𝐀𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐚 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #ParaLegalServices

Kerala High Court on Enforcement of RERA Recovery and Property Attachment
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 20.08.2026

Kerala High Court on Enforcement of RERA Recovery and Property Attachment

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 High Court of Kerala has brought clarity to the process of property attachment and recovery proceedings in real estate disputes. The case involved P.A. Jihas, Managing Director of Jewel Homes Pvt. Ltd., and several respondents, including the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority and private individuals. This article provides a detailed overview of the case, the legal journey, and the implications of the court’s decision.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated from a complaint filed under the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) by a private respondent against Jewel Homes Pvt. Ltd. The Adjudicating Authority, after considering the complaint, ordered the company to refund ₹25,00,000 with interest at 14.05% per annum. This order set off a series of appeals and legal proceedings:
1. Initial Order (2021): The Adjudicating Authority directed Jewel Homes Pvt. Ltd. to refund the amount with interest.
2. First Appeal (2022): The Kerala Real Estate Appellate Tribunal remanded the matter for recalculation of compensation and interest.
3. Revised Order (2024): The Adjudicating Authority reaffirmed the payment of ₹25,00,000 in instalments with interest.
4. Second Appeal (2025): Jewel Homes appealed again, but the Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to delay.
5. High Court Proceedings (2026): The matter reached the High Court, which issued the final judgment.
Key Issues Addressed
- Adjustment of Amounts Paid: The appellants claimed that ₹12.8 lakhs had already been received by the complainants, which was not considered in the recovery proceedings.
- Calculation of Interest: The appellants sought reworking of interest for amounts already deposited.
- Execution of Recovery: The court clarified the process for calculating the final amount due and the role of the Recovery Officer.
Highlights of the High Court Judgment
1. Opportunity to Adjust Payments: The court allowed the appellants to raise the issue of prior payments before the Adjudicating Authority during execution.
2. Stay on Attachment: An unconditional stay of the order of attachment was granted for one week, provided ₹12.20 lakhs was deposited within that period.
3. Final Calculation by Recovery Officer: The Recovery Officer was directed to determine the actual amount due, after hearing both parties, within eight weeks.
4. Restriction on Property Dealings: The first appellant was barred from dealing with or encumbering the property until the full adjudicated amount was paid.
5. Enforcement of Attachment: If the required deposit was not made within the stipulated time, the order of attachment would be enforced.
Legal and Practical Implications
- Due Process in Recovery: The judgment reinforces the importance of due process and fair hearing in recovery proceedings under RERA.
- Protection for Homebuyers: The decision upholds the rights of homebuyers to receive refunds and interest as adjudicated by regulatory authorities.
- Obligations for Builders: Builders must comply with orders promptly or risk attachment and restrictions on their properties.
Conclusion

This Kerala High Court judgment serves as a significant precedent for real estate disputes, emphasizing transparency, procedural fairness, and the enforcement of regulatory orders. Stakeholders in the real estate sector should take note of the legal obligations and remedies highlighted in this case.

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

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

Source: 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
August 20, 2026
Supreme Court Clarifies Law on FIR Registration After Section 156(3) Cr.PC Rejection
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 20.08.2026

Supreme Court Clarifies Law on FIR Registration After Section 156(3) Cr.PC Rejection

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

This article provides a comprehensive overview and analysis of the Supreme Court of India’s decision in the case of Pramod Kumar Shukla vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2026 INSC 887), a significant ruling on the interplay between criminal procedure, the doctrine of res judicata, and the powers of police and magistrates in criminal investigations.

Background and Factual Matrix
- Allegations: The appellant, Pramod Kumar Shukla, was accused of fraudulently promising government jobs in exchange for money. The complainant alleged that Shukla claimed influence in the Directorate of Education, Prayagraj, and could secure clerk positions for the complainant’s relatives for ₹20,00,000. Several payments were made to Shukla, but no jobs materialized.
- Escalation: When pressed for a refund, Shukla allegedly abused and threatened the complainant and his family. The complainant reported the matter to the police, providing bank statements and purported forged documents.
- Legal Proceedings: An initial application under Section 156(3) Cr.PC (requesting the Magistrate to order police investigation) was rejected, as the police report suggested a civil land dispute rather than a criminal matter. The complainant then filed a fresh complaint, leading to the registration of FIR No. 405/2024 for various offences including cheating, forgery, and criminal intimidation.
Legal Issues and Arguments

Appellant’s Contentions
1. Civil Dispute: The appellant argued that the matter was a civil dispute over land, not a criminal offence.
2. Res Judicata: It was contended that the rejection of the earlier Section 156(3) application barred further criminal proceedings on the same facts.
3. No Cognizable Offence: The appellant claimed that even if the allegations were accepted, no cognizable offence was made out.
4. Abuse of Process: The FIR was alleged to be motivated by malice, filed only after the earlier application was rejected.
Respondent’s Contentions
1. Fresh Material: The State argued that the FIR was based on new evidence (audio recordings, bank details, forged documents) not previously considered.
2. Pattern of Offending: The appellant had multiple similar FIRs against him, supporting the need for investigation.
3. No Bar to FIR: There is no legal bar to registering an FIR based on fresh material, even after a Section 156(3) application is rejected.
Supreme Court’s Analysis

Statutory Framework
- Section 154 Cr.PC: Mandates police to register an FIR if a cognizable offence is disclosed.
- Section 156(3) Cr.PC: Allows a Magistrate to order police investigation if the police fail to act.
- Section 190 Cr.PC: Outlines when a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence.
Key Legal Principles
1. Nature of Section 156(3) Orders: Orders under Section 156(3) are not adjudications on the merits but directions to investigate. Rejection of such an application does not bar subsequent FIRs or investigations.
2. Doctrine of Res Judicata: The doctrine applies in criminal law only where there has been a final adjudication on merits (e.g., acquittal after trial). It does not apply to procedural orders like rejection of a Section 156(3) application.
3. Fresh Material: If new evidence emerges, a fresh FIR or investigation is permissible.
4. Role of Courts in Quashing FIRs: Courts should only quash FIRs at the threshold if, on the face of the allegations, no cognizable offence is made out. Disputed facts and evidence are for trial.
Application to the Case
- The Supreme Court found that the High Court was correct in refusing to quash the FIR. The allegations, if accepted at face value, disclosed cognizable offences.
- The rejection of the earlier Section 156(3) application did not preclude the police from registering an FIR based on new material.
- The appellant’s arguments about the nature of the transaction and the credibility of evidence were matters for investigation and trial, not for summary dismissal.
Implications of the Judgment
1. Clarifies the Scope of Section 156(3) Cr.PC: Rejection of an application under this section does not bar subsequent criminal proceedings if new material is presented.
2. Limits of Res Judicata in Criminal Law: The doctrine does not apply to procedural orders that do not decide the merits of the case.
3. Reinforces Police Duty: Police must register and investigate cognizable offences, regardless of prior procedural rejections.
4. Guidance for High Courts: High Courts should be cautious in quashing FIRs, intervening only when no offence is disclosed on the face of the complaint.
Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Pramod Kumar Shukla vs. State of Uttar Pradesh underscores the importance of allowing criminal investigations to proceed when allegations of cognizable offences are made, especially when new evidence emerges. It clarifies the limited scope of procedural bars and reinforces the principle that substantive justice should not be thwarted by technicalities.

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 20, 2026
Interest for Delayed Refund of Pre-Deposit in Customs
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 20.08.2026

Interest for Delayed Refund of Pre-Deposit in Customs

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 Calcutta High Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Jain vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port) Kolkata & Anr. has clarified the legal position regarding the rate of interest payable on delayed refunds of pre-deposits in customs matters. This article provides a detailed overview of the case, the legal arguments, and the implications for taxpayers and authorities.

Background of the Case
- Seizure and Pre-Deposit: On August 20, 1998, authorities seized Rs. 9,93,200 from Rajendra Kumar Jain, alleging it was the sale proceeds of goods liable for confiscation. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) later directed that this amount be treated as a pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.
- Appeal and Refund: After a successful appeal, the confiscation and penalty were set aside, making the pre-deposit refundable. However, the refund was delayed, prompting the appellant to seek judicial intervention.
- Interest Dispute: The refund was eventually sanctioned with interest at 6% per annum. Dissatisfied, the appellant sought a higher rate, referencing Supreme Court and High Court precedents where 12% interest was awarded in similar circumstances.
Legal Issues and Arguments

Substantial Question of Law

The core legal question was:

“Whether the Learned Tribunal is justified in law in not allowing the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the refund amount of pre-deposit?”

Appellant’s Arguments
1. No Statutory Rate Pre-2008: At the time of the events, there was no statutory provision specifying the rate of interest for delayed refunds of pre-deposits.
2. Supreme Court Precedent: In Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. ITC Limited (2005), the Supreme Court awarded 12% interest on delayed refunds.
3. High Court Consistency: The Calcutta High Court in Madura Coats Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata – IV (2012) also granted 12% interest in a similar context.
4. Amendment Not Retrospective: The amendment to Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act (effective May 10, 2008) and subsequent notifications fixing interest at 6% per annum do not apply retrospectively.
Respondents’ Arguments
- The respondents contended that the seized amount was not originally a pre-deposit and that the applicable rate should be 6% as per later notifications.
- They acknowledged the absence of a statutory rate during the relevant period but argued for the lower rate based on subsequent government notifications.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
- Undisputed Facts: The Court noted that the amount was treated as a pre-deposit by CESTAT and that there was no statutory rate of interest for delayed refunds at the relevant time.
- Precedent Application: The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in ITC Limited and its own earlier decision in Madura Coats, both of which awarded 12% interest in the absence of a statutory rate.
- Notification Not Retrospective: The notification fixing 6% interest (dated August 12, 2014) was held not to apply to periods before its issuance.
Final Judgment

The Calcutta High Court set aside the lower tribunal’s order and held that:
- The appellant is entitled to interest at 12% per annum on the delayed refund of the pre-deposit.
- The interest must be paid within one month from the date of production of the certified copy of the order.
Implications of the Judgment
1. Clarity for Taxpayers: Taxpayers whose refunds of pre-deposits were delayed before the statutory rate was notified can claim interest at 12% per annum, based on judicial precedent.
2. Guidance for Authorities: Customs authorities must follow judicial directions and precedents in similar cases, especially for periods before statutory rates were notified.
3. Legal Certainty: The judgment reinforces the principle that, in the absence of a statutory provision, courts may rely on precedent to ensure fairness and parity.
Conclusion

This ruling by the Calcutta High Court is a significant development in customs jurisprudence, ensuring that taxpayers are fairly compensated for delayed refunds of pre-deposits. It underscores the importance of judicial precedent in filling legislative gaps and provides clear guidance for both taxpayers and authorities in similar disputes.

Connected Matter

CESTAT Kolkata Orders 12% Interest on Delayed Customs Refund

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 20, 2026
CESTAT Mumbai Overturns Customs Penalty: Brass Scrap Classification and Valuation
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 20.08.2026

CESTAT Mumbai Overturns Customs Penalty: Brass Scrap Classification and Valuation

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) Mumbai recently delivered a significant order in the case of A.P. Trading Company versus the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva. This case revolved around the classification, valuation, and confiscation of imported brass scrap, raising important questions about customs procedures, the interpretation of tariff entries, and the evidentiary standards for mis-declaration.

Background of the Case

A.P. Trading Company, based in Bhiwandi, Maharashtra, is engaged in the import and sale of brass scrap. In May 2013, the company imported a consignment described as ‘Brass Scrap Pallu as per ISRI’ from a UAE supplier. The goods were declared under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 7404 0022, with a declared value of Rs. 62,27,262. However, upon examination, customs officers found that only 25% of the consignment was brass scrap, while 75% consisted of secondary defective brass pipes, which they considered serviceable and not scrap.

Customs Department’s Actions

The customs authorities alleged mis-declaration, rejected the transaction value, and re-determined the value based on contemporary prices and London Metal Exchange (LME) rates. They imposed a differential duty of Rs. 5,25,460, confiscated the goods (allowing release on payment of a Rs. 1,50,000 redemption fine), and levied a penalty of Rs. 75,000 on the importer. The company appealed, but the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original order, prompting a further appeal to the CESTAT.

Key Legal Issues

The Tribunal identified two main issues:
1. Whether the re-determination/enhancement of the assessable value and duty demand was sustainable.
2. Whether the imposition of redemption fine and penalty was legally justified.
Arguments by the Appellant
- The importer argued that the entire consignment was ordered as per ISRI specifications for brass scrap, and the contract, invoice, and packing list supported this.
- A Chartered Engineer’s report stated the goods were rejected/discarded heat exchanger/boiler tubes, not serviceable, and thus qualified as scrap.
- The customs officers’ contrary assessment was based on visual inspection, not expert analysis.
- The department failed to provide evidence of contemporaneous prices or identical goods to justify value enhancement under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.
Tribunal’s Analysis and Findings

1. Classification and Valuation
- The Tribunal noted that ISRI specifications and customs tariff entries cover a wide range of brass scrap types, including ‘pallu’, ‘ebony’, and ‘melon’.
- The contract and documentation clearly indicated the goods were ordered as brass scrap.
- There was a contradiction between the customs officers’ assessment and the Chartered Engineer’s expert report regarding the serviceability and nature of the goods.
- The customs tariff and ISRI guidelines do not prescribe strict size or length limits for brass scrap unless mutually agreed by buyer and seller.
2. Mis-declaration and Penalty
- The Tribunal found no concrete evidence of mis-declaration. The department relied solely on visual inspection, without expert corroboration or documentary proof of serviceability.
- Precedents (e.g., Prateek Traders v. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad) establish that visual inspection alone is insufficient to classify goods as serviceable when expert opinion suggests otherwise.
- The request for mutilation by the importer, if accepted, would have further supported the claim that the goods were indeed scrap.
3. Procedural Lapses
- The authorities did not adequately discuss the grounds for reclassification or provide details of contemporaneous values for identical goods.
- There was no evidence of additional consideration or flow-back to justify value enhancement.
Final Order and Implications

The CESTAT set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of A.P. Trading Company. The Tribunal held that the duty demand, fine, and penalty were unsustainable due to lack of evidence and improper procedure. This decision underscores the importance of:
- Relying on expert reports over mere visual inspection for classification disputes.
- Providing concrete evidence when alleging mis-declaration or enhancing value.
- Adhering to procedural fairness and transparency in customs adjudication.
Conclusion

The A.P. Trading Company case serves as a crucial precedent for importers and customs authorities alike. It highlights the need for objective, evidence-based assessments and reinforces the legal protections available to importers against arbitrary or unsupported customs actions. Importers should ensure thorough documentation and, when necessary, seek expert opinions to support their case in classification and valuation disputes.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

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

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

Source: CESTAT Mumbai

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com
August 20, 2026
Madras High Court Clarifies RERA Registration Exemption and Jurisdiction Over Unregistered Projects
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 19.08.2026

Madras High Court Clarifies RERA Registration Exemption and Jurisdiction Over Unregistered Projects

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 Madras High Court in the case of Devinarayan Housing and Property Developments Private Limited vs. Manu Karan & Others has clarified crucial aspects of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) regarding project registration and the rights of home buyers in unregistered projects. This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, its background, legal questions, and the implications for developers and home buyers.

Case Background
- Parties Involved:
  - Appellants: Devinarayan Housing and Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. (developers)
  - Respondents: Manu Karan and Archana Karan (home buyers)
- Project Details:
  - Sale and construction agreement dated 20.07.2017 for an apartment in ‘Devi Narayan’s Saisagar’, Chennai.
  - Apartment cost: Rs. 3.3 crore; buyers paid Rs. 3.06 crore.
  - Dispute arose due to non-handover of possession and refund issues.
Legal Proceedings Timeline
1. Home Buyers’ Complaints:
  - Filed for compensation and execution of sale deed before RERA authorities.
2. Developers’ Defense:
  - Claimed project was completed before RERA came into force and thus exempt from registration.
3. Adjudicating Officer’s Order:
  - Directed developers to pay compensation to buyers.
4. Appeals:
  - Developers appealed to the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (TNREAT), which upheld the compensation order.
  - Buyers appealed against the dismissal of their complaint for sale deed registration; TNREAT ruled in their favor.
5. High Court Appeal:
  - Developers challenged TNREAT’s decisions in the Madras High Court.
Key Legal Questions Addressed

1. Does RERA Registration Apply?
- Section 3(2)(a) of RERA: Exempts projects from registration if either:
  - The land area does not exceed 500 sq. meters, or
  - The number of apartments does not exceed eight (inclusive of all phases).
- Court’s Interpretation:
  - The word “or” is to be read disjunctively, not conjunctively.
  - If a project meets either condition, it is exempt from registration.
  - In this case, although the land exceeded 500 sq. meters, only eight apartments were constructed, qualifying for exemption.
2. Can Home Buyers of Unregistered Projects Seek Relief Under RERA?
- Section 31 of RERA: Allows aggrieved persons to file complaints for violations of the Act.
- Court’s Ruling:
  - RERA authorities have jurisdiction only over registered projects.
  - Home buyers of unregistered projects cannot seek remedies under RERA.
  - Their recourse lies with civil courts or consumer forums.
Implications of the Judgment

For Developers
1. Clarity on Registration Exemptions:
  - Projects with eight or fewer apartments, regardless of land size, are exempt from RERA registration.
2. Reduced Compliance Burden:
  - Developers of small projects are not subject to RERA’s regulatory requirements.
For Home Buyers
1. Limited RERA Protection:
  - Buyers in unregistered projects cannot approach RERA authorities for grievances.
2. Alternative Remedies:
  - Must seek redress through civil courts or consumer forums.
Conclusion

The Madras High Court’s decision provides much-needed clarity on the scope of RERA’s applicability, especially for small-scale real estate projects. While it offers relief to developers of such projects, home buyers must be aware of their limited protection under RERA and consider alternative legal avenues for dispute resolution. This ruling sets a significant precedent for future disputes involving RERA registration and the rights of allottees in unregistered projects.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

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

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

Source: 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 19, 2026
Supreme Court’s Examination of Pre-Deposit Clauses in Government Arbitration Contracts
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 19.08.2026

Supreme Court’s Examination of Pre-Deposit Clauses in Government Arbitration Contracts

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 Supreme Court of India’s recent judgment in the case of M/S Santosh Associate Private Limited vs. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. has brought renewed attention to the constitutionality and fairness of pre-deposit clauses in government contracts. This article provides a detailed analysis of the dispute, the legal arguments, and the broader implications for arbitration and contract law in India.

Background of the Dispute

In 2017, Santosh Associate Pvt. Ltd. was awarded a government contract for storm water drainage works in Gurugram, Haryana. The contract included an arbitration clause (Clause 25-A(vii)) requiring contractors to deposit 10% of any claim exceeding ₹1,00,000 as a security before initiating arbitration. When disputes arose over final payments after a reduction in project scope, the contractor sought arbitration without making the required deposit. The respondent objected, and both the Sole Arbitrator and the Commercial Court dismissed the contractor’s claim for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement.

Key Legal Issues

The central legal question is whether a contractual clause mandating only the contractor (and not the government entity) to make a substantial pre-deposit before arbitration is constitutional and consistent with Indian contract and arbitration law.

Arguments by the Appellant (Contractor)
1. Violation of Article 14 (Equality Before Law): The clause discriminates against contractors by imposing a financial burden not required of the government, violating the principle of equal treatment.
2. No Rational Nexus: The 10% deposit does not logically serve the purpose of deterring frivolous claims, as such claims can be addressed by awarding costs at the end of arbitration.
3. Disproportionate Burden: The required deposit is significantly higher than court fees for similar claims, making arbitration less accessible.
4. Precedent Support: Relied on Supreme Court judgments (e.g., ICOMM Tele Ltd., Lombardi Engineering Ltd., and CORE) that struck down similar clauses as arbitrary and contrary to the objectives of arbitration.
Arguments by the Respondent (Government Entity)
1. Binding Precedent: Cited S.K. Jain vs. State of Haryana, where a similar refundable pre-deposit clause was upheld as reasonable and non-arbitrary.
2. Legitimate Purpose: Argued that refundable deposits deter frivolous claims without being punitive, and are thus valid.
3. Material Differences in Clauses: Emphasized that only clauses with punitive forfeiture or those foreclosing access to arbitration have been struck down, not refundable deposit clauses.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning

The Court reviewed the evolution of judicial thinking on pre-deposit clauses:
- S.K. Jain (2009): Upheld refundable pre-deposit clauses as reasonable deterrents against frivolous claims.
- ICOMM Tele Ltd. (2019): Struck down a clause with forfeiture provisions as arbitrary and contrary to Article 14.
- Lombardi Engineering Ltd. (2024) & CORE (2025): Affirmed that party autonomy in contracts cannot override constitutional rights, and that excessive or one-sided pre-deposit clauses may be invalid.
The Court noted that while it found merit in the reasoning of ICOMM Tele Ltd., it was bound by the larger bench decision in S.K. Jain unless a larger bench overruled it. The Court also highlighted the importance of ensuring that arbitration remains accessible and does not become more onerous than litigation.

Reference to Larger Bench

Given the conflicting precedents and the constitutional questions involved, the Supreme Court referred the following issues to a larger bench:
1. Whether requiring only the contractor to make a pre-deposit violates the principle of equal treatment in arbitration.
2. Whether such pre-deposit conditions discourage alternative dispute resolution and undermine its objectives.
3. Whether these clauses are arbitrary and violate the right to sue under Article 14 and Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act.
4. Whether refundable pre-deposit clauses are valid.
5. Whether S.K. Jain remains a binding precedent.
Implications for Contractors and Government Bodies
- For Contractors: The outcome will determine whether they can be compelled to make substantial deposits before seeking arbitration, impacting access to justice and the cost-effectiveness of arbitration.
- For Government Bodies: The decision will clarify the extent to which they can use pre-deposit clauses to deter frivolous claims without violating constitutional principles.
- For Arbitration Law: The case will shape the balance between party autonomy in contracts and the need for fairness and equality in dispute resolution.
Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s referral of these issues to a larger bench underscores the significance of ensuring that arbitration remains a fair, accessible, and constitutionally compliant mechanism for resolving disputes. The final decision will have far-reaching consequences for government contracting and the future of arbitration in India.

Connected Matter

Independence, Impartiality, and Equality in Indian Arbitration

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 19, 2026
Supreme Court on Limits of Appellate Enhancement and Concurrent Sentencing for Multiple Life Terms
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 19.08.2026

Supreme Court on Limits of Appellate Enhancement and Concurrent Sentencing for Multiple Life Terms

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

A recent Supreme Court of India judgment in the case of Gopi @ Sahaya Puruna versus The State has brought significant clarity to the law regarding sentencing in criminal cases, especially concerning the enhancement of sentences and the running of multiple sentences. This article provides a detailed overview of the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications of the Court’s decision.

Background of the Case

The case revolves around a gruesome incident that occurred in Kanyakumari District, where Dr. A. Malik Mohammed, his wife Katheeja Bibi, and their watchman Gnanaprakasam were brutally murdered. The main accused, Ambarasu (a former driver of Dr. Mohammed), and his associate Gopi (the appellant), were charged with multiple offences including murder, abduction, robbery, and destruction of evidence.

Sequence of Events
1. Incident: On November 8, 2007, Ambarasu and Gopi entered Dr. Mohammed’s residence, killed the watchman and Dr. Mohammed, abducted Mrs. Bibi, robbed her valuables, and later burned her alive.
2. Investigation: The bodies were discovered after Mrs. Bibi’s brother reported suspicious circumstances to the police. Both accused were arrested and tried for several offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
3. Trial Court Verdict: Gopi was convicted on multiple counts, including conspiracy, house trespass, three counts of murder, abduction, robbery, and destruction of evidence. He received several life sentences and fixed-term sentences, all directed to run consecutively.
4. High Court Proceedings: On appeal, the High Court acquitted Gopi of conspiracy but upheld other convictions. It also enhanced his sentence from life imprisonment to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life and confirmed the consecutive running of sentences.
Key Legal Issues

The Supreme Court was called upon to decide two main issues:
1. Whether the High Court was justified in enhancing the sentence from life imprisonment to imprisonment for the remainder of natural life in the absence of an appeal for enhancement by the State or victim.
2. Whether the direction for sentences to run consecutively was legally valid.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Ruling

Enhancement of Sentence
- The Court reaffirmed that an appellate court cannot enhance a convict’s sentence in an appeal filed by the accused unless there is a specific appeal for enhancement by the State, victim, or complainant.
- Citing precedents, the Court emphasized that the right of appeal is a valuable statutory and constitutional right for the accused, and enhancing the sentence in such appeals is impermissible.
- The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order enhancing Gopi’s sentence, restoring the original life imprisonment sentence.
Consecutive vs. Concurrent Sentences
- The Court clarified that when a convict is awarded multiple life sentences or a combination of life and fixed-term sentences, these must run concurrently, not consecutively.
- This is based on the principle that life imprisonment means imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s natural life, making consecutive life sentences or consecutive running with fixed-term sentences unworkable and contrary to law.
- The Supreme Court modified the lower courts’ directions, ordering that all sentences run concurrently.
Implications of the Judgment
1. Protection of Accused’s Rights: The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts cannot worsen the position of an accused in their own appeal unless specifically sought by the prosecution or victim.
2. Sentencing Clarity: It settles the law that multiple life sentences or life sentences with fixed-term sentences must run concurrently, ensuring uniformity and fairness in sentencing.
3. Judicial Oversight: The decision curtails the scope of suo moto enhancement of sentences by appellate courts, upholding due process and statutory safeguards.
Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Gopi @ Sahaya Puruna is a landmark ruling that clarifies important aspects of criminal sentencing in India. It upholds the rights of the accused, ensures consistency in the application of sentencing laws, and limits judicial overreach in the enhancement of sentences. This judgment will serve as a guiding precedent for future cases involving similar legal questions.

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 19, 2026
Constitutional Limits on Bail Conditions for Foreign Nationals under the NDPS Act
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 19.08.2026

Constitutional Limits on Bail Conditions for Foreign Nationals under the 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 delivered a significant order in the case of Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau, addressing the legality and practicality of certain bail conditions imposed on foreign nationals under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The judgment not only impacts the appellant, a Nigerian national, but also sets important precedents for bail jurisprudence in India, especially concerning the rights of accused foreign nationals.

Background of the Case

Frank Vitus, a Nigerian national, was arrested in May 2014 and prosecuted under Sections 8, 22, 23, and 29 of the NDPS Act. After several years in custody, he was granted bail in May 2022, subject to stringent conditions, including:
1. Furnishing a certificate of assurance from the Nigerian Embassy/High Commission that he would not leave India and would appear before the trial court as required.
2. Dropping a PIN on Google Maps to make his location available to the investigating officer.
Vitus challenged these conditions, arguing that they were either impossible to comply with or infringed upon his fundamental rights.

Legal Issues Considered

The Supreme Court examined two primary issues:
1. Whether the requirement for a certificate of assurance from the Embassy/High Commission is feasible or necessary in every case involving a foreign national.
2. Whether the condition to drop a PIN on Google Maps violates the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Analysis by the Court

1. Certificate of Assurance from Embassy/High Commission
- The Court noted that the precedent for this condition came from the 1994 Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee case, which was intended as a one-time direction for undertrials facing prolonged detention due to delayed trials.
- The Court clarified that such a certificate should not be a mandatory condition in every case involving a foreign national. If the Embassy/High Commission refuses or fails to issue the certificate within a reasonable time, the court must have the power to dispense with this requirement.
- The Court emphasized that an accused cannot be denied bail for failing to comply with a condition that is impossible to fulfill, especially when the grant of such a certificate is beyond the accused’s control.
2. Dropping a PIN on Google Maps
- The Court examined technical details provided by Google LLC, which clarified that dropping a PIN does not enable real-time tracking and is under the user’s control.
- However, the Court held that any bail condition enabling the police to track every movement of an accused via technology would violate the right to privacy under Article 21.
- The Court found the Google Maps PIN condition redundant and unnecessary, as it neither serves the purpose of bail conditions nor respects the privacy of the accused.
3. Principles for Imposing Bail Conditions
- The Court reiterated that bail conditions must not be arbitrary, fanciful, or so onerous as to frustrate the grant of bail itself.
- The object of bail conditions is to ensure the accused does not interfere with the investigation, remains available for trial, and does not tamper with evidence.
- The accused’s constitutional rights, including the presumption of innocence and the right to privacy, must be curtailed only to the minimum extent necessary.
Final Decision

The Supreme Court ordered the deletion of the following bail conditions imposed on Frank Vitus:
- The requirement to obtain a certificate of assurance from the Nigerian Embassy/High Commission.
- The requirement to drop a PIN on Google Maps to share his location.
The Court directed that the case be listed on July 15, 2024, for further orders regarding compliance with other bail conditions. The appellant remains on bail, and the judgment sets a clear precedent that bail conditions must be reasonable, practical, and respectful of fundamental rights.

Implications of the Judgment
- For Foreign Nationals: Courts must consider the practicality of bail conditions and cannot impose requirements that are impossible for the accused to fulfill, such as obtaining certificates from foreign embassies.
- For All Accused: Bail conditions must not infringe upon fundamental rights, especially the right to privacy. Technological monitoring as a bail condition is generally impermissible.
- For the Legal System: The judgment reinforces the principle that bail conditions should serve the interests of justice without being arbitrary or excessively restrictive.
Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s order in Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau is a landmark in protecting the rights of accused persons, particularly foreign nationals, and ensuring that bail conditions remain just, reasonable, and constitutionally compliant. This decision will guide lower courts in framing bail conditions that are both effective and respectful of individual liberties.

Connected Matter

Supreme Court on Bail, Sureties, and Drug Trafficking

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 19, 2026
CESTAT Kolkata Orders 12% Interest on Delayed Customs Refund
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 19.08.2026

CESTAT Kolkata Orders 12% Interest on Delayed Customs Refund

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), Kolkata, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case involving M/s Atcorp Global Pvt. Ltd. and the Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata. The dispute centered on the rate and period of interest payable on a substantial customs duty refund, highlighting key legal principles and procedural delays in customs administration.

Background of the Case
- Parties Involved:
  - Appellant: M/s Atcorp Global Pvt. Ltd.
  - Respondent: Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata
- Nature of Dispute:
  - Atcorp Global imported Yellow/Green peas between December 2017 and February 2018, initially paying 50% Basic Customs Duty (BCD).
  - Later, they discovered eligibility for NIL BCD under Notification No. 93/2017-Cus dated 21.12.2017 and sought re-assessment and refund of excess duty paid.
  - The refund process was marred by significant delays and multiple rounds of litigation.
Chronology of Events
1. Import and Duty Payment:
  - Goods imported under five Bills of Entry (Dec 2017–Feb 2018).
  - Excess duty paid due to initial misclassification.
2. Re-assessment Request:
  - Application for re-assessment filed on 18.09.2018 under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962.
  - No timely response from Customs authorities.
3. Refund Claim:
  - Refund application filed on 19.11.2018.
  - Initial rejection due to pending re-assessment.
4. Litigation and Delays:
  - Multiple appeals and reminders from 2019 to 2025.
  - Final re-assessment order passed only on 17.09.2025.
  - Refund of Rs. 2,89,56,399 sanctioned on 01.12.2025, credited on 20.01.2026.
5. Interest Dispute:
  - Commissioner (Appeals) granted interest at 6% from 20.02.2019.
  - Atcorp Global appealed for 12% interest, citing consistent High Court and Tribunal precedents.
  - Revenue appealed, arguing interest should accrue only from the date of re-assessment.
Legal Issues and Arguments

1. Date from Which Interest is Payable
- Importer’s Stand: Interest should accrue from three months after the initial refund application (i.e., from 20.02.2019), as per Supreme Court rulings (Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India).
- Revenue’s Stand: Interest should start only after re-assessment (17.09.2025).
2. Applicable Rate of Interest
- Importer’s Stand: Sought 12% interest, referencing multiple High Court and Tribunal decisions (e.g., Riba Textiles Ltd., Green Valley Industries Pvt. Ltd., Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd.).
- Revenue’s Stand: Argued for 6% interest, citing statutory provisions and notifications.
Tribunal’s Analysis and Findings
- Delay Attributed to Revenue: The Tribunal noted that the delay in re-assessment and refund was due to inaction by Customs authorities, not the importer.
- Interest Period: Following Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal held that interest is payable from three months after the refund application date (20.02.2019), not from the date of re-assessment.
- Interest Rate: The Tribunal relied on recent High Court and Tribunal rulings, especially the Calcutta High Court’s decision in Rajendra Kumar Jain vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata, which established 12% as the appropriate rate in the absence of a statutory provision for pre-deposit refunds.
Key Judgments Cited
- Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (2012): Interest on delayed refunds accrues from three months after the refund application.
- Sandvik Asia Ltd. vs. CIT, Pune: Compensation for inordinate delay in refund, supporting higher interest rates.
- Recent High Court/Tribunal Decisions: Consistently awarded 12% interest in similar cases (Riba Textiles Ltd., Green Valley Industries Pvt. Ltd., Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd., Berger Paints India Ltd.).
Final Order and Impact
- Revenue’s Appeal Dismissed: Tribunal upheld that interest is payable from 20.02.2019.
- Importer’s Appeal Allowed: Tribunal enhanced the interest rate from 6% to 12% for the period from 20.02.2019 until the date of refund.
- Direction: Revenue to pay the balance 6% interest within eight weeks of the order.
Significance of the Ruling
1. Clarifies Interest Computation: Reinforces that interest on delayed customs refunds accrues from three months after the refund application, not from the date of re-assessment.
2. Sets Precedent for Higher Interest: Affirms 12% as the appropriate rate in cases of administrative delay, especially where no statutory rate is prescribed.
3. Accountability for Delays: Highlights the need for timely action by customs authorities and provides compensation for importers facing undue delays.
Conclusion

The CESTAT Kolkata’s decision in the Atcorp Global case is a landmark for importers seeking timely refunds and fair compensation for administrative delays. It underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding statutory rights and ensuring accountability in customs administration.

Connected Matter

Interest for Delayed Refund of Pre-Deposit in Customs

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 Kolkata

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com
August 19, 2026
Supreme Court on Import Licensing, Ownership of Imported Goods, and Customs Confiscation under Indian Customs Law
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 19.08.2026

Supreme Court on Import Licensing, Ownership of Imported Goods, and Customs Confiscation under Indian Customs Law

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 of the Supreme Court of India’s decision in the case of Union of India vs. Sampat Raj Dugar and Another (1992), a pivotal judgment interpreting the interplay between import licensing, property rights in imported goods, and the powers of customs authorities under Indian law.

Background of the Case
- Parties Involved:
  - Petitioner: Union of India (Customs Authorities)
  - Respondents: Sampat Raj Dugar (exporter, based abroad) and Ms. Renu Pahilaj (importer, based in India)
- Subject Matter: Import of raw silk under an advance import licence, subsequent non-fulfillment of licence conditions, and the question of ownership and confiscation of goods.
Key Facts
1. Advance Import Licence: Ms. Renu Pahilaj obtained a licence to import raw silk, with the condition that the imported silk would be used to manufacture garments for export.
2. Non-Compliance: She received three consignments but failed to fulfill the export condition.
3. New Consignments: Sampat Raj Dugar, an exporter from Hong Kong, sent four more consignments to Ms. Pahilaj. The documents of title were to be released only upon payment.
4. Abandonment: Due to ongoing proceedings and alleged misrepresentation, Ms. Pahilaj did not pay or collect the documents, effectively abandoning the goods.
5. Customs Action: The customs authorities confiscated the goods and imposed penalties, arguing that the importer was deemed the owner and responsible for violations.
6. Exporter’s Claim: Mr. Dugar claimed ownership of the goods (since payment was not made and documents not collected) and sought permission to re-export them.
Legal Issues Examined

1. Ownership of Imported Goods
- Clause 5(3)(ii) of Imports (Control) Order, 1955: Deems the licensee as the owner of goods from import until customs clearance.
- Supreme Court’s Interpretation:
  - This legal fiction is created to hold the licensee responsible for compliance with import regulations.
  - However, if the importer abandons the goods (by not paying or collecting documents), the fiction does not override actual ownership rights. The exporter retains title if the importer never takes possession or pays.
2. Confiscation and Validity of Import
- Customs Act, 1962 – Section 111(d) & (o):
  - Goods can be confiscated if imported contrary to law or if conditions of exemption are violated.
  - The Court held that since the goods were imported under a valid licence (which was cancelled only after import), the import was not illegal at the time.
  - Non-compliance with licence conditions may justify cancellation of the licence or penalties, but does not retroactively make the import illegal or justify confiscation.
3. Right to Re-Export
- The exporter, who retained ownership, was entitled to re-export the goods, provided the import was not contrary to law and subject to payment of applicable dues.
Court’s Ruling and Reasoning
- Ownership: The Supreme Court clarified that the deeming provision in the Imports (Control) Order is limited to regulatory compliance and does not transfer actual ownership if the importer abandons the goods.
- Confiscation: Confiscation under the Customs Act requires that the import be contrary to law at the time of import. Subsequent cancellation of the licence does not retrospectively taint the import.
- Exporter’s Rights: The exporter, not being party to any fraud or misuse, retains the right to reclaim or re-export the goods if the importer fails to take delivery.
- Policy Implications: The judgment protects exporters from losing goods and payment due to the importer’s default, supporting fair international trade practices.
Key Takeaways for Importers, Exporters, and Legal Practitioners
1. Import Licensing Conditions: Importers must strictly comply with licence conditions to avoid penalties or cancellation.
2. Ownership and Title: Actual transfer of title depends on payment and receipt of documents, not just regulatory definitions.
3. Customs Powers: Confiscation is not automatic upon licence cancellation; the legality of import is judged at the time of entry.
4. Exporter Protections: Exporters can reclaim or re-export goods if the importer defaults, provided the import was lawful.
5. Legal Fiction vs. Reality: Regulatory fictions serve administrative purposes but do not override substantive property rights in all circumstances.
Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India vs. Sampat Raj Dugar sets a significant precedent on the limits of regulatory fictions in import law, the protection of exporters’ rights, and the proper scope of customs authorities’ powers. It underscores the importance of distinguishing between regulatory compliance and actual ownership, ensuring fairness in international trade transactions.

Connected Matter

Authenticity of Country of Origin Certificates, Preferential Duty Exemption, and Customs Valuation Dispute

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 19, 2026