arka Business Solutions had filed its Bill of Entry on 4 June 2026, the amended provision did not govern the import.

    The Court emphasized that subordinate legislation is presumed to operate prospectively unless it clearly states otherwise. The notification did not contain language giving it retrospective effect.

    Under Section 15 of the Customs Act, the relevant legal position for goods entered for home consumption is determined on the date the Bill of Entry is presented. Accordingly, later events, including the Customs examination, show-cause notice, and adjudication order, could not subject the earlier import to a restriction that was not in force at the relevant time.

    Why the 100-unit interpretation was also flawed

    The Court found additional defects in Customs’ reasoning. The language of the amended provision referred to equipment β€œmanufactured/imported in less than 100 units per model per year,” but did not expressly create an industry-wide cap shared by all importers.

    The Court observed that Customs had not explained why one importer should lose an exemption because unrelated importers had brought in the same model. A restrictive interpretation that limits an exemption on the basis of third-party imports required clear statutory language, which was absent.

    The Court also noted that the show-cause notice did not tell the importer that eligibility would be tested using all-India import data from other importers. Deciding the case on a basis not disclosed in the notice violated the principle that a noticee must know the case it has to answer.

    HSE exemption meant the devices were freely importable

    The Court reaffirmed its earlier interpretation of the relationship between CRO 2021 and the Foreign Trade Policy. Where used MFDs satisfy the HSE exemption, the compulsory registration requirement does not apply. As a result, the import cannot be treated as restricted under the provision dealing with second-hand goods subject to CRO compliance.

    Instead, qualifying goods fall within the category of freely importable second-hand capital goods. Since the Chartered Engineer had confirmed the devices met the weight threshold and were functional capital goods rather than e-waste, there was no basis to classify them as prohibited or restricted.

    The Court therefore found no basis for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. It also held that the record did not support allegations of misdeclaration under Section 111(m) or a penalty under Section 112.

    Outcome and release conditions

    The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the Customs order to the extent it:

    • classified the goods as prohibited or restricted;
    • confiscated them under Section 111(d);
    • imposed redemption fines; and
    • imposed any related penalty.

    Customs was directed to release the goods covered by the Bill of Entry, subject to conditions adopted from an earlier Arka Business Solutions decision. These conditions require the importer to deposit the enhanced duty amount after Customs quantifies it, while preserving the parties’ rights to pursue valuation issues separately. The Court also stated that any demurrage-waiver request must be considered objectively.

    Key legal takeaway

    The ruling confirms that import restrictions and exemption conditions must be assessed under the law in force when the Bill of Entry is filed. Customs cannot apply a later quantitative restriction retrospectively, expand an exemption limitation through an unclear all-India interpretation, or rely on grounds that were not put to the importer in the show-cause notice.

    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: Telangana 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

  • Himachal Pradesh HC: Bail Can Be Granted Despite Previous NDPS Cases Where Recovery Is Below Commercial Quantity

    Himachal Pradesh HC: Bail Can Be Granted Despite Previous NDPS Cases Where Recovery Is Below Commercial Quantity

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

    Date: 02.11.2026

    Himachal Pradesh HC: Bail Can Be Granted Despite Previous NDPS Cases Where Recovery Is Below Commercial Quantity

    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 Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted post-arrest bail to Vijay Garla in an NDPS Act case involving the recovery of 512 grams of charas, holding that the quantity was below the commercial threshold and that continued pre-trial custody was not warranted on the facts before it.

    The case at a glance

    Justice Chirag Bhanu Singh passed the order on 31 October 2026 in Vijay Garla v. State of HP, arising from FIR No. 164 of 2026 registered at Police Station Sundernagar, District Mandi. The FIR invoked Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

    The petitioner sought post-arrest bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Court allowed the application, subject to strict conditions, including a bail bond of Rs. 50,000 with two local sureties of the same amount.

    Alleged recovery following police checkpoint chase

    According to the State’s status report, a police team had set up a checkpoint at Pungh on the four-lane road in Sundernagar on 10 July 2026. At about 5:00 pm, officers noticed a white taxi approaching from the Sundernagar side.

    The taxi allegedly turned around and fled after its driver saw the police team. Police followed the vehicle and, about 500 metres away, found it parked near a truck. Four people were seated in the taxi, including Vijay Garla, who was seated in the rear.

    After associating an independent witness, the police searched the vehicle and reported recovering 512 grams of charas. All four occupants were arrested at the spot.

    Why the Court granted bail

    The Court’s decision turned principally on the quantity allegedly recovered, the stage of the criminal proceedings and the principle that pre-trial detention should not become punitive.

    Quantity was below commercial threshold

    The Court noted that 512 grams of charas was β€œless than commercial” quantity. It held that the stringent restrictions in Section 37 of the NDPS Act would therefore not apply with the same force in the circumstances of this case.

    It also observed that the recovery was not attributed exclusively to Vijay Garla, as the contraband was allegedly recovered from a vehicle occupied by four persons.

    Chargesheet had already been filed

    The investigation had culminated in the filing of the chargesheet. The Court found that the trial was likely to take time and that further incarceration before the case was decided would not be justified merely because the prosecution had been launched.

    Referring to Supreme Court decisions, the order reiterated that courts generally disfavor prolonged pre-trial incarceration, particularly where an accused remains presumed innocent until guilt is established at trial.

    Prior cases did not outweigh the exceptional factors

    The State opposed bail on the ground that two prior NDPS cases were registered against the petitioner and argued that he could repeat similar conduct. The Court acknowledged this concern and described him as a repeat offender.

    However, it concluded that the lower-than-commercial quantity, the shared nature of the alleged recovery and the probable delay in trial constituted peculiar circumstances justifying bail, albeit under stringent safeguards.

    Bail conditions imposed by the Court

    The petitioner’s release is subject to several conditions designed to protect the investigation and trial process:

    • He must not tamper with prosecution evidence or intimidate, threaten or coerce witnesses.
    • He must appear before the investigating officer or court whenever directed.
    • He cannot leave India without the court’s express permission and must surrender any passport to the investigating agency.
    • If he is later found involved in a similar NDPS offence and an FIR is registered, the bail may be cancelled immediately.

    The Court also allowed the State to consider preventive detention or measures for treatment or reformation if the petitioner is implicated in similar future activity.

    Legal significance of the order

    The ruling illustrates how bail decisions under the NDPS Act depend on the specific facts of each case. While prior criminal antecedents can weigh against an accused, they do not automatically rule out bail where the alleged quantity is below commercial quantity, the recovery is not solely linked to one accused, the investigation is complete and the trial may be prolonged.

    Importantly, the Court clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the bail request and do not express any view on the merits of the prosecution’s case. The criminal trial will determine whether the allegations are proved.

    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: Himachal 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

  • PhonePe Wins Remand in Trademark Dispute After Counter Statement Was Not Served

    PhonePe Wins Remand in Trademark Dispute After Counter Statement Was Not Served

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

    Date: 02.11.2026

    PhonePe Wins Remand in Trademark Dispute After Counter Statement Was Not Served

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

    The Delhi High Court has set aside an earlier trademark opposition order involving PhonePe Limited after all parties confirmed that the opponent had not been served with the other side’s counter statement, as required by the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

    Court restores matter to the Trade Marks Registrar

    In PhonePe Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr., the Delhi High Court disposed of PhonePe’s appeal by overturning the order dated 19 December 2025 and remanding the opposition for fresh consideration before the Registrar of Trade Marks.

    Justice A. J. Bhambhani directed that the opposition be reconsidered only after the required notice is issued and pleadings are completed in accordance with law. The Registrar has been asked to decide the matter expeditiously, and in any event within four months from 21 September 2026.

    Central issue: counter statement was not served

    PhonePe’s case was based on a procedural failure in the opposition proceedings. Its counsel submitted that respondent No. 2’s counter statement had been filed but was never served on PhonePe, which had filed the notice of opposition.

    This was not disputed. The Registrar of Trade Marks confirmed, based on its records, that service had not been completed in accordance with the statutory requirement. Counsel for the contesting respondent also accepted that position.

    Why service is legally important

    Section 21(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 requires the Registrar to serve a copy of the counter statement on the person who filed the notice of opposition. This step is material because it enables the opponent to know the case being advanced in response and to complete its pleadings fairly.

    The Court treated the omission as sufficient reason to set aside the earlier order. Rather than deciding the merits of the trademark dispute itself, it restored the matter to the Registrar so that the opposition process can proceed after due notice and lawful completion of pleadings.

    Direction for a time-bound decision

    While agreeing that the matter should be remanded, the contesting respondent requested an expedited outcome. The Court accordingly required the Registrar to conclude the reconsidered opposition as quickly as possible and no later than four months from the date of the order.

    Key takeaway

    The order reinforces that statutory service requirements in trademark opposition proceedings are substantive safeguards of procedural fairness. Where an opponent is not served with a counter statement, an order passed in the proceedings may be vulnerable to being set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.

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

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

    Source: Delhi High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • Supreme Court: DRI Cannot Secure NDPS Conviction Based Only on Statements of Co-Accused

    Supreme Court: DRI Cannot Secure NDPS Conviction Based Only on Statements of Co-Accused

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

    Date: 31.10.2026

    Supreme Court: DRI Cannot Secure NDPS Conviction Based Only on Statements of Co-Accused

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

    The Supreme Court of India set aside Surinder Kumar Khanna’s drug-trafficking conviction because the prosecution had no substantive evidence against him beyond statements made by his co-accused.

    Background of the case

    The case arose from a Directorate of Revenue Intelligence operation in Hoshiarpur, Punjab. Officers intercepted a white Indica car after receiving information that narcotics were being transported from Jammu towards Chandigarh. Two occupants, Raj Kumar alias Raju and Surinder Pal Singh, were found in the vehicle.

    A search of the car reportedly led to the recovery of four packets concealed in the boot-door area. The packets allegedly contained approximately 3.990 kg of heroin. The two occupants stated that the consignment had been collected from an individual in Jammu and was intended for delivery near PGI Chandigarh.

    Although Surinder Kumar Khanna was not present at the interception and no contraband was recovered from him, investigators later alleged that he was involved in the trafficking operation. A supplementary complaint was filed against him under Section 21(c) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

    Conviction by the trial court and High Court

    The trial court convicted Khanna and sentenced him to 12 years’ rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. On appeal, the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the prison term to 10 years.

    The High Court relied principally on statements made by Raj Kumar and Surinder Pal Singh under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. It held that these statements were admissible and established Khanna’s involvement in drug trafficking.

    The central issue before the Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court considered whether a co-accused’s alleged confession could, by itself, justify another accused person’s conviction.

    The prosecution accepted that, apart from the co-accused’s statements, there was no evidence directly connecting Khanna with the seized heroin or the other accused. Call-data records placed before the Court showed contact with a person in Dubai, but did not show that Khanna was in touch with either co-accused when they were apprehended.

    What the Court held

    The Court reaffirmed a fundamental evidentiary rule: a confession by one accused is not substantive evidence against a co-accused. It may only be considered to support or β€œlend assurance” to other independent evidence that already points to the co-accused’s guilt.

    The judgment relied on established precedents, including Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Hari Charan Kurmi v. State of Bihar. Those decisions explain that a court must first assess the evidence against an accused without considering a co-accused’s confession. Only if independent evidence is sufficient to support conviction may the confession be used as an additional source of assurance.

    The Court also noted that the NDPS Act contains no provision comparable to special statutes that expressly permit a co-accused’s confession to be used against another accused in specified circumstances.

    Importance of Section 67 statements

    The judgment acknowledged that the legal status of statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act had been referred to a larger Bench in an earlier case. However, the Court held that even if those statements were treated as confessions, they could not alone establish Khanna’s guilt.

    That distinction was decisive. The question was not merely whether the co-accused’s statements could be considered; it was whether they could independently prove a separate accused person’s involvement. The Court answered no.

    Final outcome

    Finding no substantive evidence against Khanna, the Supreme Court allowed his appeal, quashed his conviction and sentence, and acquitted him of the charges. It directed that he be released immediately unless required in custody in another case.

    Key legal takeaway

    Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence reinforces that criminal conviction must rest on reliable, independent evidence. A co-accused’s statement may corroborate an existing case, but it cannot fill the absence of evidence against another person accused of the offence.

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

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

    Source: Supreme Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi