𝐀𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐚 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #ParaLegalServices

CESTAT Chandigarh Clarifies Classification of Aluminum Profiles for Solar Panel Manufacturing
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 29.08.2026

CESTAT Chandigarh Clarifies Classification of Aluminum Profiles for Solar Panel Manufacturing

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 .

Saatvik Green Energy Limited, a leading manufacturer of solar photovoltaic modules, recently secured a significant victory before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Chandigarh. The case revolved around the customs classification and duty assessment of imported aluminum profiles used in solar panel manufacturing—a dispute with far-reaching implications for the renewable energy sector and importers of industrial components.

Background: The Dispute Over Aluminum Profiles

Saatvik Green Energy imported “Aluminum Hollow Profiles” for use in manufacturing solar PV modules. These were declared under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 76042100, which covers aluminum bars, rods, and profiles of aluminum alloys (hollow profiles). However, the commercial invoices described the goods as “Aluminum Solar Frame.” Saatvik claimed that these profiles underwent substantial processing before being incorporated into finished solar modules.

The Customs Department, after an audit, argued that the goods should be classified under CTH 76169990 (other articles of aluminum), not as hollow profiles. This reclassification would attract a higher basic customs duty (BCD) and deny the benefit of concessional duty under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. The department issued a show cause notice demanding differential duty of nearly Rs. 6 crore, along with interest, penalties, and a hefty redemption fine.

Key Legal Issues Examined

The Tribunal considered several critical questions:
1. Correct Classification: Should the imported goods be classified as hollow profiles (CTI 76042100) or as finished aluminum frames (CTH 76169990)?
2. Eligibility for Duty Exemption: Was Saatvik entitled to the concessional duty benefit under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus for goods used in manufacturing solar PV modules?
3. Applicability of Extended Limitation Period: Could the department invoke the extended period for demanding duty in a bona fide classification dispute?
4. Sustainability of Penalties and Fines: Were confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties justified?
Tribunal’s Analysis and Findings

1. Classification Must Reflect Goods as Imported

The Tribunal emphasized that classification should be based on the goods’ objective characteristics at the time of import—not their intended use or commercial description. The mere labeling of goods as “Aluminum Solar Frame” in invoices was not conclusive. The Tribunal found:
- The imported profiles, though cut to size, retained the essential character of hollow profiles.
- Cutting profiles to shorter lengths is a standard industry practice and does not transform them into finished articles.
- There was no evidence that the goods had become complete frames or articles of aluminum at the time of import.
2. Specific vs. Residual Tariff Headings

The Tribunal reiterated that a specific tariff heading (CTI 76042100 for profiles) prevails over a residual heading (CTH 76169990 for other articles of aluminum). Since the goods fit the definition of profiles, they could not be classified under the more general heading.

3. Eligibility for Duty Exemption

Saatvik had followed all procedural requirements for concessional duty, including providing end-use certificates. The Tribunal held that the exemption under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus was available for goods used in manufacturing solar PV modules, regardless of their precise classification within Chapter 76, as long as the end-use condition was satisfied.

4. No Grounds for Penalties or Extended Limitation

The Tribunal found no evidence of willful misstatement, suppression, or fraud. The dispute was purely interpretational. Therefore, extended limitation, penalties, and redemption fines were not sustainable.

Final Order and Impact

The CESTAT set aside the Commissioner’s order, holding:
- The goods are classifiable under CTI 76042100 (aluminum hollow profiles).
- Saatvik is eligible for the concessional duty benefit for imports made before 1 April 2022 (when the notification was amended).
- All penalties, fines, and demands were quashed.
This ruling provides clarity for importers of industrial components, especially in the renewable energy sector, reinforcing the principle that classification must be based on the goods’ condition at import—not on commercial labels or intended use. It also underscores the importance of following procedural requirements to avail duty exemptions.

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 Chandigarh

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
August 29, 2026
Jurisdictional Bar of Civil Courts in Real Estate Disputes: under Section 79 of RERA
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 27.08.2026

Jurisdictional Bar of Civil Courts in Real Estate Disputes: under Section 79 of RERA

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

A recent judgment by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Joydeep Roy & Anr. vs. Srijan Residency LLP & Ors. sheds light on the complexities of real estate transactions, contractual disputes, and the jurisdictional boundaries set by the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). This article provides a detailed overview of the case, the legal arguments presented, and the implications for homebuyers and developers.

Background of the Case

Joydeep Roy, an advocate, and a co-plaintiff, an assistant professor, decided to purchase a flat in the Royal Ganges Project developed by Srijan Residency LLP. After discussions, they booked a flat, paid the booking amount, and received a provisional allotment letter. They also secured a housing loan and paid the required stamp duty for registration.

However, upon receiving the draft agreement for sale, the plaintiffs objected to several clauses they considered arbitrary and unlawful. These included:
- The developer’s right to mortgage the property even after the buyer had paid for it.
- Clauses allowing discontinuation of essential services (electricity, water, entry) for non-payment of maintenance.
- A provision enabling the promoter or association to sell the flat if maintenance arrears exceeded Rs. 50,000.
The plaintiffs requested the removal of these clauses, but the developer refused and subsequently cancelled the booking, prompting the plaintiffs to seek legal recourse.

Legal Proceedings and Arguments

Plaintiffs’ Stand

The plaintiffs approached the Civil Court seeking an injunction to prevent the developer from creating third-party interests in the property. Their main arguments were:
1. The contested clauses were against public policy and unfair to buyers.
2. The cancellation of the booking was arbitrary and violated natural justice.
3. The plaintiffs had fulfilled their obligations and were entitled to relief under the Specific Relief Act.
Defendants’ Stand

The developer argued that:
1. The suit was not maintainable in Civil Court due to Section 79 of the RERA Act, which bars civil courts from entertaining matters under RERA’s purview.
2. The plaintiffs had already approached the West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority (WB RERA), and thus could not simultaneously seek relief from the Civil Court.
3. The developer retained the right to mortgage the property until ownership was transferred.
Court’s Analysis and Judgment

Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury examined the following key points:
- Jurisdiction: Section 79 of the RERA Act clearly bars civil courts from adjudicating matters that fall under the authority of RERA. The Supreme Court’s judgment in Imperia Structures Limited vs. Anil Patani reinforced this position.
- Nature of Agreement: The court found that mere submission of a booking form and payment did not constitute a binding agreement, especially since the plaintiffs did not accept the draft agreement’s terms.
- Plaintiffs’ Conduct: The plaintiffs had already approached WB RERA before filing the civil suit, indicating awareness of the appropriate forum for their grievance.
The court dismissed the application, holding that the civil suit and subsequent appeal were not maintainable due to the statutory bar under RERA. However, it clarified that the merits of the case were not decided, and the plaintiffs could seek redressal before the appropriate forum.

Key Takeaways for Homebuyers and Developers
1. Jurisdiction Matters: Disputes related to real estate transactions covered by RERA must be addressed before the regulatory authority, not civil courts.
2. Contractual Clarity: Buyers should carefully review all clauses in draft agreements and seek clarification or modification before making substantial payments.
3. Remedies Available: While RERA provides a specialized forum for real estate disputes, buyers may have additional remedies under consumer protection laws, depending on the circumstances.
4. Developers’ Obligations: Developers must ensure that contractual clauses comply with public policy and regulatory standards to avoid legal challenges.
Conclusion

The Joydeep Roy & Anr. vs. Srijan Residency LLP & Ors. case underscores the importance of understanding the legal framework governing real estate transactions in India. Both buyers and developers must be aware of their rights, obligations, and the appropriate forums for dispute resolution to ensure fair and transparent dealings.

Connected Matter

Maintainability of Civil Suits for Permanent Injunction in Real Estate Disputes Post-RERA

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

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

Source: Calcutta High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com
August 27, 2026
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award on Escalation and Loss of Profit: A Precedent on Contractual Damages and Judicial Review in Arbitration
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 27.08.2026

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award on Escalation and Loss of Profit: A Precedent on Contractual Damages and Judicial Review in Arbitration

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

The Delhi High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Budhiraja Electricals vs. Public Works Department (PWD), Government of NCT of Delhi. This case revolved around the enforcement and challenge of an arbitral award arising from a construction contract dispute. The judgment provides valuable insights into the interpretation of escalation and loss of profit claims, the scope of arbitral awards, and the limited grounds for judicial interference under Indian arbitration law.

Background of the Dispute
- Parties Involved:
  - Budhiraja Electricals (electrical sub-contractor)
  - Public Works Department, Government of NCT of Delhi (employer)
  - M/s Parnika Commercial & Estate Pvt. Ltd. (main contractor)
- Project: Construction of EDP Cell-cum-Referral Clinic/Administrative Block-cum-OPD Block and Additional Basement Parking at G.B. Pant Hospital, New Delhi.
- Timeline:
  - Work started: 11 January 2006
  - Stipulated completion: 10 July 2008
  - Actual completion: 30 November 2011 (delay regularized without compensation)
Origin of the Arbitration

Disputes arose over:
- Escalation claims under Clause 10CC of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC)
- Compensation for staff deployment and watch & ward during the extended period
- Loss of turnover/profitability
- Withheld amounts and interest
The matter was referred to arbitration, resulting in an award favoring Budhiraja Electricals for several claims, including escalation and loss of profits.

Legal Proceedings
- Objection Petition: PWD challenged the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, focusing on escalation (Claim 3) and loss of profits (Claim 6).
- Enforcement Petition: Budhiraja Electricals sought enforcement of the award.
Key Legal Issues and Arguments

1. Escalation Under Clause 10CC (Claim 3)
- PWD’s Argument: Escalation is only payable for work done within the stipulated contract period, not for the extended period, as per Clause 10CC.
- Budhiraja Electricals’ Argument: Claimed damages under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act for the extended period, using Clause 10CC’s formula for quantification.
2. Loss of Turnover/Profitability (Claim 6)
- PWD’s Argument: No contractual basis for this claim; no evidence of actual loss or missed opportunities.
- Budhiraja Electricals’ Argument: Prolongation of contract led to loss of anticipated profits, calculated using CPWD guidelines (15% of contract value).
Court’s Analysis and Findings

Scope of Judicial Review

The Court reiterated that under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, judicial interference is limited to grounds such as conflict with public policy, patent illegality, or perversity. The Court does not act as an appellate body to re-examine facts or evidence unless the award is irrational or unsupported by evidence.

Escalation Claim (Claim 3)
- Finding: Clause 10CC explicitly restricts escalation to the stipulated contract period. The arbitrator erred by awarding escalation for the extended period without proof of actual loss, relying solely on a formula that was contractually inapplicable.
- Result: The award for escalation beyond the stipulated period was set aside.
Loss of Profit Claim (Claim 6)
- Finding: The arbitrator granted damages based on a notional percentage (CPWD memo) without evidence of actual loss, missed opportunities, or financial detriment. The Court emphasized that damages must be proven, not presumed.
- Result: The award for loss of profits was set aside.
Interest on Claims
- Finding: Since the principal claims (escalation and loss of profits) were set aside, the corresponding interest awards could not survive.
Conclusion and Impact
- The Court set aside the arbitral award to the extent it related to escalation for the extended period, loss of profits, and corresponding interest.
- The remaining portions of the award, not challenged, remain enforceable.
- The judgment reinforces the principle that arbitral awards must be based on contractual terms and supported by evidence, especially for damages and escalation claims.
Key Takeaways for Contractors and Employers
1. Strict Adherence to Contract Terms: Claims for escalation or damages must align with the express provisions of the contract.
2. Proof of Actual Loss: Damages for loss of profits or escalation during extended periods require credible evidence, not just formulaic calculations.
3. Limited Judicial Review: Courts will not re-examine facts unless the award is perverse, patently illegal, or contrary to public policy.
4. Importance of Reasoned Awards: Arbitrators must provide clear, evidence-based reasoning for their decisions.
This judgment serves as a crucial precedent for construction contracts and arbitration in India, highlighting the need for clarity in contract drafting and the evidentiary burden for claims beyond stipulated terms.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Connected Matter

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award: Contractual Compliance and Natural Justice in Construction Disputes

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
August 27, 2026
Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction Under Section 396 IPC: Legal Requirement of Five or More Persons for Dacoity
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 27.08.2026

Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction Under Section 396 IPC: Legal Requirement of Five or More Persons for Dacoity

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

The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment delivered on April 7, 2008, addressed the conviction of Raj Kumar @ Raju under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for dacoity with murder. This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, the legal principles involved, and the implications of the verdict.

Background of the Case
- Incident: On September 24, 1982, Tilak Raj returned home to find his wife, Kamlesh Kumari, being dragged by Raj Kumar @ Raju and three others, all armed with knives. The accused looted the house and murdered Kamlesh Kumari before fleeing.
- Investigation: The police arrested six individuals, including Raj Kumar @ Raju, and charged them under Sections 396 (dacoity with murder), 412 (receiving stolen property), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC.
- Trial Court Verdict: The II Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, convicted four accused under Section 396, sentencing them to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. Two accused were acquitted due to insufficient evidence.
- Appeals: The High Court of Uttaranchal upheld the convictions. Raj Kumar @ Raju appealed to the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues

1. Minimum Number of Accused for Dacoity
- Section 391 IPC: Defines dacoity as a robbery committed by five or more persons acting conjointly.
- Section 396 IPC: Prescribes punishment for dacoity with murder, requiring the involvement of at least five persons.
- Supreme Court’s Analysis: The Court emphasized that conviction under Section 396 is not sustainable if fewer than five persons are found guilty, unless there is clear evidence that more than five participated but only some could be identified.
2. Acquittal of Co-Accused
- The trial court acquitted two out of six accused without finding that unidentified persons were also involved. Thus, only four were convicted, failing the statutory requirement for dacoity.
3. Precedents Cited
- The judgment referenced several Supreme Court decisions, including Ram Lakhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Saktu & Anr. v. State of U.P., reinforcing that at least five persons must be established as participants for a conviction under dacoity provisions.
Supreme Court’s Decision
- Acquittal: The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of Raj Kumar @ Raju under Section 396, IPC, and ordered his immediate release, as the essential ingredient of five or more persons was not met.
- Legal Principle: The Court clarified that unless the presence of five or more persons is unquestionably established, a conviction for dacoity (and by extension, dacoity with murder) cannot stand.
Implications of the Judgment
1. Strict Adherence to Statutory Requirements: The case underscores the necessity for courts to strictly adhere to the statutory definition of dacoity.
2. Importance of Evidence: Convictions cannot be based on assumptions or incomplete identification; clear evidence of the number of participants is crucial.
3. Guidance for Future Trials: The judgment serves as a precedent for lower courts in interpreting group crime provisions under the IPC.
Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Raj Kumar @ Raju vs. State of Uttaranchal is a landmark in criminal jurisprudence, reinforcing the principle that criminal liability must be established beyond reasonable doubt and in strict conformity with statutory requirements. This decision not only acquitted the appellant but also clarified the legal standards for convictions under dacoity-related offences.

Connected Matter

Delhi High Court Acquits Accused in Dacoity Preparation: Emphasizes Mandatory Requirement of Five Persons Under Sections 399/402 IPC

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
August 27, 2026
Karnataka High Court on Quashing FIRs and Charge Sheets Against Juveniles in Multiple Udupi District Cases
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 27.08.2026

Karnataka High Court on Quashing FIRs and Charge Sheets Against Juveniles in Multiple Udupi District Cases

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate G Sridharamurthy. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id sriadv3@gmail.com .

This article provides a detailed overview of a recent set of criminal petitions adjudicated by the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, on December 1, 2025. The cases involve two minors, Eashan Shetty and Yayin Shetty, represented by their mother, Vinutha Shetty, who sought to quash multiple FIRs and charge sheets filed against them in various police stations in Udupi District. The petitions were heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Nawaz.

Background of the Cases

The minors were implicated in several criminal cases registered at different police stations, including Shirva, Kundapura, and Manipal. The petitions were filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha (BNSS), 2023, seeking to quash the complaints, FIRs, and charge sheets pending before the Juvenile Justice Board and other courts in Udupi.

Summary of Petitions
1. CRL.P No. 10064/2025 (Shirva Police Station)
  - Allegation: Theft of a two-wheeler (KA20-HC-1654) parked in front of Asha Complex, Bantkal, Shirva Village.
  - Outcome:
    
    The court found that the vehicle was recovered at the instance of Petitioner No. 1 (Eashan Shetty), and the voluntary statement of both petitioners could not be used as substantial evidence against Petitioner No. 2 (Yayin Shetty).
    
    Result: Proceedings against Petitioner No. 2 were quashed; proceedings against Petitioner No. 1 continue.
2. CRL.P No. 10038/2025 (Kundapura Police Station)
  - Allegation: Attempted break-in and robbery at Sai Dream Car Showroom, Beejadi Village, using an iron rod and hammer. The petitioners were named in the FIR and apprehended with incriminating items.
  - Outcome:
    
    The court found a prima facie case against both petitioners based on direct identification and recovery of evidence.
    
    Result: Petition to quash proceedings was dismissed; the case will proceed.
3. CRL.P No. 10167/2025 (Manipal Police Station)
  - Allegation: Involvement in a public quarrel and nuisance near Perampalli Church, Shivalli Village, following a dispute over car hire charges. The FIR contained vague and omnibus allegations.
  - Outcome:
    
    The court noted insufficient material and lack of specific allegations against the petitioners.
    
    Result: Proceedings against both petitioners were quashed.
4. CRL.P No. 10332/2025 (Kundapura Police Station)
  - Allegation: Theft of a Honda Dio Scooty (KA-20-EC-4314) from the complainant, Ganesha, with the vehicle recovered from the petitioners. The incident was linked to the attempted robbery in the previous case.
  - Outcome:
    
    The court found a prima facie case and refused to quash the proceedings.
    
    Result: Petition dismissed; the case will proceed.
Legal Principles and Court’s Reasoning
- Quashing of Proceedings: The court emphasized that proceedings can only be quashed when there is a clear lack of evidence or when allegations are vague and unspecific. In cases where direct evidence or recovery is present, the court is reluctant to interfere at the preliminary stage.
- Juvenile Justice Considerations: The court ensured that the rights of minors were protected, especially when evidence was insufficient or when the only basis was a voluntary statement not corroborated by other material.
Implications for Juvenile Justice in Karnataka
- Protection of Minors: The judgment reinforces the principle that minors should not face criminal proceedings without substantial evidence.
- Due Process: The court’s approach highlights the importance of due process and careful scrutiny of evidence, especially in cases involving children in conflict with law.
- Early Disposal: The court directed lower courts to ensure early disposal of pending cases involving juveniles, recognizing the need for swift justice in such matters.
Conclusion

The High Court’s rulings in these petitions underscore the balance between upholding the law and safeguarding the rights of minors. By quashing proceedings where evidence was lacking and allowing cases with prima facie evidence to proceed, the court has set a precedent for careful judicial scrutiny in juvenile justice cases in Karnataka.

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
August 27, 2026
Supreme Court Affirms Acquittal Under Sections 8/18(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 27.08.2026

Supreme Court Affirms Acquittal Under Sections 8/18(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

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 judgment, upheld the acquittal of Jarooparam, who was charged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). This article provides a comprehensive overview of the case, the legal issues involved, and the reasoning behind the Court’s decision.

Background of the Case

On May 11, 2004, law enforcement authorities intercepted Jarooparam and two others at Bhilkhanda Square, seizing 7.2 kg of opium from their possession. The authorities prepared two samples of 30 grams each from the seized material and marked them for evidence. Jarooparam was arrested, and a complaint was filed under Sections 8/18 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The trial court convicted him, sentencing him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.

High Court Proceedings

Jarooparam appealed to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which acquitted him. The High Court found several procedural lapses:
1. Improper Disposal of Seized Property: The bulk quantity of opium was not disposed of by the Executive Magistrate as required by law. Instead, after sampling, the remaining contraband was returned to the investigating officer without proper judicial authorization or documentation.
2. Doubtful Evidence Handling: The prosecution failed to produce the bulk quantity of opium during the trial, raising doubts about the authenticity of the samples presented as evidence.
3. Questionable Confessional Statement: The accused’s confession under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was recorded while he was in police custody, and there were allegations that his signature was obtained on blank papers. The High Court found this confession unreliable.
4. Hostile Witnesses: Independent witnesses presented by the prosecution turned hostile, further weakening the case.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment

The Union of India appealed the High Court’s acquittal to the Supreme Court. After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court concurred with the High Court’s findings, emphasizing the following points:
- Mandatory Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act: The law requires that seized narcotics be disposed of only after a Magistrate’s order. In this case, there was no such order or application for disposal, and the prosecution failed to explain the fate of the bulk contraband.
- Evidentiary Gaps: The absence of the bulk opium at trial and the lack of proper documentation undermined the prosecution’s case. The Court noted that the destruction or disposal of evidence must be properly authorized and documented to maintain the chain of custody and evidentiary value.
- Unreliable Confession: The confession was not considered voluntary, as it was obtained while the accused was in custody and without proper safeguards.
Final Outcome

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the Union of India, affirming the acquittal of Jarooparam. The Court highlighted the importance of strict procedural compliance in narcotics cases, given the severe penalties involved.

Key Takeaways
1. Strict Adherence to Procedure: Law enforcement must strictly follow procedures for seizure, sampling, and disposal of narcotics to ensure the integrity of evidence.
2. Judicial Oversight: Disposal or destruction of seized contraband must be authorized by a competent court, with proper documentation and notice to the accused.
3. Voluntariness of Confession: Confessions obtained in custody without safeguards are likely to be disregarded by courts.
4. Role of Independent Witnesses: Hostile or unreliable witnesses can significantly weaken the prosecution’s case.
This judgment serves as a reminder of the critical role of due process and evidentiary safeguards in criminal prosecutions under the NDPS Act.

Connected Matter

Supreme Court Clarifies Electronic Evidence and Re-trial Principles in 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: 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
August 27, 2026
Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Customs Ruling, Orders Fresh Review of Halton India’s Kitchen Exhaust Hood Classification
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 27.08.2026

Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Customs Ruling, Orders Fresh Review of Halton India’s Kitchen Exhaust Hood Classification

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

In a significant development for importers and the ventilation industry, the High Court of Karnataka has set aside a customs ruling concerning the classification of kitchen exhaust hoods imported by Halton India Private Limited. The matter has been remitted back to the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR) for reconsideration, giving the company a fresh opportunity to present its case.

Background of the Case

Halton India Private Limited, a company specializing in ventilation solutions, regularly imports kitchen exhaust hoods from its Malaysian manufacturing unit for use in commercial kitchens across India. These hoods are designed to capture and remove heat, smoke, grease, steam, and odors from kitchen environments.

Historically, Halton India classified these imports under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 84148090 (“Other”), a residuary entry under Chapter 8414 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Seeking a more precise classification, the company applied to the CAAR to reclassify its products under CTH 84145990 (“Others”), which specifically covers ventilating or recycling hoods incorporating a fan.

The Dispute

The central issue was whether the imported kitchen exhaust hoods contained fans, which would determine their correct tariff classification. Halton India asserted that their products did include fans, while the CAAR concluded otherwise, ruling that the products did not contain fans and thus did not qualify for the requested classification.

A procedural error complicated the matter: Halton India attempted to submit additional supporting documents via email but inadvertently sent them to the wrong address. As a result, the CAAR did not consider these materials when making its decision, noting in its order that no additional submissions had been received.

The Appeal to the High Court

Halton India appealed the CAAR’s decision to the High Court of Karnataka under Section 28-KA of the Customs Act, 1962. The company argued that it should be given another opportunity to present its evidence, as the failure to submit the documents correctly was a bona fide mistake. The customs authorities, on the other hand, maintained that the CAAR had made a proper decision based on the materials available at the time.

The High Court’s Judgment

After hearing both parties, the High Court found that the CAAR’s decision was made without considering potentially crucial evidence. The Court emphasized the need for a factual determination on whether the kitchen exhaust hoods indeed contain fans, as this would directly impact their classification under the customs tariff.

Key Directions from the Court:
1. Order Set Aside: The High Court set aside the CAAR’s previous order dated 25 March 2026.
2. Remand for Reconsideration: The matter was remitted back to the CAAR for fresh consideration.
3. Opportunity to Submit Evidence: Halton India was granted 15 days to submit additional materials or evidence to the CAAR via the correct email address.
4. Fresh Decision Required: The CAAR was directed to review the new submissions and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law.
Implications for Importers and Industry

This judgment underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the opportunity for parties to present all relevant evidence in customs classification disputes. It also highlights the technical nuances involved in classifying imported goods, where the presence or absence of specific features (such as a fan in an exhaust hood) can significantly affect tariff treatment and associated duties.

For importers and businesses, the case serves as a reminder to ensure accurate and timely submission of all supporting documentation in regulatory proceedings. For authorities, it reinforces the need to base decisions on a complete and properly submitted evidentiary record.

The outcome of the reconsideration by the CAAR will determine the final classification and duty implications for Halton India’s kitchen exhaust hoods, potentially setting a precedent for similar cases in the future.

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
August 27, 2026
Supreme Court Clarifies Electronic Evidence and Re-trial Principles in NDPS Act
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 26.08.2026

Supreme Court Clarifies Electronic Evidence and Re-trial Principles in 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 .

This article provides a comprehensive overview and analysis of the Supreme Court of India’s judgment in the case of Kailas S/o Bajirao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, a significant decision concerning the admissibility of electronic evidence and procedural safeguards in trials under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

Background of the Case
1. Incident and Charges
  - The appellant, Kailas, along with three others, was charged under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act for possession and sale of Ganja.
  - The prosecution’s case was based on a raid following a tip-off, resulting in the seizure of 39 kg of Ganja from a hut and 107.9 kg from another location.
  - The raid and seizure were video-recorded, and several witnesses, including police officers, a photographer, and panch witnesses, were examined during the trial.
2. Trial Court Proceedings
  - The Trial Court convicted Kailas and another accused, relying heavily on the video evidence and oral testimonies.
  - The video was played in court, and a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act was provided by the photographer, fulfilling the legal requirements for electronic evidence.
3. High Court Appeal and Order for Re-trial
  - The High Court set aside the conviction and ordered a re-trial, citing procedural lapses:
    
    The video was not played during the deposition of each witness, nor was a transcript prepared.
    
    The Chemical Examiner (CA) was not examined in court.
    
    Representative samples and remnant samples were not produced during the trial.
  - The High Court held that these lapses prejudiced both the accused and the prosecution, necessitating a re-trial.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Ruling

Key Legal Issues Considered
1. Admissibility of Electronic Evidence
  - The Supreme Court clarified that once a certificate under Section 65B(4) is provided, electronic records like video recordings become admissible as evidence.
  - It is not mandatory for the video to be played during each witness’s deposition or for a transcript to be prepared, unless the facts of the case specifically require further explanation.
  - The video in this case was corroborative of oral evidence and was played in court in the presence of all parties.
2. Examination of Chemical Examiner (CA)
  - Under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the report of a government scientific expert is admissible without the expert’s oral testimony, unless the court specifically requires it.
  - The Supreme Court found no legal requirement for the CA to be examined in every NDPS case if the report is otherwise admissible and unchallenged.
3. Production of Seized Contraband and Samples
  - The Court reviewed precedents and held that non-production of the entire seized contraband is not fatal if there is reliable evidence of seizure, proper sampling, and an unbroken chain of custody.
  - Documents such as inventories, FSL reports, and evidence of intact seals are crucial to establish the integrity of the process.
4. When is a Re-trial Justified?
  - The Court reiterated that re-trials are exceptional and should only be ordered in cases of grave procedural irregularities that result in a miscarriage of justice.
  - Mere procedural lapses or dissatisfaction with the prosecution’s evidence do not justify a re-trial.
  - The appellate court has the power to take additional evidence under Section 391 CrPC if necessary.
Supreme Court’s Decision
- The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order for a re-trial, finding the reasons given to be misconceived and unsupported by law.
- The appeals were restored to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits, with directions for expeditious disposal.
- The appellant was allowed to remain on bail during the pendency of the appeal.
Key Takeaways for Legal Practice
1. Electronic Evidence: Proper certification under Section 65B(4) is sufficient for admissibility; playing the video for each witness or preparing a transcript is not a legal requirement unless the context demands.
2. Expert Reports: Chemical Examiner’s reports are admissible under Section 293 CrPC without oral testimony unless specifically challenged.
3. Handling of Contraband: Production of the entire seized material is not mandatory if the chain of custody and sampling are properly documented and proven.
4. Re-trial Principles: Re-trials are reserved for exceptional cases involving grave procedural errors that cause real prejudice; appellate courts should use their powers to take additional evidence rather than order re-trials for curable defects.
Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Kailas v. State of Maharashtra reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory procedures for evidence, clarifies the admissibility of electronic records, and sets a high threshold for ordering re-trials. This decision serves as a crucial guide for courts, prosecutors, and defense counsel in handling NDPS cases and electronic evidence in criminal trials.

Connected Matter

Supreme Court Affirms Acquittal Under Sections 8/18(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

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
August 26, 2026
Guidelines for Renewal and Re-Issuance of Passports to Indian Citizens Facing Pending Criminal Proceedings: Legal Principles and Directions from the Bombay High Court
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 26.08.2026

Guidelines for Renewal and Re-Issuance of Passports to Indian Citizens Facing Pending Criminal Proceedings: Legal Principles and Directions from the Bombay High Court

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

Passport renewal for Indian citizens involved in criminal proceedings has long been a complex issue, often leading to confusion, delays, and hardship. A recent judgment by the Bombay High Court provides much-needed clarity, balancing the right to personal liberty with the interests of justice. This article explores the key legal principles, statutory framework, and practical guidelines established by the Court for passport renewal in such cases.

Constitutional and Legal Framework
- Fundamental Right to Travel: The right to travel abroad is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as part of the right to life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that this right cannot be arbitrarily curtailed.
- Passports Act, 1967: This Act governs the issuance, renewal, and revocation of passports. Key sections include:
  - Section 5: Outlines the procedure for applying for a passport.
  - Section 6(2)(f): Allows refusal of a passport if criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant.
  - Section 10: Details the grounds and process for impounding or revoking a passport.
  - Section 22: Empowers the government to issue exemptions in public interest.
- Relevant Notifications and Office Memoranda:
  - GSR 570(E) Notification (25 August 1993): Exempts applicants with pending criminal cases from the bar under Section 6(2)(f) if they produce a court order permitting travel.
  - Office Memorandum (10 October 2019): Provides detailed instructions for processing passport applications where criminal proceedings are pending.
Key Judicial Observations

Supreme Court and High Court Rulings
- Not an Absolute Bar: The existence of pending criminal proceedings does not automatically disqualify a person from renewing their passport. The courts have clarified that Section 6(2)(f) is not an absolute bar, especially when the applicant is not seeking to travel abroad immediately.
- Role of the Criminal Court: The criminal court’s primary concern is to ensure the accused’s presence during trial. Permission to travel abroad is distinct from the right to hold a valid passport.
- Duration of Renewal: Unless otherwise directed by the court, passports should be renewed for the standard period (usually 10 years) as per Rule 12 of the Passport Rules, 1980.
- NOC/Permission: A No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the court is generally required only when the applicant seeks to travel abroad, not for mere renewal.
Practical Guidelines from the Bombay High Court Judgment

The Court issued several actionable suggestions to streamline the process:
1. Standard Renewal: Passport authorities should renew passports in accordance with Rule 12, unless a court order specifies otherwise.
2. Undertaking and Affidavit: Applicants must file an undertaking and affidavit, verified by the concerned criminal court, detailing all pending cases.
3. NOC Details: The NOC should include:
  - Case details and status
  - Stage of trial
  - Number of witnesses
  - Compliance with court orders
  - Attendance record of the accused
4. Serious Offences: For serious or economic offences, the court may scrutinize the application more closely and issue the NOC on its judicial side.
5. Fresh Passport Applications: For first-time applicants, the passport authority should not insist on a court NOC and must follow the standard procedure under the Act.
6. Exhausted Passports: If the passport booklet is exhausted, renewal should be processed without requiring a court NOC, subject to court orders regarding travel.
7. Travel Abroad: Even after renewal, the applicant must seek court permission before traveling abroad if restrictions are imposed.
Distinction Between Passport Renewal and Travel Permission

The judgment emphasizes that holding a valid passport and traveling abroad are separate issues:
- Renewal: The right to renew a passport is not automatically curtailed by pending criminal proceedings.
- Travel: Permission to leave the country is at the discretion of the criminal court, which may impose conditions to ensure the accused’s presence during trial.
Recommendations for Passport Authorities
- Avoid Unnecessary Objections: Passport authorities should not raise objections to renewal solely on the ground of pending criminal cases if the applicant complies with the Act and Rules.
- Fair and Transparent Process: As a state authority, the passport office must act fairly and transparently, minimizing inconvenience to citizens.
- Review of Notifications: The authorities are encouraged to reconsider existing notifications to further streamline the process and avoid unnecessary litigation.
Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s judgment provides a balanced and practical approach to passport renewal for individuals facing criminal proceedings. By clarifying the roles of the passport authority and the criminal court, and by emphasizing procedural fairness, the Court has ensured that fundamental rights are protected while upholding the interests of justice. Applicants and legal practitioners should closely follow these guidelines to navigate the process efficiently.

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

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

Source: Bombay High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com
August 26, 2026
Maintainability of Civil Suits for Permanent Injunction in Real Estate Disputes Post-RERA
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 26.08.2026

Maintainability of Civil Suits for Permanent Injunction in Real Estate Disputes Post-RERA

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

The recent order by the Madras High Court in the case between Metrozone Apartment Owners Association and M/s. Ozone Projects Private Limited addresses a pivotal question in Indian real estate law: Can a civil suit for permanent injunction be maintained in the context of disputes governed by the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA)? This article explores the legal reasoning, statutory framework, and implications for stakeholders in real estate projects.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose when the developer (respondent) filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction to protect its possession and enjoyment of certain property, alleging interference by the apartment owners’ association (petitioner). The association challenged the maintainability of the suit, arguing that Section 79 of the RERA Act bars civil courts from entertaining such matters, and that only the RERA authority has jurisdiction.

Key Legal Provisions Examined
1. Section 36 (Power to Issue Interim Orders): Allows the RERA authority to restrain parties from certain acts during an inquiry.
2. Section 37 (Power to Issue Directions): Empowers the authority to issue binding directions to promoters, allottees, or agents.
3. Section 40 (Enforcement of Orders): Deals with recovery and enforcement of orders passed by the authority.
4. Section 79 (Bar of Jurisdiction): Prohibits civil courts from entertaining matters that the RERA authority is empowered to determine.
Arguments Presented

Petitioner (Owners’ Association)
- Asserted that the RERA authority alone can adjudicate such disputes, citing Section 79.
- Pointed to Sections 36 and 37, arguing that the authority can grant injunctions, making civil suits unnecessary.
- Cited multiple precedents supporting the exclusive jurisdiction of RERA.
Respondent (Developer)
- Contended that a suit for permanent injunction is an equitable remedy available through civil courts.
- Argued that Sections 36 and 37 operate in different spheres and do not empower RERA to grant permanent injunctions.
- Emphasized that the bar under Section 79 applies only to matters specifically empowered under RERA, not to all disputes.
- Cited case law supporting the maintainability of civil suits for such remedies.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
- Scope of Section 79: The court clarified that Section 79 bars civil courts only from matters that the RERA authority is specifically empowered to determine. The second limb of Section 79, which restricts injunctions, applies only to actions taken under RERA powers.
- Nature of Relief Sought: The relief of permanent injunction sought by the developer was not available under Sections 36 or 37 of RERA, as these provisions pertain to interim orders and general directions, not permanent equitable remedies.
- Maintainability of Civil Suit: The court held that since RERA does not provide for the grant of permanent injunctions in such circumstances, the civil court retains jurisdiction. The suit was not barred by law and could proceed.
- Precedents Considered: The court reviewed several judgments, distinguishing cases where RERA provided adequate remedies from those where civil courts retained jurisdiction for equitable reliefs not covered by RERA.
Implications for Real Estate Stakeholders
1. Jurisdictional Clarity: Not all disputes related to real estate projects are exclusively within RERA’s domain. Where RERA does not provide a specific remedy (such as permanent injunction), civil courts may still be approached.
2. Strategic Litigation: Developers and associations must carefully assess the nature of relief sought before choosing the appropriate forum.
3. Parallel Proceedings: The decision discourages parallel proceedings in both RERA and civil courts for the same cause of action, but recognizes the civil court’s role where RERA’s powers are limited.
Conclusion

The Madras High Court’s order in the Metrozone Apartment Owners Association case reinforces the principle that while RERA is a specialized forum for real estate disputes, its jurisdiction is not all-encompassing. Civil courts continue to play a vital role in granting equitable remedies like permanent injunctions when such relief is not expressly provided under RERA. This decision provides much-needed clarity for litigants navigating the intersection of real estate regulation and traditional civil remedies.

Connected Matter

Jurisdictional Bar of Civil Courts in Real Estate Disputes: under Section 79 of RERA

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: Madras 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
August 26, 2026