𝐀𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐚 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #cbic

Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction Over Release and Confiscation of Vehicles Seized Under NDPS Act
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 08.09.2026

Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction Over Release and Confiscation of Vehicles Seized Under NDPS Act

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

The Supreme Court of India, in a significant decision delivered on August 24, 2026, in the case of R Manimaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, has clarified the legal process for the release of vehicles seized under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). This article provides a detailed analysis of the judgment, its background, and its implications for vehicle owners and law enforcement agencies.

Background of the Case
- A lorry was intercepted by authorities, leading to the alleged recovery of 66 kg of ganja. Three individuals were arrested, and the vehicle was seized under the NDPS Act.
- The trial court acquitted all accused on four main grounds:
  1. The arrest memo predated the FIR registration, raising doubts about the investigation’s integrity.
  2. No proper register was maintained for the custody of the contraband.
  3. Official witnesses could not explain how the lorry was operating during pandemic restrictions.
  4. There was an unexplained delay in sending samples to the court and laboratory.
- Following acquittal, the trial court initially ordered the release of the lorry to its owner after the appeal period. However, when the owner applied for release, the trial court and subsequently the High Court rejected the request, citing the need for Drug Disposal Committee (DDC) involvement as per Section 52A of the NDPS Act and related rules.
Key Legal Issues Addressed

1. Confiscation Proceedings and Vehicle Release
- The Supreme Court examined whether the release of a vehicle seized under the NDPS Act must always go through the DDC, even after acquittal.
- The Court noted that confiscation proceedings under the NDPS Act are distinct from criminal proceedings. Acquittal does not automatically entitle the owner to the vehicle’s release, as the standards of proof differ.
2. Court’s Power vs. DDC’s Role
- The Court clarified that the power to confiscate or release a vehicle lies with the trial court under Section 63(1) of the NDPS Act, not with the DDC.
- The NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, allow for disposal of seized items, but only with the court’s permission.
- The DDC cannot independently dispose of a vehicle without a court order, especially while criminal proceedings are pending.
3. Interim Custody and Final Release
- The Court distinguished between interim custody (during trial) and final release (after trial).
- If the owner or any claimant does not seek custody, the Investigating Officer may request the court to refer the vehicle to the DDC for disposal, but only after giving the owner an opportunity to be heard.
- Any proceeds from the sale of the vehicle by the DDC must be deposited with the jurisdictional court.
Supreme Court’s Decision
- The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the trial court and the High Court, directing the immediate release of the vehicle to the appellant (owner), as the accused had been acquitted and the prosecution’s case was found to be unreliable.
- The Court emphasized that the trial court’s original order to release the vehicle was justified and that the DDC’s involvement was not required in this scenario.
Implications of the Judgment
1. Reinforces Judicial Authority: The judgment reaffirms that the trial court has the primary authority to decide on the release or confiscation of vehicles seized under the NDPS Act.
2. Protects Owners’ Rights: Vehicle owners acquitted in NDPS cases can seek the return of their property directly from the court, without unnecessary procedural hurdles.
3. Clarifies DDC’s Limited Role: The DDC can only act with the court’s permission and cannot independently dispose of vehicles while criminal proceedings are ongoing or when the court has ordered release.
4. Ensures Due Process: The decision ensures that owners are given a fair opportunity to be heard before their property is disposed of, aligning with principles of natural justice.
Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in R Manimaran v. State of Tamil Nadu provides much-needed clarity on the process for releasing vehicles seized under the NDPS Act. By upholding the trial court’s authority and ensuring procedural fairness, the judgment balances the interests of law enforcement with the rights of property owners. This precedent will guide future cases involving the seizure and release of vehicles in NDPS matters.

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
September 8, 2026
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Refusal of “OFFER” Trademark Registration for Alcoholic Beverages
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 08.09.2026

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Refusal of “OFFER” Trademark Registration for Alcoholic Beverages

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

The Delhi High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in favor of ADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd., overturning the Registrar of Trade Marks’ refusal to register the trademark “OFFER” for alcoholic beverages. This decision not only impacts the parties involved but also clarifies important principles regarding trademark distinctiveness under Indian law.

Background of the Case

ADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd., a prominent player in the Indian liquor industry, applied for registration of the trademark “OFFER” in Class 33 (covering alcoholic beverages except beers) in July 2022. The company, known for brands like Royal Green Whisky and Double Blue Whisky, sought to secure statutory rights over the mark, arguing that it was arbitrary and inherently distinctive for their products.

However, the Registrar of Trade Marks refused the application, citing Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Registrar argued that “OFFER” was a common English word, used in the context of discounts or promotions, and thus lacked the required distinctiveness to function as a trademark.

Key Arguments

ADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd.’s Position
1. Arbitrary and Distinctive Mark: The company contended that “OFFER” is arbitrary in relation to alcoholic beverages and not commonly used in the industry as a brand name.
2. Registrar’s Non-Application of Mind: ADS Spirits argued that the Registrar failed to consider their detailed submissions, including examples of other registered marks containing the word “OFFER” and relevant case law.
3. Wrong Legal Test Applied: The refusal was based on the mark’s lack of “uniqueness,” whereas the law requires an assessment of “distinctiveness”—whether the mark can distinguish the applicant’s goods from others.
Registrar of Trade Marks’ Position
1. Common Usage: The Registrar maintained that “OFFER” is a generic term, commonly associated with discounts, and thus not unique or distinctive.
2. Sufficient Reasoning: It was argued that the order provided adequate reasoning and that detailed explanations were not legally required.
Court’s Analysis and Findings

Justice Jyoti Singh, presiding over the case, found several flaws in the Registrar’s approach:
1. Non-Speaking and Unreasoned Order: The Court criticized the Registrar for issuing a cryptic order that failed to address the applicant’s submissions or provide clear reasoning.
2. Incorrect Legal Standard: The Registrar wrongly focused on “uniqueness” instead of “distinctiveness.” The Court clarified that a mark need not be unique or novel; it must simply be capable of distinguishing the applicant’s goods.
3. Context Matters: The Court emphasized that distinctiveness must be assessed in relation to the specific goods. While “OFFER” is a common word, it is arbitrary when used for alcoholic beverages and not inherently promotional in this context.
4. Precedents Ignored: The Registrar overlooked relevant case law and examples of similar marks that had been registered in the past.
The Judgment

The Delhi High Court quashed the Registrar’s order, directing a fresh consideration of ADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd.’s application. The Court instructed the Registrar to:
- Re-examine the application using the correct legal test of distinctiveness under Section 9(1)(a).
- Consider all submissions, documents, and case law provided by the applicant.
- Provide a reasoned and speaking order after granting the applicant an opportunity to be heard.
The decision must be made within four months from the date of the judgment.

Implications of the Ruling

This judgment reinforces the importance of reasoned decision-making by quasi-judicial authorities and clarifies the legal standards for assessing trademark distinctiveness. It also highlights that even common English words can serve as trademarks if they are arbitrary in relation to the goods or services in question.

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
September 8, 2026
CESTAT Chennai on Refund of Excess Export Duty and Limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 08.09.2026

CESTAT Chennai on Refund of Excess Export Duty and Limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962

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 & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Chennai recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of JSW Steel Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, addressing the complex issue of export duty refunds and the application of statutory time limits. This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, its background, legal arguments, and the Tribunal’s final decision, offering valuable insights for exporters and legal professionals alike.

Case Background

JSW Steel Ltd. exported “Non Alloy Steel Slabs Export Prime Steel” under four shipping bills in June and July 2008. At the time, export duty was levied at 15% ad valorem, as per Notification No.66/2008-Cus. The company paid export duty based on the Free on Board (FOB) value declared in the shipping bills.

However, a subsequent CBEC Circular (No.18/2008-Cus dated 10.11.2008) clarified that until 31.12.2008, the FOB price should be treated as the cum-duty price for export duty computation. This clarification revealed that JSW Steel had overpaid export duty. Consequently, JSW filed a refund claim for Rs.1,61,96,066/- on 30.01.2009.

Chronology of Legal Proceedings
1. Initial Rejection: The refund claim was initially rejected as time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. First Appeal: The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed JSW’s appeal, holding that Section 27’s time limit did not apply.
3. Tribunal Remand: On Revenue’s appeal, the Tribunal remanded the case for reconsideration of facts and the applicability of Section 27.
4. Refund Sanctioned: The original authority, after reassessment, sanctioned the refund, recognizing the excess payment and the applicability of the CBEC Circular.
5. Revenue’s Appeal: The Commissioner (Appeals) again held the refund claim as time-barred, prompting JSW to appeal to CESTAT Chennai.
Key Legal Issues

1. Limitation Period for Refund Claims
- JSW’s Argument: The limitation period should run from the date of reassessment (21.09.2015), not the original payment date, as the excess payment was only recognized after the CBEC Circular and subsequent reassessment.
- Revenue’s Argument: The relevant date is the original payment date, making the refund claim time-barred under Section 27.
2. Nature of the Excess Payment
- JSW contended that the excess amount was not “duty” as defined under the Act, since it was collected without authority of law, and thus not subject to Section 27’s limitation.
3. Interest on Refund
- JSW also sought interest on the refunded amount, arguing that the delay was due to departmental actions.
Tribunal’s Analysis and Findings

A. Applicability of Section 27 Limitation
- The Tribunal held that the cause of action for refund arose only upon reassessment on 21.09.2015, when the excess payment was officially recognized.
- The refund application, though filed earlier, was linked to the reassessment, and thus not time-barred.
- The Tribunal rejected arguments to bypass Section 27 using the Limitation Act or Article 265 of the Constitution, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India.
B. Assessment and Reassessment
- The Tribunal clarified that the Note dated 21.09.2015 constituted a valid reassessment under Section 2(2) of the Customs Act.
- Only the excess amount, not reflected in the original assessment, was subject to refund upon reassessment.
C. Interest on Refund
- Interest under Section 27A is payable from three months after the date of reassessment (21.09.2015), not from the original refund application date.
- This aligns with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India.
Final Order and Implications
- The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restored the original order sanctioning the refund of Rs.1,61,96,066/- to JSW Steel Ltd.
- Interest is to be paid from 22.12.2015 (three months after reassessment) until the date of actual refund.
- The decision reinforces the principle that refund claims linked to reassessment are not time-barred from the original payment date, providing clarity for exporters facing similar issues.
Conclusion

The CESTAT Chennai’s decision in the JSW Steel Ltd. case sets an important precedent for the treatment of export duty refunds, particularly regarding the limitation period and the recognition of reassessment as the trigger for refund claims. Exporters and legal practitioners should carefully consider this ruling when dealing with similar disputes, ensuring that refund applications are aligned with the latest assessments and departmental clarifications.

Connected Matter

Gujarat High Court Order on IGST Refunds for Exporters

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 Chennai

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
September 8, 2026
Delhi High Court Invalidates Trademark Assignment, Affirms Corporate Ownership of ‘Su-Kam’ Brand
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 07.09.2026

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

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

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

Background of the Dispute

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

Key Arguments

Plaintiff’s Position
1. Continuous Use and Registration: Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. had registered the “Su-Kam” marks in Class 9 and used them extensively since 1998, with no objection from Mr. Sachdev during his tenure as managing director and majority shareholder.
2. Admissions by Defendant: Multiple instances were cited where Mr. Sachdev, in official documents and agreements (including with Reliance India Power Fund and in a 2015 infringement suit), acknowledged the company as the rightful owner of the trademarks.
3. Estoppel: The plaintiff argued that Mr. Sachdev was estopped from denying the company’s ownership due to his prior representations and conduct.
4. Invalid Assignment: The Deed of Assignment was challenged as invalid due to breach of fiduciary duty, lack of proper board authorization, and being executed by Mr. Sachdev in conflicting roles.
Defendant’s Position
1. Original Proprietorship: Mr. Sachdev claimed to have coined and used the “Su-Kam” mark since 1986, licensing it to his partnership firm and later to the company.
2. Validity of Assignment: He argued that the Deed of Assignment was valid and that the company was merely a licensee.
3. Need for Trial: The defense insisted that issues of fraud and document authenticity required oral evidence and could not be decided summarily.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
- Summary Judgment Justified: The court held that, under the Commercial Courts Act and Order XIIIA of the CPC, summary judgment was appropriate as the defendants had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim and there was no compelling reason for a full trial.
- Exclusive Proprietorship: The court found that Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. is the exclusive registered proprietor of the “Su-Kam” trademarks in Class 9, with valid and subsisting registrations renewed during Mr. Sachdev’s management.
- Invalidity of Assignment: The Deed of Assignment was declared void due to breach of fiduciary duty, lack of proper board quorum, and failure to register the assignment as required by law.
- Estoppel: Mr. Sachdev was estopped from claiming ownership, having repeatedly represented the company as the owner in various legal and commercial contexts.
- Limitation: The suit was held to be within limitation, as the cause of action arose only when Mr. Sachdev asserted ownership in 2018.
Final Judgment and Reliefs Granted

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

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

Conclusion

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

Connected Matter

Delhi High Court Safeguards PHENSEDYL Mark from Infringement and Passing Off

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

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

Source: Delhi High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi
September 7, 2026
Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Section 42 NDPS Act
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 07.09.2026

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Section 42 NDPS Act

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

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

Background of the Case

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

Trial and Conviction

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

Appeal and Legal Issues

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

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

The Supreme Court examined the facts and relevant legal precedents, including the Constitution Bench decision in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana and State of Rajasthan v. Jagraj Singh alias Hansa. The Court noted:
- The jeep was a private vehicle, not a public transport vehicle.
- Section 43 applies to public places and public conveyances, but a private vehicle does not fall under this definition, even if parked on a public road.
- Total non-compliance with Section 42 is impermissible. The police failed to record the secret information in writing or inform their superior, as required by Section 42.
The Court concluded that the lower courts erred in applying Section 43 instead of Section 42. Since there was total non-compliance with Section 42, the conviction could not be sustained.

Outcome and Implications

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

Key Takeaways
1. Distinction Between Section 42 and Section 43: Section 42 applies to private places and vehicles, requiring written recording of information and communication to a superior officer. Section 43 applies to public places and public conveyances.
2. Procedural Safeguards: Non-compliance with Section 42 is fatal to the prosecution’s case. Delayed compliance may be excused with satisfactory explanation, but total non-compliance is not permissible.
3. Impact on Future Cases: The judgment sets a precedent for strict adherence to procedural requirements in NDPS cases, ensuring protection against arbitrary search and seizure.
This case serves as a reminder that procedural lapses by law enforcement can lead to acquittal, even in serious offences under the NDPS Act.

Connected Matter

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

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

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

Source: Supreme Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi
September 7, 2026
Judicial Scrutiny of Confiscation and Penalty Orders on Restricted Second-Hand Imports
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 07.09.2026

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

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

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

Case Background

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

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

Key Legal Issues

1. Classification and Restriction of Goods
- The core issue was whether the imported machine was a second-hand good and thus restricted under the FTP.
- The examination report and a Chartered Engineer’s certificate confirmed the goods were second-hand, aged over six months, with a residual life of over six years.
- As per FTP 2015-2020, import of second-hand goods (other than capital goods) is restricted and requires authorization.
2. Confiscation and Redemption Fine
- Section 125 of the Customs Act allows authorities discretion to offer redemption of confiscated goods upon payment of a fine, except in cases where absolute confiscation is warranted.
- The Tribunal emphasized that this discretion must be exercised judiciously, with clear reasoning, and not as a mere formality.
- The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on Supreme Court precedent (Union of India vs. Raj Grow Impex LLP) to justify absolute confiscation, but the Tribunal found the facts distinguishable and the reasoning insufficient for denying redemption.
3. Penalty Provisions and Enhancement
- The original penalty was imposed under Section 112(a), but the Commissioner (Appeals) enhanced it under Section 114AA, which deals with fraudulent documents.
- The Tribunal held that these sections address different types of violations and that the enhancement was not justified in this context.
Tribunal’s Findings and Decision
- The Tribunal found that the goods were indeed second-hand and restricted, but not absolutely prohibited.
- There was no evidence of fraud or mala fide intent by the importer.
- The original authority’s decision to allow redemption on payment of fine was appropriate.
- The enhancement of penalty and order of absolute confiscation by the Commissioner (Appeals) were set aside.
- The appeal was allowed, restoring the original order: goods could be redeemed on payment of fine, and the lower penalty was reinstated.
Legal and Practical Implications
1. Discretion in Confiscation: Authorities must provide clear, reasoned justification when exercising discretion, especially when opting for absolute confiscation over redemption.
2. Penalty Assessment: Penalties must be proportionate and based on the specific nature of the violation; enhancement requires a solid legal basis.
3. Importer Responsibilities: Importers must ensure compliance with FTP and maintain documentation to establish the nature and condition of imported goods.
4. Precedent Value: The case clarifies the application of Supreme Court judgments and the limits of administrative discretion in customs matters.
Conclusion

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

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

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

Source: CESTAT Bangalore

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi
September 7, 2026
Supreme Court Sets Zero Tolerance for AI-Generated Fake Legal Citations
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 07.09.2026

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

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

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

Background of the Case
- Case Origin: The appellant, Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya, was penalized by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Surat, for mis-declaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to evade higher tariffs. The penalty imposed was Rs. 425,27,99,100 under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.
- Legal Journey: Gadiya’s challenge to the penalty was dismissed by the High Court of Gujarat. The matter was then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Discovery of AI-Generated Fake Citations
- Appellant’s Contention: During the Supreme Court proceedings, it was argued that several judgments and articles cited by the customs authority in their original order were generated using AI and were either non-existent or had fake citations.
- Supreme Court’s Verification: The Court independently verified these references and found that:
  - Some cited case laws did not exist or had fabricated citations.
  - Some existing cases were misrepresented, with AI “hallucinating” legal principles not actually present in those judgments.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling

Zero Tolerance for Fake AI-Generated Precedents
- The Court emphasized a zero-tolerance policy for producing, citing, or using AI-generated precedents without proper verification.
- It declared that:
  1. Advocates citing such unverified AI-generated judgments commit misconduct.
  2. Judges relying on fake or hallucinated AI-generated material commit a serious lapse.
  3. Any decision influenced by such material is invalid and must be set aside, even if the fake material had only an indirect impact.
Integrity in Judicial Decision-Making
- The Court stressed the necessity of maintaining the sanctity and integrity of the adjudication process.
- It clarified that while AI can be a valuable assistive tool, it must never replace human adjudication. AI should serve as “training wheels,” not as the “pilot” in judicial decision-making.
Outcome of the Case
- The Supreme Court set aside both the High Court’s order and the original penalty order.
- The case was remanded for fresh adjudication by a different officer of the same rank.
- The Court left it to the appointing authority to consider disciplinary action against the author of the flawed order.
Broader Implications for the Legal System

Responsible Use of AI in Courts
- The judgment acknowledges the growing role of AI in legal research and court processes, referencing the Supreme Court’s draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts (2026).
- However, it draws a clear line: AI-generated content must be rigorously verified before being used in legal arguments or judgments.
Safeguarding Legal Integrity
- The ruling serves as a warning to both the Bar and the Bench against the uncritical adoption of AI-generated legal materials.
- It reinforces the principle that the legitimacy of judicial decisions depends on the authenticity and accuracy of the sources relied upon.
Conclusion

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

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

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

Source: Supreme Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi
September 7, 2026
Kerala High Court Clarifies Mandatory Compliance with Section 42 NDPS Act for Searches of Private Vehicles at Night: Bail Granted for Procedural Lapses in Narcotics
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 05.09.2026

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

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

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

Background of the Case

The order pertains to two bail applications:
1. Bail Appl. No. 2849 of 2026: Filed by Muhammed Sahal, accused in Crime No. 60/2025 of Malappuram Excise Range Office.
2. Bail Appl. No. 2650 of 2026: Filed by Akshay Saju and Revins Raj, accused in Crime No. 111/2026 of Peechi Police Station, Thrissur.
All applicants were charged under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act for alleged possession of narcotic drugs in commercial quantities and had been in judicial custody for several months.

Core Legal Issue

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

Legal Provisions Discussed

Section 42 NDPS Act
- Governs search, seizure, and arrest without warrant in buildings, conveyances, or enclosed places based on prior information.
- Requires the officer to record information in writing and, if the search is between sunset and sunrise, to record and forward the grounds of belief to a superior within 72 hours.
Section 43 NDPS Act
- Applies to search and seizure in public places or in transit.
- Does not require the same procedural safeguards as Section 42 for searches in public places.
Judicial Reasoning
- The Court clarified that private vehicles, even when located in public places, are considered private places for the purpose of Section 42.
- Supreme Court precedents (e.g., Boota Singh v. State of Haryana, Jagraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan) were cited, affirming that compliance with Section 42 is mandatory for searches of private vehicles in public places, especially between sunset and sunrise.
- In both cases, the officers failed to provide adequate grounds of belief justifying the absence of a warrant, as required by the proviso to Section 42(1).
- The documents labeled as “grounds of belief” did not contain the statutory satisfaction that obtaining a warrant would have led to concealment of evidence or escape of offenders.
Outcome and Bail Conditions

Given the total non-compliance with Section 42, the Court granted bail to the applicants, subject to strict conditions:
1. Execution of a bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties.
2. Full cooperation with the investigation.
3. Mandatory weekly appearance before the investigating officer.
4. No commission of similar offences while on bail.
5. No contact with prosecution witnesses or tampering with evidence.
6. No travel outside Kerala without court permission.
7. Any application for modification or cancellation of bail conditions to be filed in the jurisdictional court.
Significance of the Order
- Reinforces procedural safeguards: The order underscores the importance of strict compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, especially in cases involving private vehicles.
- Sets precedent for future cases: The decision provides clear guidance for law enforcement and the judiciary on the distinction between public and private places under the NDPS Act.
- Protects individual rights: By insisting on adherence to statutory procedures, the Court ensures that the rights of the accused are protected against unlawful search and seizure.
Conclusion

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

Connected Matter

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Section 42 NDPS Act

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

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

Source: Kerala High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi
September 5, 2026
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Pre-CIRP Demand Notices: Application of Clean Slate Theory Post-IBC Resolution Plan Approval
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 05.09.2026

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

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

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

Background of the Case

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

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

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

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents

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

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

Extinguishment of Pre-CIRP Claims

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

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

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

Connected Matter

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

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

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

Source: Delhi High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi
September 5, 2026
Delhi High Court Safeguards PHENSEDYL Mark from Infringement and Passing Off
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 05.09.2026

Delhi High Court Safeguards PHENSEDYL Mark from Infringement and Passing Off

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

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

Background of the Case
- Plaintiff: Opella Healthcare Group, part of the global Sanofi Group, a major player in pharmaceuticals.
- Defendant: Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd.
- Dispute: The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s use of the mark “PHENSERYL” and similar packaging was deceptively similar to their registered trademark “PHENSEDYL”, leading to trademark infringement and passing off.
Key Facts
1. History of the PHENSEDYL Mark:
  - Adopted in 1954 for pharmaceutical products treating symptoms like running nose, sneezing, and throat irritation.
  - Registered in India since 21 July 1954 in Class 05 (pharmaceutical preparations for human and veterinary use).
  - Widely marketed in India since 1995, with distinctive blue and pink packaging.
2. Defendant’s Actions:
  - Registered the mark “PHENSERYL” in Class 05, claiming use since December 2016.
  - Adopted similar trade dress and packaging, leading to confusion among consumers.
3. Legal Proceedings:
  - Plaintiff filed for a permanent injunction and rectification of the defendant’s trademark and copyright registrations.
  - The court had previously cancelled the defendant’s registrations, finding them deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s mark.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
- Ex Parte Proceedings: The defendant failed to appear in court, and the matter proceeded ex parte.
- Prior Use and Goodwill: The court recognized Opella Healthcare Group as the prior adopter and continuous user of the “PHENSEDYL” mark, with substantial goodwill and reputation in India.
- Deceptive Similarity:
  - The marks “PHENSEDYL” and “PHENSERYL” were found to be visually and phonetically similar.
  - The packaging and trade dress used by the defendant closely resembled that of the plaintiff, increasing the likelihood of consumer confusion.
- Public Interest in Pharmaceuticals:
  - The court emphasized that confusion in pharmaceutical products can be life-threatening, not just inconvenient, citing Supreme Court precedent.
  - A higher threshold for proving confusing similarity applies in the pharmaceutical sector.
- Summary Judgment:
  - The court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, noting that the defendant had no real prospect of defending the claims.
  - The suit was decreed in favor of Opella Healthcare Group, granting a permanent injunction against the defendant.
Implications of the Judgment
1. Strengthening Trademark Protection:
  - The judgment reinforces the importance of protecting established pharmaceutical trademarks against deceptively similar marks.
2. Consumer Safety:
  - By preventing confusion between medicinal products, the court prioritized public health and safety.
3. Judicial Efficiency:
  - The use of summary judgment procedures in commercial disputes ensures timely resolution, especially when the defendant lacks a credible defense.
Conclusion

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

Connected Matter

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

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

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

Source: Delhi High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi
September 5, 2026