ALS

π€πšππ«π’π€πšπš π‹πžπ πšπ₯ π’πžπ«π―π’πœπžπ¬ (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #ParaLegalServices

  • Dismissal of Criminal Complaint for Non-Prosecution Results in Acquittal; Revision Under Section 397 CrPC Not Maintainable

    Dismissal of Criminal Complaint for Non-Prosecution Results in Acquittal; Revision Under Section 397 CrPC Not Maintainable

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

    Date: 15.09.2026

    Dismissal of Criminal Complaint for Non-Prosecution Results in Acquittal; Revision Under Section 397 CrPC Not Maintainable

    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 . 

    The Karnataka High Court has held that where a criminal complaint is dismissed for non-prosecution and the dismissal consequentially results in the acquittal of the accused, the appropriate remedy is an appeal and not a revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

    Justice Ravi V. Hosmani, deciding three connected criminal petitions filed by Ziaulla Sheriff, set aside orders of the Bengaluru Sessions Courts which had entertained revision petitions and restored the criminal proceedings. The High Court dismissed those revision petitions as not maintainable, while reserving liberty to the complainants to avail other remedies in accordance with law.

    The decision bears neutral citation 2026:KHC:40564 and arose from Criminal Petition Nos. 1117, 1116 and 1118 of 2019.

    Background of the Case

    • The connected petitions arose from private criminal complaints in which Ziaulla Sheriff was an accused. According to the petitioner, the complainants failed to appear despite being given sufficient opportunities. The trial court consequently dismissed the complaints for non-prosecution, resulting in consequential orders of acquittal.
    • Instead of challenging the acquittal orders through appeals, the complainants approached the District/Sessions Court by filing revision petitions under Section 397 CrPC.
    • Those revision petitions were allowed and the criminal proceedings were restored. The accused therefore approached the Karnataka High Court under Section 482 CrPC, challenging the revisional orders.

    Accused Argues Appeal, Not Revision, Was the Proper Remedy

    • The principal argument advanced on behalf of Ziaulla Sheriff was that dismissal of the complaints for non-prosecution had resulted in his acquittal.
    • Therefore, once an order of acquittal had come into existence, the complainants could not circumvent the appellate remedy by filing revision petitions under Section 397 CrPC.

    The petitioner relied upon three precedents:

    V.K. Bhat v. G. Ravi Kishore & Anr., (2016) 13 SCC 243; S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (Dead) by LRs & Ors., (2008) 5 SCC 535; and Prakash v. Raju, 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 11067.

    It was also argued that the underlying dispute was essentially civil in nature but had been given a criminal colour, and that resort to revision instead of appeal demonstrated an attempt to prolong the proceedings and constituted abuse of process.

    Complainants Defend Restoration of Criminal Proceedings

    • The complainants opposed the petitions, contending that the trial court had dismissed the proceedings merely because of their non-appearance and had not decided the complaints on merits.
    • Accordingly, once sufficient cause for non-appearance was demonstrated, the revisional court was justified in setting aside the dismissal and restoring the proceedings.
    • Alternatively, it was argued that if the High Court found the revisions not maintainable, liberty should be granted to pursue the appropriate appellate remedy.

    Karnataka High Court Examines Supreme Court and High Court Precedents

    • The High Court examined the judgments in V.K. Bhat, S. Rama Krishna and Prakash and found that they established a clear principle concerning the nature of an order dismissing a criminal complaint for non-prosecution.
    • The Court held that such dismissal β€œwould consequentially result in acquittal of accused” and is therefore an appealable order.
    • Consequently, a revision petition under Section 397 CrPC against such an order would not be maintainable.
    • This distinction was decisive. The High Court did not need to enter into the merits of the underlying criminal allegations because the revisional proceedings themselves had been pursued through an incorrect statutory remedy.

    Revision Cannot Substitute Statutory Appeal Against Acquittal

    • The ruling reinforces an important aspect of criminal procedure: the legal character and consequence of the trial court’s order determine the appropriate remedy, rather than merely the terminology used to describe the dismissal.
    • Where dismissal of a complaint for non-prosecution has the legal consequence of acquitting the accused, the complainant must pursue the remedy available against the acquittal. A revision under Section 397 cannot be used as a substitute for the prescribed appellate route.
    • On this ground alone, the High Court held that all three petitions filed by the accused deserved to be allowed.

    Revisional Orders Set Aside

    • Applying the above principle, the Karnataka High Court set aside three revisional orders:
    • the order dated 5 September 2018 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 400/2017; the order dated 5 September 2018 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 401/2017; and the order dated 23 October 2018 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 430/2017.
    • The corresponding revision petitions were dismissed as not maintainable.

    Liberty Granted to Complainants to Pursue Other Remedies

    • Importantly, the High Court did not permanently foreclose the complainants from pursuing remedies available under law.
    • Referring particularly to the approach followed in Prakash v. Raju, the Court reserved liberty to avail other remedies in accordance with law.
    • Thus, the judgment is principally a ruling on the maintainability of revision proceedings, rather than a final adjudication of the merits of the underlying allegations.

    Key Legal Principle

    The legal principle emerging from the judgment can be stated as:

    Where dismissal of a criminal complaint for non-prosecution consequentially results in acquittal of the accused, the order is appealable. A revision petition under Section 397 CrPC challenging such an acquittal is not maintainable, and the complainant must pursue the remedy available in appeal or such other remedy as may be permissible in law.

    The ruling also underlines that a revisional court cannot restore proceedings through a revision where the statutory scheme requires the acquittal order to be challenged through the appropriate appellate mechanism.

    Why the Judgment Matters

    The judgment provides useful guidance in private-complaint proceedings where complaints are dismissed because of the complainant’s absence. The procedural distinction between an appeal against acquittal and a criminal revision is substantive because the jurisdiction, statutory requirements and scope of scrutiny differ.

    The Karnataka High Court’s decision confirms that litigants cannot choose revision merely because the original dismissal occurred on account of non-prosecution rather than after a full trial on merits. What matters is that the dismissal resulted in acquittal.

    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

  • Delhi High Court Quashes β‚Ή76.72 Lakh Excise Demand; Holds Adjudicating Authority Cannot Disregard Binding CESTAT Order

    Delhi High Court Quashes β‚Ή76.72 Lakh Excise Demand; Holds Adjudicating Authority Cannot Disregard Binding CESTAT Order

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

    Date: 15.09.2026

    Delhi High Court Quashes β‚Ή76.72 Lakh Excise Demand; Holds Adjudicating Authority Cannot Disregard Binding CESTAT Order

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

    The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of Wellspring Universal, setting aside a β‚Ή76.72 lakh demand raised by the Central GST authorities after finding that the adjudicating authority had failed to give effect to an earlier CESTAT order which had already upheld the taxpayer’s entitlement to refund.

    A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Shail Jain, in Wellspring Universal v. Additional Commissioner of Central GST, W.P.(C) 11957/2025, set aside both the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 10 December 2019 and the consequential Order-in-Original dated 24 March 2025. The judgment was pronounced on 14 September 2026.

    The Court also directed refund of the petitioner’s β‚Ή7,67,200 statutory pre-deposit with applicable interest.

    Background of the Dispute

    • Wellspring Universal is a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing engineering products, particularly in the welding sector. It was registered as a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) and also as a private bonded warehouse under Sections 58 and 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.
    • The dispute had a lengthy history involving CENVAT credit, excise duty paid on exports and subsequent refund proceedings.
    • Between April and December 2007, Wellspring exported goods through 36 consignments after paying excise duty of β‚Ή76,72,000. It initially sought rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. After the Department took the position that the EOU was not required to pay duty on exported goods, the petitioner repaid rebate already sanctioned and subsequently pursued its claim through the CENVAT credit/refund mechanism.
    • Earlier proceedings eventually culminated in an Order-in-Original dated 21 March 2017, whereby proceedings against the petitioner were dropped. That order was accepted by the competent reviewing authority and was not challenged.

    β‚Ή76.72 Lakh Refund Sanctioned

    • Following these proceedings, Wellspring filed a refund claim for β‚Ή76,72,000, which was sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Janakpuri through Refund Order dated 6 May 2019.
    • The authority found, among other things, that the refund claim was within limitation and that the necessary documents evidencing export had been furnished.
    • The Department, however, reviewed the refund order and filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). During the pendency of that appeal, a separate Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 10 December 2019 was issued alleging that the β‚Ή76.72 lakh refund had been erroneously sanctioned and proposing recovery with interest.
    • The Commissioner (Appeals) subsequently allowed the Department’s appeal on 16 December 2019, including on the ground that the credit ought to have been transitioned through TRAN-1 and that cash refund could not be sustained.

    CESTAT Ultimately Upheld Wellspring’s β‚Ή76.72 Lakh Refund

    • Wellspring challenged the Commissioner (Appeals)’ order before CESTAT.
    • In Final Order No. 56215/2024 dated 1 August 2024, CESTAT allowed Wellspring’s appeal and set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)’ order.
    • Significantly, CESTAT did not decide the matter merely on a technical ground. It expressly held that Wellspring was entitled to refund of β‚Ή76,72,000 under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
    • CESTAT further held that a substantive benefit could not be denied merely because the petitioner had quoted the wrong rule while claiming refund or because the Assistant Commissioner had sanctioned it with reference to an incorrect rule.
    • CESTAT also specifically examined the Department’s limitation objection and held that the refund claim was not barred by limitation.

    Department Still Confirmed β‚Ή76.72 Lakh Demand

    • Despite the CESTAT decision, the Additional Commissioner passed an Order-in-Original on 24 March 2025, confirming the β‚Ή76.72 lakh demand against Wellspring.
    • Among the grounds adopted were that earlier refund claims had been rejected and not challenged, that the subsequent refund applications constituted fresh claims barred by limitation, and that the 2019 Refund Order had been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals).
    • This prompted Wellspring to approach the Delhi High Court.

    Delhi High Court: CESTAT’s Operative Order Could Not Be Ignored

    • The High Court found a fundamental flaw in the Department’s approach.
    • It observed that the Commissioner (Appeals)’ order dated 16 December 2019, on which the Additional Commissioner had relied, had itself already been set aside by CESTAT on 1 August 2024.
    • Therefore, the adjudicating authority could not proceed in March 2025 as though the Commissioner (Appeals)’ order continued to remain an operative determination against Wellspring.

    The Court emphasised a significant principle governing departmental adjudication:

    An adjudicating authority exercising statutory powers must take into account operative orders passed by appellate authorities having appellate jurisdiction over it and cannot disregard a subsequent appellate determination directly bearing upon the issue under adjudication.

    Limitation Issue Could Not Be Reopened Contrary to CESTAT Finding

    • The High Court also rejected the Department’s attempt to once again treat the refund as time-barred.
    • CESTAT had already specifically considered the limitation issue and decided it in Wellspring’s favour. The Additional Commissioner, therefore, could not simply treat the refund as a fresh application and reach a conclusion directly contrary to the Tribunal’s determination.
    • The High Court observed that the petitioner had specifically communicated CESTAT’s 2024 decision to the adjudicating authority on 24 February 2025. Thus, this was not a situation where the authority was unaware of the appellate decision.
    • Nevertheless, the Order-in-Original was passed on 24 March 2025 without dealing with its effect.

    Substantive Refund Benefit Cannot Be Denied Merely for Quoting Wrong Rule

    • Another important aspect of the case is CESTAT’s underlying finding, which the High Court treated as operative.
    • CESTAT had held that Wellspring was substantively entitled to the β‚Ή76.72 lakh refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and that the benefit could not be denied merely because an incorrect rule had been quoted while filing or sanctioning the refund claim.
    • The High Court clarified that CESTAT’s order had not merely removed the Commissioner (Appeals)’ order on a procedural or technical basis; the Tribunal had actually examined and upheld Wellspring’s substantive entitlement to the refund.

    Delhi High Court Quashes SCN and Order-in-Original

    • The Court ultimately found that the Additional Commissioner had committed a β€œmanifest error” in confirming the β‚Ή76.72 lakh demand.
    • It held that the impugned adjudication was fundamentally unsustainable because it failed to give effect to CESTAT’s subsequent Final Order and proceeded on the basis of an appellate order that had already ceased to exist.

    Accordingly, the High Court:

    • allowed Wellspring Universal’s writ petition;
    • set aside the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 10 December 2019;
    • set aside the Order-in-Original dated 24 March 2025 confirming β‚Ή76.72 lakh demand; and
    • directed refund of β‚Ή7,67,200 deposited as statutory pre-deposit, together with applicable interest in accordance with law.

    Why the Judgment Is Significant

    • The ruling reinforces judicial and quasi-judicial discipline within the tax adjudication hierarchy. Once a competent appellate tribunal has conclusively decided an issue and its order has neither been stayed nor set aside, a subordinate adjudicating authority cannot effectively nullify that decision by deciding the same issue on a contrary premise.
    • The High Court specifically recorded that CESTAT’s Final Order dated 1 August 2024 had not been shown to have been stayed or set aside in subsequent proceedings.
    • The judgment is also significant for legacy Central Excise/CENVAT disputes transitioning into the GST era. It demonstrates that the existence of a separate demand proceeding cannot justify ignoring an operative appellate determination that directly decides the taxpayer’s entitlement and limitation issues.

    Key Legal Principle

    A statutory adjudicating authority cannot disregard an operative decision of the appellate authority having jurisdiction over it. Where CESTAT has already adjudicated the taxpayer’s substantive entitlement to refund and limitation, the adjudicating authority cannot subsequently confirm a demand on premises directly contrary to that binding appellate determination.

    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: Delhi High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • Delhi High Court: Prior Formal Declaration Not Required to Claim Protection as a Well-Known Trademark Under Section 11(2)

    Delhi High Court: Prior Formal Declaration Not Required to Claim Protection as a Well-Known Trademark Under Section 11(2)

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

    Date: 14.09.2026

    Delhi High Court: Prior Formal Declaration Not Required to Claim Protection as a Well-Known Trademark Under Section 11(2)

    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 an important ruling on the protection of well-known trademarks across dissimilar classes of goods, the Delhi High Court has held that a trademark need not have already been formally declared a β€œwell-known trademark” before its proprietor can invoke Section 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to oppose registration of an identical or similar mark for dissimilar goods.

    Justice Jyoti Singh delivered the ruling in an appeal filed by Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks’ rejection of its opposition to registration of the mark β€œGHOST BUSTER” in Class 05. The Court did not itself finally declare GHOSTBUSTERS a well-known trademark or finally reject the rival mark. Instead, it remanded the matter to the Registrar for fresh consideration of Columbia Pictures’ well-known-mark and bad-faith objections.

    Columbia Pictures Opposed Registration of β€˜GHOST BUSTER’ in Class 05

    • The dispute arose after an application was filed for registration of β€œGHOST BUSTER” in Class 05 for pharmaceutical, veterinary and sanitary preparations, dietetic substances for medical use, food for babies, dressings, disinfectants, fungicides, herbicides and other specified products.
    • Columbia Pictures filed a notice of opposition on 18 April 2022. However, the Registrar rejected the opposition by an order dated 16 April 2025, prompting Columbia Pictures to approach the Delhi High Court under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act read with Rule 156 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.

    Columbia Relied on Decades-Old GHOSTBUSTERS Franchise

    • Columbia Pictures asserted that it is an American film studio and production company and that GHOSTBUSTERS, first released in 1984, became one of the best-known supernatural comedy film franchises.
    • The judgment records that the franchise subsequently expanded through sequels, animated television series and later films, including Ghostbusters: Afterlife and Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire. In India, the movies have been released since 1985 and have also been made available through various streaming platforms.
    • Columbia also relied upon extensive merchandising, advertising and media coverage associated with the GHOSTBUSTERS name. The judgment records that merchandise bearing the markβ€”including apparel, toys, mugs, keychains, books and other productsβ€”was available in India.

    GHOSTBUSTERS Already Registered in India in Multiple Classes

    • There was no dispute that Columbia Pictures held Indian registrations for GHOSTBUSTERS in Classes 09 and 41, registered on 14 August 2012 with claimed use since 29 November 1985, and registrations in Classes 25 and 28 dated 25 October 2019.
    • The rival application for GHOST BUSTER, however, was filed on 1 December 2020 on a β€œproposed to be used” basis in Class 05.
    • This difference in classes became central to the controversy.

    Registrar Rejected Opposition Because Goods Were Dissimilar

    • The Registrar essentially rejected Columbia’s opposition because its GHOSTBUSTERS registrations related to Classes 09, 41, 25 and 28, whereas the rival GHOST BUSTER application concerned Class 05.
    • The Registrar reasoned that Columbia had not shown prior use of GHOSTBUSTERS specifically for Class 05 goods and therefore could not claim monopoly merely on the strength of registrations in other classes.
    • The Registrar also accepted the rival applicant’s explanation that β€œGHOST” referred to unexpected β€œghost peaks” appearing in chromatography and β€œBUSTER” referred to the product’s function of eliminating or removing impurities responsible for such peaks.

    Delhi HC Finds Registrar Failed to Consider a Crucial Section 11(2) Objection

    • The High Court found a fundamental flaw in this approach.
    • Justice Jyoti Singh observed that Columbia had specifically claimed that GHOSTBUSTERS was an earlier well-known trademark within the meaning of Section 11(2) and was consequently entitled to protection even against a nearly identical mark proposed for registration in a different class.
    • Yet the Registrar had failed to adjudicate this contention.
    • The Court described the non-consideration as a β€œglaring error”, noting that once such an opposition was raised, the Registrar was required to examine it and decide whether the earlier mark qualified for protection under Section 11(2).

    Section 11(2) Protects Well-Known Marks Even Against Dissimilar Goods

    • Section 11(2) assumes particular significance because it extends trademark protection beyond the conventional requirement that competing goods or services must be similar.
    • The provision contemplates refusal of registration where the later mark is identical or similar to an earlier trademark, even for dissimilar goods or services, if the earlier mark is a well-known trademark in India and use of the later mark without due cause would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier mark.
    • Accordingly, if Columbia could establish that GHOSTBUSTERS satisfied the statutory threshold of a well-known trademark, the mere fact that the rival application fell in Class 05 could not, by itself, dispose of its opposition.

    Prior Formal Declaration as β€˜Well-Known’ Is Not Mandatory

    • The most important legal finding of the judgment concerns whether an opponent must first obtain a formal declaration of well-known status before relying on Section 11(2).
    • The Delhi High Court answered that question in the negative.
    • Justice Jyoti Singh held that Section 11(2) neither requires nor envisages that the earlier trademark must already have been formally declared a well-known trademark. Instead, the inquiry is whether the earlier mark satisfies the statutory threshold of being well known among the relevant segment of the public and enjoys the requisite reputation in India.
    • The Court emphasised the statutory phrase β€œentitled to protection as a well-known trademark” and held that β€œentitled” cannot simply be read as β€œdeclared”. The factors prescribed under Sections 11(6) and 11(7) are therefore relevant to determining whether the mark satisfies that threshold.

    Rule 124 Is Not the Only Route to Well-Known Mark Protection

    • The Registrar’s side argued that Columbia should first have invoked Rule 124 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, which provides a mechanism for determination of a trademark as well known.
    • The High Court rejected the proposition that Rule 124 constitutes a mandatory pre-condition for invoking Section 11(2) in opposition proceedings.
    • The Court pointed out that the legislation deliberately uses different expressionsβ€”β€œwell-known trademark” in Section 11(2) and β€œdetermined to be well known” in Section 11(8). It consequently held that there is no statutory prescription requiring the proprietor of an earlier mark first to secure a formal well-known trademark declaration before invoking Section 11(2).

    Registrar Can Determine Well-Known Character During Opposition Proceedings

    • The ruling has important procedural implications.
    • According to the High Court, when Section 11(2) is invoked in opposition proceedings, the Registrar is empowered to examine whether the earlier mark is well known by considering evidence against the statutory factors contained in Sections 11(6) and 11(7), read with Section 2(1)(zg).
    • Those factors may include the duration and extent of use, promotion, recognition among the relevant public, registrations and the record of successful enforcement of trademark rights.
    • The decision therefore distinguishes between requiring a pre-existing formal declaration and determining whether the mark qualifies for well-known protection in the course of an opposition.

    Dissimilarity of Goods Does Not End the Inquiry

    • The Court further held that if Columbia succeeds in establishing that GHOSTBUSTERS meets the statutory threshold under Section 2(1)(zg), read with Sections 11(6) and 11(7), it can oppose the nearly identical GHOST BUSTER mark under Section 11(2) despite the dissimilarity of goods and difference in classes.
    • The Registrar, however, had focused almost entirely on the fact that Columbia’s registrations and activities were in entertainment, media and allied goods and services, whereas the rival application concerned Class 05 products.
    • The High Court criticised this approach, observing that the Registrar had taken the β€œwrong path” by failing to examine the well-known-mark issue.

    Columbia Had Produced Extensive Evidence of GHOSTBUSTERS Reputation

    • Columbia had placed substantial material before the Registrar in support of its claim.
    • The evidence referred to the release of the first GHOSTBUSTERS film in India in 1985, subsequent sequels, worldwide revenues, merchandising, availability on OTT platforms, extensive advertising and promotion, media coverage and longstanding Indian trademark registrations.
    • It also relied on registration of the mark in more than 50 countries and prior enforcement activity concerning the mark.
    • Crucially, however, the High Court did not itself finally rule that GHOSTBUSTERS is a well-known trademark in India. It held that the Registrar had failed to perform the required statutory examination and must now do so on remand.

    Alleged Bad-Faith Adoption of β€˜GHOST BUSTER’ Must Also Be Examined

    • The High Court also found that Columbia’s allegation of bad-faith adoption had not been properly considered.
    • Columbia argued that the GHOSTBUSTERS mark was so well known that adoption of the nearly identical expression GHOST BUSTER could not be coincidental.
    • It also relied upon an earlier US proceeding involving Welch Materials Inc., described in the judgment as a sister concern of Respondent No.2. Welch had applied in the United States for GHOST BUSTER in June 2019. Columbia opposed the application; it was subsequently abandoned, and the USPTO passed an order refusing the application on 7 January 2020. The Indian GHOST BUSTER application was thereafter filed on 1 December 2020.
    • The High Court observed that the Registrar’s impugned order did not address this significant contention.

    Delhi HC Discusses Meaning of β€˜Bad Faith’ in Trademark Applications

    • The Court referred to its earlier decisions in BPI Sports LLC v. Saurabh Gulati and Kia Wang v. Registrar of Trademarks while discussing bad-faith trademark adoption.
    • The judgment noted that bad faith may include cases where an applicant intentionally submits wrong or misleading information to the Trade Marks Office as well as situations where registration is sought with the intention of laying hands on a third party’s trademark.
    • The question whether the present GHOST BUSTER application actually amounted to bad-faith adoption was nevertheless left for the Registrar to decide after proper consideration.

    Delhi High Court Remands Matter to Registrar for Fresh Decision

    • After examining the Registrar’s order, Columbia’s opposition, evidence and written submissions, the High Court concluded that the matter required fresh consideration by the Registrar of Trade Marks.
    • The Registrar was specifically directed to examine all relevant contentions and supporting documents, particularly Columbia’s allegations concerning bad faith and its claim that GHOSTBUSTERS is entitled to protection as a well-known trademark under Section 11(2), tested against Sections 2(1)(zg), 11(6) and 11(7) of the Trade Marks Act.
    • Thus, Columbia Pictures obtained a significant procedural and legal victory, but the judgment should not be read as a final declaration that GHOSTBUSTERS is already a well-known trademark in India or as a final refusal of the GHOST BUSTER application. Those questions are to be reconsidered by the Registrar.

    Significance of the Judgment

    • The ruling is particularly important for owners of famous brands because it clarifies that cross-class protection under Section 11(2) is not dependent upon obtaining a formal well-known-mark declaration in advance.
    • A proprietor can raise well-known status as a ground in trademark opposition proceedings and produce evidence demonstrating that the earlier mark satisfies the statutory requirements. The Registrar must then adjudicate that claim instead of dismissing the opposition merely because the competing goods fall in different classes.
    • At the same time, the decision does not create an automatic cross-class monopoly for every reputed trademark. The proprietor must still establish, through evidence, that its mark meets the statutory threshold for well-known protection and satisfies the requirements of Section 11(2).

    Key Takeaway

    The Delhi High Court has clarified that an earlier trademark does not need a prior formal declaration as a β€œwell-known trademark” before its proprietor can invoke Section 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act against an identical or similar mark covering dissimilar goods.

    What matters is whether the earlier mark can establish, on evidence, that it qualifies for such protection under the statutory criteria. In Columbia Pictures’ case, the Registrar’s failure to examine the claimed well-known character of GHOSTBUSTERS and the allegation of bad-faith adoption of GHOST BUSTER warranted reconsideration. The matter was therefore remanded for a fresh decision.

    Connected Matter

    Delhi HC Cancels Deceptively Similar β€˜ROCKPAPA’ Trademark; Holds Prior User Has Superior Rights Over Registered Proprietor

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

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

    Source: Delhi High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • Madras High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case Involving 862 Grams of Hydroponic Ganja; Says Further Incarceration Not Required

    Madras High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case Involving 862 Grams of Hydroponic Ganja; Says Further Incarceration Not Required

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

    Date: 14.09.2026

    Madras High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case Involving 862 Grams of Hydroponic Ganja; Says Further Incarceration Not Required

    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 Madras High Court has granted bail to Chandra Pratapray Nirankari in an NDPS case involving alleged possession of 862 grams of Hydroponic Ganja/Marijuana, holding that, considering the nature of the allegations, the period of incarceration already undergone and the fact that the quantity involved was treated as an intermediate quantity, further incarceration was not required.

    Justice N. Ramesh ordered the petitioner’s release on bail subject to execution of a bond of β‚Ή25,000 with two sureties for a like sum, along with reporting and other conditions.

    Petitioner Arrested Under NDPS Act

    • The petitioner had been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17 August 2026 in connection with O.S. No.535/2026-AIU-B and O.S. No.39 of 2026 INT-AIR.
    • The alleged offences were under Section 8(c) read with Sections 23, 28 and 29, and Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
    • The bail petition was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

    Prosecution Alleged Possession of 862 Grams of Hydroponic Ganja

    • According to the prosecution, the petitioner was found in possession of 862 grams of Hydroponic Ganja/Marijuana.
    • Counsel for the petitioner argued that he had been falsely implicated and had not committed the alleged offence. It was also submitted that the quantity involved was not commercial quantity and that the petitioner was willing to comply with any conditions imposed by the Court.
    • The prosecution opposed bail, while also informing the Court that the petitioner had no previous case pending against him.

    High Court Treats Quantity as Intermediate

    After hearing both sides and examining the record, the Madras High Court took into account three principal factors:

    • the nature of the allegations,
    • the period of incarceration already undergone, and
    • the fact that the quantity involved was an intermediate quantity.

    On that basis, the Court concluded that further incarceration of the petitioner was not required and granted bail.

    The order is therefore significant as a bail ruling based on the circumstances of the case and the quantity involved. It does not amount to a finding on the petitioner’s guilt or innocence, which remains to be determined during investigation and trial.

    Bail Bond of β‚Ή25,000 With Two Sureties

    • The Court directed the petitioner to execute a bond for β‚Ή25,000, along with two sureties for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, Special Court for Customs at Alandur.
    • The sureties were also directed to affix their photographs and left thumb impressions in the prescribed surety application, with the Magistrate required to obtain an identity proof to verify their identities.

    Daily Reporting for 15 Days

    The High Court imposed a reporting condition requiring the petitioner to appear before the respondent authorities every day at 10:30 a.m. for 15 days, and thereafter whenever required for interrogation.

    The petitioner was also directed:

    • not to abscond during investigation or trial; and
    • not to tamper with evidence or witnesses.

    Trial Court Empowered to Act on Breach of Bail Conditions

    • The Court further made it clear that if any of the bail conditions are breached, the Magistrate or Trial Court would be entitled to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
    • For this proposition, the Madras High Court relied upon the Supreme Court decision in P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala, (2005) 13 SCC 283.
    • The order also states that if the accused subsequently absconds, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

    Why the Order Is Significant

    • The ruling reinforces the principle that continued pre-trial detention is not automatic in every NDPS prosecution and that the Court must assess the circumstances of the individual case, including the quantity of contraband, period of custody and antecedents of the accused.
    • Here, the Court specifically recorded that the quantity involved was intermediate and that the petitioner had no previous pending case. These factors weighed in favour of bail.
    • At the same time, the Court balanced the grant of liberty with strict conditions requiring regular reporting, cooperation with the investigation, non-interference with witnesses and continued availability during proceedings.

    Key Takeaway

    The Madras High Court granted bail to the petitioner in an NDPS case involving 862 grams of Hydroponic Ganja/Marijuana, holding that further incarceration was unnecessary in view of the period already spent in custody and the intermediate quantity involved.

    The petitioner therefore succeeded in the bail petition, though the order does not decide the merits of the prosecution 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: 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

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • Madras High Court Directs Payment of β‚Ή3.52 Crore Land Acquisition Compensation to Purchaser

    Madras High Court Directs Payment of β‚Ή3.52 Crore Land Acquisition Compensation to Purchaser

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

    Date: 14.09.2026

    Madras High Court Directs Payment of β‚Ή3.52 Crore Land Acquisition Compensation to Purchaser

    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 Madras High Court has allowed a writ petition filed by M/s RK Dhayu Real Estates LLP and directed the Tamil Nadu land acquisition authorities to release the compensation payable for land acquired out of a larger property purchased from the Sahara Group.

    The petitioner had challenged the proceedings dated 1 August 2024 refusing to disburse the land acquisition compensation and sought payment of the amount assessed at β‚Ή3,52,35,674, along with interest.

    Property Purchased From Sahara Group Under Supreme Court Monitoring

    • The dispute concerned property originally belonging to M/s Sahara City Homes, measuring a total extent of 69.5025 acres.
    • The judgment records that, because the Sahara Group owed money to various investors and proceedings were pending before the Supreme Court, sale of Sahara properties was being undertaken under the supervision of the Apex Court, with sale proceeds required to be deposited into a specially designated account.
    • RK Dhayu Real Estates LLP purchased the property through five registered sale deeds dated 6 January 2023, after obtaining concurrence in the context of the Supreme Court proceedings. The petitioner deposited nearly β‚Ή45 crore into the special account, and a compliance affidavit was filed before the Supreme Court regarding the transaction.

    2.5437 Acres Had Already Been Acquired by Highways Department

    • Out of the total 69.5025 acres purchased by RK Dhayu, approximately 2.5437 acres had already been acquired by the Tamil Nadu State Highways Department.
    • As a result, although the petitioner had paid consideration for the full extent of 69.5025 acres, it could not obtain possession and enjoyment of the acquired portion.
    • The sale deed itself contained a clause enabling the petitioner to receive the compensation fixed in respect of the acquired land.

    Sahara Group Assigned Compensation Rights to RK Dhayu

    1. A significant factor before the High Court was a communication dated 7 July 2024 issued by a representative of the Sahara Group to the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
    2. The communication recorded that the entire sale consideration had been received from RK Dhayu Real Estates LLP and deposited in the SEBI-Sahara Refund Account in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directions.
    3. More importantly, Sahara expressly confirmed that it had assigned all rights, including the right to claim compensation in respect of the subject property, in favour of RK Dhayu Real Estates LLP.
    4. The Sahara representative further stated that RK Dhayu was legally entitled to receive the compensation, that Sahara had no objection to such payment, and that Sahara would not itself make any claim for the compensation. The communication also contained an undertaking to indemnify the authorities against any loss arising from disbursement to RK Dhayu.

    Land Acquisition Authorities Refused Payment

    1. Despite the authorization and no-objection from Sahara, the Deputy Tahsildar issued proceedings dated 1 August 2024 refusing to release the compensation to RK Dhayu.
    2. The State’s concern was that the petitioner was not the awardee in the original land acquisition proceedings and that the relevant revenue records continued to reflect names of several entities connected with the Sahara Group.
    3. The authorities were also apprehensive because the broader Sahara matter remained under Supreme Court monitoring and involved claims of investors across India.
    4. The respondents therefore feared that disbursing the compensation directly to RK Dhayu could expose them to future disputes and contemplated referring the matter for determination of apportionment.

    High Court Finds Sale Was Properly Conducted Under Supreme Court Supervision

    • Justice N. Anand Venkatesh rejected the apprehension of the authorities after examining the documents placed on record.
    • The Court found that the entire sale transaction had taken place under the direct monitoring of the Supreme Court. It noted that the compliance affidavit filed before the Apex Court specifically referred to the sale in favour of RK Dhayu and confirmed that the entire consideration had been deposited into the designated special account.
    • The High Court therefore held that there was no difficulty in concluding that the sale in favour of the petitioner had been validly completed with proper disclosure before the Supreme Court.

    Purchaser Cannot Be Left Without Either Land or Compensation

    • The Court also took note of the practical consequence of the acquisition.
    • RK Dhayu had paid consideration for the entire 69.5025-acre property, but approximately 2.5437 acres were unavailable to it because they had already been acquired by the Highways Department.
    • The Court therefore observed that the only meaningful way of compensating the purchaser for that portion was to permit it to receive the land acquisition compensation fixed by the Highways Department.

    Sahara’s No-Objection Removed Any Real Risk to Authorities

    • The High Court further relied on the Sahara Group’s express no-objection and assignment of compensation rights.
    • The Court observed that the same representative who was involved when the sale deed was executed had issued the subsequent communication confirming that RK Dhayu could receive the entire compensation amount.
    • In these circumstances, payment of the compensation to the petitioner would not, in the Court’s view, expose the respondents to any genuine hardship or future liability.
    • The Court also noted that the sale deed itself contained a specific clause enabling the petitioner to receive the compensation and that the transaction had been disclosed in the compliance affidavit filed before the Supreme Court.

    Authorities Directed to Pay Compensation Within Six Weeks

    • The Madras High Court accordingly allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to hand over the entire compensation amount to RK Dhayu Real Estates LLP within six weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.
    • The petitioner’s Senior Counsel also filed a memo containing the bank account details into which the compensation was to be credited, and the Court directed the first respondent to make payment into that account.
    • The Court clarified that if any dispute arose in the future concerning the compensation, the respondents would not be held responsible and such dispute would have to be handled by the petitioner.

    Significance of the Judgment

    The ruling is important in situations where land is acquired before or around the time of a subsequent property sale and the purchaser has expressly acquired the seller’s right to receive compensation.

    The judgment demonstrates that land acquisition authorities cannot refuse payment merely because the purchaser was not the original awardee where the documentary record clearly establishes:

    • a valid sale of the larger property,
    • an express assignment of compensation rights,
    • a no-objection from the original owner,
    • payment of the full sale consideration, and
    • judicial supervision of the underlying transaction.

    The case is also notable because the property formed part of the Sahara Group’s assets under Supreme Court monitoring, yet the Madras High Court found that this circumstance did not prevent release of compensation where the sale and payment structure had been properly disclosed before the Apex Court.

    Key Takeaway

    The Madras High Court effectively held that where a purchaser has paid for the entire property, a portion of that property has already been acquired by the Government, and the original owner has expressly assigned its compensation rights and given a no-objection, the purchaser cannot be denied the corresponding land acquisition compensation merely because it was not the original awardee. Accordingly, RK Dhayu Real Estates LLP succeeded in the writ petition, and the State authorities were directed to release the entire compensation amount within six weeks.

    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

  • Supreme Court Restores β‚Ή2,782 Crore Arbitral Award in Delhi Airport Metro Dispute; Warns Courts Against Re-Appreciating Evidence Under Sections 34 and 37

    Supreme Court Restores β‚Ή2,782 Crore Arbitral Award in Delhi Airport Metro Dispute; Warns Courts Against Re-Appreciating Evidence Under Sections 34 and 37

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

    Date: 14.09.2026

    Supreme Court Restores β‚Ή2,782 Crore Arbitral Award in Delhi Airport Metro Dispute; Warns Courts Against Re-Appreciating Evidence Under Sections 34 and 37

    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 .

    In a major ruling on the limits of judicial interference with arbitral awards, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (DAMEPL) and set aside the Delhi High Court Division Bench judgment that had interfered with an arbitral award of β‚Ή2,782.33 crore plus interest in DAMEPL’s favour against Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (DMRC).

    The Supreme Court strongly cautioned against courts effectively sitting in appeal over arbitral awards by reassessing facts and evidence and then characterising their disagreement with the arbitrator as “perversity” or “patent illegality”. The Court emphasised that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is founded upon the principle of minimal judicial interference with arbitration.

    Dispute Arising From Delhi Airport Metro Express Line

    • The dispute arose from the Airport Metro Express Line (AMEL) project connecting New Delhi Railway Station with Dwarka Sector 21 through Indira Gandhi International Airport.
    • DMRC proposed to develop the approximately 22.7-km project through a public-private partnership. A consortium comprising Reliance Energy Limited, later renamed Reliance Infrastructure Limited, and Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles, S.A. was selected, following which DMRC and DAMEPL entered into a Concession Agreement dated 25 August 2008.
    • Under the arrangement, DMRC was responsible for civil works, while DAMEPL was responsible for various systems including rolling stock, power supply, overhead equipment, signalling and other operational infrastructure. Commercial operations commenced on 23 February 2011.

    Structural Defects Led to Termination Dispute

    • DAMEPL subsequently raised concerns regarding defects in the viaduct and bearings. A joint inspection process followed, and DAMEPL eventually stopped operations on 8 July 2012.
    • On 9 July 2012, DAMEPL issued a notice requiring DMRC to cure the defects within 90 days. It subsequently issued a termination notice dated 8 October 2012, alleging that the defects had not been cured within the stipulated period and that DMRC was consequently in default under the Concession Agreement.
    • DMRC invoked arbitration on 23 October 2012. The Airport Metro Line later resumed operations at a reduced speed, but DAMEPL eventually ceased operations and handed the line over to DMRC.

    Arbitral Tribunal Found DMRC in Breach

    • The Arbitral Tribunal was principally required to decide whether DAMEPL’s termination of the Concession Agreement was valid.
    • The Tribunal undertook a detailed examination of the structural defects and the remedial measures undertaken by DMRC. It found, among other things, 1,551 cracks across 367 girders, representing about 72% of the girders examined. It concluded that effective steps had not been taken within the stipulated 90-day cure period and held that DMRC was in breach of the Concession Agreement.
    • The Tribunal also examined other alleged defects, including twists in girders and gaps involving structural components, and concluded that the defects had neither been cured nor had effective remedial steps been taken within the stipulated period. It therefore upheld DAMEPL’s termination notice.

    Tribunal Awards β‚Ή2,782.33 Crore Plus Interest to DAMEPL

    • Following its finding that DAMEPL validly terminated the Concession Agreement due to a DMRC event of default, the Tribunal considered DAMEPL’s claim for termination payment.
    • DAMEPL had sought approximately β‚Ή3,470 crore. In calculating the amount payable, the Tribunal determined β‚Ή611.95 crore to qualify as “Equity”, calculated “Adjusted Equity” at β‚Ή983.02 crore and ultimately awarded β‚Ή2,782.33 crore along with further interest as termination payment payable by DMRC to DAMEPL.

    Single Judge Refused to Interfere Under Section 34

    • DMRC challenged the award before the Delhi High Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
    • A Single Judge dismissed DMRC’s challenge on 6 March 2018, holding that the Tribunal’s findings concerning facts, law and interpretation of the Concession Agreement fell within the arbitrators’ domain.
    • The Single Judge also recognised the fundamental principle that where two views are possible and the view adopted by the Tribunal is plausible, a court exercising Section 34 jurisdiction cannot substitute its own interpretation merely because it prefers another view.

    Delhi High Court Division Bench Partly Set Aside Award

    • DMRC thereafter approached the Division Bench under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.
    • The Division Bench reversed the Single Judge and partly set aside the arbitral award. It found fault with the Tribunal’s reasoning concerning the termination date, the effect of the Commissioner of Metro Railway Safety’s certificate and the calculation of Adjusted Equity.
    • The High Court concluded that the award suffered from perversity, irrationality and patent illegality. It consequently set aside the Tribunal’s conclusions concerning the validity of the termination notice and treatment of β‚Ή611.95 crore as Equity, which resulted in the β‚Ή2,782.33 crore award being set aside.
    • DAMEPL then approached the Supreme Court.

    Supreme Court Explains the Narrow Scope of β€œPatent Illegality”

    1. The Supreme Court used the dispute to reiterate the narrow limits within which courts can interfere with arbitral awards.
    2. It held that patent illegality must be an illegality that goes to the root of the matter. Every error of law committed by an arbitral tribunal cannot automatically be characterised as patent illegality, nor can an erroneous application of law by itself justify setting aside an award.
    3. Most importantly, the Court held that courts cannot re-appreciate evidence in order to conclude that an award suffers from patent illegality because a court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 does not sit as an appellate court over the arbitrator.
    4. Interference may nevertheless be permissible where the arbitrator adopts a view that is not even a possible view, interprets the contract in a manner that no fair-minded or reasonable person could adopt, travels beyond the contract, gives no reasons, bases conclusions on no evidence, ignores vital evidence, or considers documents not supplied to the other party.

    Supreme Court Flags β€œDisturbing Tendency” of Courts Setting Aside Awards

    • One of the most significant observations in the judgment concerns excessive judicial scrutiny of arbitral awards.
    • The Supreme Court noted a β€œdisturbing tendency” of courts to dissect and reassess factual aspects of arbitration disputes, reach their own conclusions and thereafter label the award perverse or patently illegal.
    • Such an approach, the Court warned, would undermine the object of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which is to preserve minimal judicial interference with arbitral awards.
    • This observation has significant implications for arbitration jurisprudence because it reinforces the distinction between judicial review of an award and an appeal on the merits of the dispute.

    Interpretation of Contract Is Primarily for the Arbitrator

    • The dispute also involved the interpretation of Article 29.5.1 of the Concession Agreement concerning the period available to DMRC to cure the alleged defects.
    • The Arbitral Tribunal interpreted the provision to mean that DMRC had 90 days from the cure notice dated 9 July 2012 to cure the defects. The Supreme Court held that this represented a possible interpretation of the contractual provision.
    • Even assuming that another interpretation could also have been adopted, the Court refused to interfere because construction of the Concession Agreement was within the domain of the Arbitral Tribunal.
    • The ruling therefore reinforces the proposition that a court cannot substitute its preferred contractual interpretation for a plausible interpretation adopted by the arbitrator.

    CMRS Safety Certificate Did Not Justify Setting Aside Award

    • DMRC relied heavily upon the certificate issued by the Commissioner of Metro Railway Safety (CMRS) permitting resumption of operations.
    • DMRC argued that the certificate demonstrated that the defects had been rectified and that the Tribunal had improperly disregarded important evidence.
    • The Supreme Court, however, distinguished between the statutory question of whether the Metro Line was sufficiently safe to resume passenger operations and the contractual question before the Tribunalβ€”whether DMRC had breached the Concession Agreement and whether the defects had been cured within the contractually prescribed period.
    • The Supreme Court ultimately rejected the Division Bench’s conclusion that the Tribunal’s treatment of the CMRS certificate rendered the award patently illegal. It emphasised that the arbitrator is the judge of the quality as well as quantity of evidence, and a court under Section 34 cannot reassess that evidence as though exercising appellate jurisdiction.

    β‚Ή611.95 Crore β€œAdjusted Equity” Finding Also Protected From Re-Appreciation

    • Another important issue concerned the Tribunal’s treatment of β‚Ή611.95 crore as Equity for determining the termination payment.
    • The Delhi High Court Division Bench had found the Tribunal’s approach flawed and had interfered with the calculation. However, the Supreme Court examined the contractual framework governing termination payment and Adjusted Equity and concluded that the Division Bench had exceeded the permissible limits of judicial review.
    • The Court’s approach once again emphasised that interpretation of contractual provisions and evaluation of evidence primarily belong to the arbitral tribunal unless the resulting view crosses the stringent threshold for interference under Section 34.

    Sections 34 and 37 Do Not Permit an Appeal on Merits

    1. The judgment assumes particular importance because the proceedings had travelled through both Section 34 and Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.
    2. The Supreme Court made it clear that the narrow scope of interference applicable to Section 34 cannot be enlarged merely because the matter reaches the appellate stage under Section 37.
    3. The underlying principle remains that arbitration is intended to provide finality to disputes and that judicial intervention must remain confined to the grounds expressly permitted by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
    4. The Court noted that one of the principal objectives of the 1996 Act is to minimise the supervisory role of courts in arbitration, with Section 5 expressly restricting judicial intervention except where the Act provides otherwise.

    Supreme Court Restores DAMEPL’s Victory

    • Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed DAMEPL’s appeal and set aside the Delhi High Court Division Bench judgment.
    • DMRC’s connected appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 8311 of 2019 was dismissed. The Supreme Court also declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s award of interest, noting that it had been granted in accordance with the terms of the Concession Agreement.
    • The result effectively restored the arbitral award in DAMEPL’s favour, including the β‚Ή2,782.33 crore termination payment along with further interest.

    Why the Judgment Is Significant for Arbitration Law

    • The decision is an important authority on the limits of the expressions β€œpatent illegality”, β€œperversity” and β€œpublic policy” when courts review domestic arbitral awards.
    • The judgment makes clear that disagreement with an arbitrator’s factual assessment is not enough. Nor is the availability of a better or alternative interpretation of the contract sufficient to justify judicial interference.
    • The threshold is substantially higher: the defect must fall within the limited statutory grounds contemplated by Section 34.
    • This distinction is crucial because permitting courts to reassess evidence, contractual interpretation and factual conclusions would effectively transform proceedings under Sections 34 and 37 into ordinary appealsβ€”something the statutory arbitration framework deliberately seeks to prevent.

    Key Takeaway

    The Supreme Court’s ruling establishes a strong principle of arbitral finality and judicial restraint:

    Courts cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute their own interpretation merely because another view is possible and then characterise the arbitral award as β€œpatently illegal” or β€œperverse”. Patent illegality must go to the root of the matter, and judicial interference must remain within the narrow boundaries prescribed by Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

    On the outcome, DAMEPL succeeded before the Supreme Court, while DMRC’s challenge failed. The Delhi High Court Division Bench judgment was set aside and the Tribunal’s award in favour of DAMEPL stood restored.

    Connected Matter

    Supreme Court: High Court Cannot Refuse Appointment of Arbitrator by Deciding Limitation at Pre-Reference Stage

    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

  • Bombay HC Holds Secured Creditor Has Priority Over Government Dues; State’s Re. 1 Auction Declared Null and Void

    Bombay HC Holds Secured Creditor Has Priority Over Government Dues; State’s Re. 1 Auction Declared Null and Void

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

    Date: 14.09.2026

    Bombay HC Holds Secured Creditor Has Priority Over Government Dues; State’s Re. 1 Auction Declared Null and Void

    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 .  

    In a significant ruling concerning the priority of secured creditors over government dues, the Bombay High Court has ruled in favour of Indian Overseas Bank, holding that merely attaching a property for recovery of State dues, without completing the legally required proclamation and registration requirements, cannot give such government dues priority over the rights of a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

    The Division Bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat consequently quashed an auction conducted by State authorities on 7 April 2018, under which mortgaged land was transferred to the Government for a nominal consideration of Re. 1. The Court also directed consequential deletion of the Government’s mutation entry and restoration of the Bank’s rights over the property.

    Indian Overseas Bank Challenged State Auction of Mortgaged Land

    • Indian Overseas Bank approached the Bombay High Court as a secured creditor, seeking to quash the auction sale dated 7 April 2018 concerning land bearing Survey No. 43/1/B. It also sought restoration of rightful control and possession of the land.
    • The Bank had sanctioned financial facilities to the borrower in 2007, secured through an equitable mortgage created by deposit of the original title deeds. The charge was registered before the Registrar of Companies on 31 January 2007. Following repayment defaults, the borrower’s account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 31 December 2010.
    • Indian Overseas Bank thereafter initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) on 28 September 2012. It subsequently issued a possession notice under Section 13(4) on 20 December 2012.

    Bank Subsequently Sold Secured Assets Under SARFAESI

    • The Bank eventually auctioned the mortgaged property on 26 November 2021 in favour of M/s Kaushal Metal and Steel Private Limited and M/s TGK Special Steel Private Limited.
    • A sale certificate was issued on 22 February 2022 and possession was handed over. However, the Bank encountered difficulties in handing over control of the parcel corresponding to Survey No. 43/1/B.
    • Upon examining the revenue records, the Bank discovered discrepancies between the survey numbers appearing in the Talathi’s records and those contained in the original title deeds.
    • Further investigation revealed that old Survey No. 46/1/2 had been renumbered as 43/1/B, without any change in area. The Bank also discovered that the property had already been auctioned by the Tahsildar and that the State of Maharashtra’s name had been entered in the revenue records.

    Government Sought Recovery of β‚Ή2.68 Crore as Land Revenue Arrears

    • The State proceedings arose from dues of approximately β‚Ή2,68,99,000 allegedly owed by the borrower to the District Industries Centre.
    • The Collector, Raigad, had directed the Tahsildar to recover these dues as arrears of land revenue. The State authorities thereafter claimed to have seized the property and recorded an encumbrance for β‚Ή2.68 crore in the “other rights” column of the 7/12 extracts.
    • An auction was scheduled for 7 April 2018. Since there were no other bidders, State officials participated on behalf of the Government and the land was purchased for a nominal price of Re. 1. A purchase certificate was subsequently issued in the name of the Government of Maharashtra under Rule 14-B of the Maharashtra Realisation of Land Revenue Rules, 1967.
    • This ultimately created the conflict between the State’s recovery proceedings and the Bank’s pre-existing secured interest.

    Indian Overseas Bank Claimed Priority Under Section 26E of SARFAESI Act

    • Indian Overseas Bank argued that it held the first and prior charge over the mortgaged property and that the State-conducted auction was void ab initio and contrary to the SARFAESI framework.
    • The Bank specifically relied upon Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act, under which a secured creditor’s dues are accorded priority over other debts and over revenues, taxes, cesses and other rates payable to the Central Government, State Government or local authorities.
    • The Bank also produced its CERSAI registration certificate, which showed registration of the security interest on 14 February 2015, and relied heavily on the Full Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Limited v. Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax.

    Bombay HC Relies on Full Bench Ruling in Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank

    • The Division Bench extensively relied upon the Bombay High Court Full Bench ruling in Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Limited v. Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax.
    • The Full Bench had explained that the expression “priority” means the right to enforce one claim in preference to others. It held that, having regard to the non-obstante provisions concerning secured creditors, their dues have priority over other dues, including revenues, taxes, cesses and rates payable to governmental authorities.
    • The judgment therefore examined whether the State had taken the necessary legal steps capable of defeating or taking precedence over the Bank’s secured interest.

    Mere Attachment Is Not Enough: Proclamation Must Follow Statutory Procedure

    1. A particularly important part of the judgment concerns the distinction between merely attaching a property and completing the statutory procedure necessary to make that attachment effective against competing secured interests.
    2. The Full Bench precedent relied upon by the Court required compliance not merely with attachment requirements but also with the prescribed proclamation procedure under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and the Maharashtra Realisation of Land Revenue Rules.
    3. The Court reiterated that simply ordering an attachment is insufficient. Before an attached property is sold, a proclamation has to be issued in the prescribed form and publicly announced in the manner contemplated by law.
    4. This procedural requirement became decisive in Indian Overseas Bank’s case.

    State Failed to Show CERSAI Registration or Proper Proclamation

    • The Bombay High Court found that the State authorities’ affidavit did not state that the Tahsildar had registered the State’s claim with CERSAI.
    • More importantly, the State’s affidavit did not demonstrate that after attaching the property, the authorities had taken the further legally prescribed steps for proclamationβ€”such as announcement by beating of drum or other customary mode, affixing the proclamation on a conspicuous part of the property, or displaying it on the notice board of the concerned Talathi office.

    The Court therefore held that:

    Simply attaching the property, without taking the prescribed steps towards proclamation for recovery of dues, would not give those State dues priority over the dues of a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act.

    Government Encumbrance Cannot Prevail Over Bank’s Secured Charge

    • Having applied the Full Bench decision, the Court held that there was no reason to deny Indian Overseas Bank the benefit of the principles laid down therein.
    • Since the Bank was admittedly a secured creditor seeking recovery under the SARFAESI Act, the Court concluded that the encumbrance/charge entered by the State authorities could not prevail over the Bank’s secured charge.
    • The Court expressly clarified that the State authorities were not barred from recovering their dues altogether.
    • They remained free to recover the amount in accordance with law. However, as far as priority was concerned, the Bank’s dues as secured creditor clearly ranked ahead of the dues claimed by the State respondents.

    Auction Sale to Government for Re. 1 Quashed

    • The High Court consequently allowed Indian Overseas Bank’s writ petition.
    • It quashed the 7 April 2018 auction sale relating to Survey No. 43/1/B and declared the transfer of the land to the concerned State respondent null and void.
    • The Court further directed restoration of rightful control and possession of the propertyβ€”old Survey No. 46/1/2, subsequently renumbered as Survey No. 43/1/Bβ€”in favour of Indian Overseas Bank as secured creditor.

    Government Mutation Entry to Be Deleted Within Four Weeks

    • The High Court also ordered consequential correction of the revenue records.
    • The State authorities were directed to take steps to delete Mutation Entry No. 1959 dated 16 April 2018, through which the Government of Maharashtra’s name had been entered in the occupant’s column of the 7/12 extract.
    • These consequential steps were directed to be completed within four weeks from the date of the order.

    Auction Purchasers to Get Clear Title Free From State Encumbrance

    • The ruling also has direct implications for the purchasers who acquired the secured asset through the Bank’s SARFAESI auction.
    • The High Court observed that, subject to other compliance requirements under the SARFAESI Act, the purchasers M/s Kaushal Metal and Steel Private Limited and M/s TGK Special Steel Private Limited would get clear title free from the encumbrances claimed by the State respondents.
    • This aspect of the judgment reinforces the importance of priority rules not only for banks but also for purchasers of secured assets through statutory auctions.

    State Can Recover From Surplus or Other Assets

    • The judgment does not extinguish the Government’s underlying claim against the borrower.
    • The Court directed that if any surplus remains after Indian Overseas Bank’s dues are satisfied, the Bank must notify the State authorities, which would then be entitled to the residual proceeds, if any.
    • The State and the Collector’s office were also left free to proceed against any other assets or properties belonging to the borrower in accordance with law.

    Significance of the Judgment

    • The ruling is significant for banks, financial institutions, secured creditors, insolvency and recovery professionals and purchasers of secured assets, because it reinforces the statutory priority accorded to duly registered security interests.
    • At the same time, the judgment makes an important qualification: a Government department’s claim does not disappear merely because a secured creditor has priority. Rather, the question is one of ranking and enforceability against the particular secured asset.
    • The decision also demonstrates that an entry in revenue records or a bare attachment cannot automatically defeat a secured creditor’s rights. Where the law requires attachment, public proclamation and other procedural steps, those requirements must be demonstrated before a competing claim of priority can be sustained.

    Key Takeaway

    The Bombay High Court’s ruling establishes that State Government dues cannot take priority over a secured creditor merely because the State attached the mortgaged property. Where the prescribed proclamation procedure was not completed and the State’s claim was not shown to have been registered with CERSAI, the secured creditor’s statutory priority prevails.

    Accordingly, Indian Overseas Bank succeeded in the writ petition. Its secured charge was held to have priority over the State’s dues, the State’s 2018 auction was quashed, the Re. 1 transfer was declared null and void, and consequential correction of the revenue records was ordered.

    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

  • Karnataka High Court Dismisses State’s Appeal Against Acquittal; Finds POCSO Victim’s Age Not Proved as Required by Law

    Karnataka High Court Dismisses State’s Appeal Against Acquittal; Finds POCSO Victim’s Age Not Proved as Required by Law

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

    Date: 14.09.2026

    Karnataka High Court Dismisses State’s Appeal Against Acquittal; Finds POCSO Victim’s Age Not Proved as Required by Law

    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 . 

    The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal of an accused charged under Sections 376 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), holding that an appellate court cannot interfere with an acquittal merely because another view of the evidence is possible.

    The Division Bench of Justice K.S. Mudagal and Justice M.G.S. Kamal found no perversity or illegality in the Trial Court’s appreciation of the evidence and consequently refused to overturn the acquittal.

    State Challenged Acquittal in POCSO Case

    • The State of Karnataka approached the High Court under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment dated 16 November 2016 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge and Special Court for POCSO cases, Tumkur, in Special Case No.120/2013.
    • The Trial Court had acquitted the accused of offences punishable under Sections 450 and 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
    • The prosecution case arose from Crime No.34/2013 registered by Madhugiri Police. The prosecution alleged that the victim was 15 years old on the date of the incident and that the accused had entered her house and committed penetrative sexual assault.

    Trial Court Acquitted Accused

    • During the trial, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses, produced Exhibits P1 to P9 and marked material objects. The accused denied the charges and did not lead separate defence evidence after his examination under Section 313 CrPC.
    • The Trial Court ultimately acquitted him, principally finding that the prosecution had failed to establish that the victim was below 18 years of age in accordance with law and had also failed to prove the allegation of forcible penetrative sexual assault.
    • The State challenged these findings before the Karnataka High Court.

    Proof of Victim’s Age Was Essential for Section 4 POCSO Charge

    • One of the central issues before the High Court was whether the prosecution had legally established the age of the victim.
    • The Court observed that, to sustain the charge under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, the prosecution was required to establish that the victim was below 18 years of age on the date of the alleged incident.
    • Similarly, to prove the charge under Section 376 IPC, the prosecution was required, in the context of the charges framed in this case, to establish the alleged forcible penetrative sexual assault. The prosecution was also required to prove the alleged criminal trespass into the house.

    Karnataka HC Relies on Supreme Court’s Mahadeo Judgment on Age Determination

    • For determining the proper method of proving age, the High Court relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Mahadeo S/o Kerba Maske v. State of Maharashtra & Another, (2013) 14 SCC 637.
    • The judgment referred to the hierarchy prescribed under Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 for age determination.
    • Under that framework, the relevant evidence is to be considered in sequence: matriculation or equivalent certificate, if available; in its absence, the date-of-birth certificate from the first school attended; thereafter, a birth certificate issued by the corporation, municipal authority or panchayat; and only when such documentary evidence is unavailable may medical opinion be resorted to.
    • The High Court observed that the Supreme Court in Mahadeo had held that the same yardstick could appropriately be followed by courts while determining the age of a victim.

    Matriculation Certificate Not Produced Despite Victim Studying in SSLC

    • Applying this principle, the High Court found a significant deficiency in the prosecution evidence.
    • The complaint itself stated that the victim was studying in SSLC at the relevant time. Yet, the prosecution did not produce her matriculation certificate. Nor was it the prosecution’s case that she had dropped out of school.
    • Instead, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of the Headmaster of Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Girl’s High School, Madhugiri, and a certificate marked as Ex.P8.
    • However, the certificate had itself been prepared on the basis of a transfer certificate submitted at the time of admission to that school, and the Headmaster stated that he did not know who had written the underlying transfer certificate.
    • The High Court consequently held that this evidence did not satisfy the requirement contemplated under Rule 12(3) as explained in Mahadeo.

    No Birth Certificate or Ossification Test Produced

    • The Court further noted that the Investigating Officer had neither produced a birth certificate issued by a municipal authority or panchayat nor referred the victim for an ossification test.
    • There was also no explanation for the failure to produce the required documentary evidence.
    • The High Court therefore agreed with the Trial Court that the prosecution had failed to establish that the victim was below 18 years of age on the date of the incident.
    • This finding was crucial to the prosecution’s charge under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

    High Court Reiterates Limited Scope of Appeal Against Acquittal

    • The Division Bench then examined whether the Trial Court’s findings concerning the IPC offences warranted interference.
    • For this purpose, the Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in Prem Singh v. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 88.
    • The principle reiterated by the High Court was that where a conclusion regarding the innocence of an accused is reasonably possible on the evidence and materials on record, the appellate court should not disturb the Trial Court’s acquittal merely because it might, on re-appreciation, prefer another view.
    • The Karnataka High Court summarised the position by observing that merely because two views are possible, an acquittal cannot be interfered with unless the judgment suffers from patent illegality or perversity.

    Delay in Complaint and FIR Considered

    • The Court also considered the prosecution’s explanation regarding the timing of the complaint.
    • The alleged incident was stated to have occurred on 6 March 2013 at around 6:30 p.m., whereas the complaint was lodged on 9 March 2013 at 7:00 p.m. The FIR reached the Trial Court on 10 March 2013 at 6:50 p.m.
    • The complainant explained that he had waited for his wife to return from Bengaluru before lodging the complaint. However, the High Court observed that the evidence indicated that the complainant had already informed his wife over the phone shortly after the incident.
    • The Court therefore found the delay relevant in the overall assessment of the prosecution case, particularly as the delay in forwarding the FIR was also not explained.

    Victim’s Testimony and Medical Evidence Raised Further Doubts

    • The High Court also considered the victim’s testimony during cross-examination. The judgment records that she stated that, apart from the accused hugging her and holding her hands, he did not do anything else to her, and that she had informed her father and uncle about those acts when they returned home.
    • The Court further noted that the medical examination was conducted within four days of the alleged incident and that the medical evidence recorded no traces of recent sexual intercourse.
    • Additionally, no independent witnesses were examined regarding the incident, while the principal prosecution witnesses were members of the same family.
    • These circumstances were considered cumulatively rather than as standalone rules about how sexual-offence allegations must be proved.

    Evidence of Political Rivalry Also Considered

    • The accused had contended that he was falsely implicated because of political rivalry with the victim’s father.
    • Although the father denied belonging to a political party, the victim stated in cross-examination that her father and uncle were JDS party workers, whereas the accused belonged to the Congress party.
    • The High Court considered this inconsistency relevant in assessing the Trial Court’s conclusion that the charges had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

    Subsequent Marriage Between Accused and Victim Not Disclosed During Trial

    • The judgment also records an unusual subsequent development.
    • Documents from M.C. No.82/2022 showed that the victim later sought divorce from the accused on grounds of desertion and cruelty. According to those proceedings, she and the accused had married on 14 June 2015, had a daughter from the marriage and lived together for about two years.
    • The High Court observed that the charge sheet had been filed on 24 May 2013 and the Trial Court judgment was delivered on 16 November 2016, meaning the marriage occurred while the criminal trial was pending.
    • The fact of their marriage had not been disclosed before the Trial Court. The High Court treated this as a suppression of a material fact and as an additional circumstance supporting its decision not to interfere with the acquittal.

    No Perversity or Illegality in Trial Court’s Acquittal

    • After re-appreciating the material, the Karnataka High Court concluded that the Trial Court had reached a possible view on the evidence.
    • The Division Bench found no perversity or illegality in the acquittal and reiterated that the existence of another possible interpretation of the evidence does not by itself permit an appellate court to reverse an acquittal.
    • Accordingly, the State’s appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the accused remained undisturbed.

    Judgments Referred

    The Karnataka High Court principally relied upon two Supreme Court decisions:

    1. Mahadeo S/o Kerba Maske v. State of Maharashtra & Another, (2013) 14 SCC 637 β€” concerning the legally recognised hierarchy of evidence for determination of the age of a juvenile/victim.
    2. Prem Singh v. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 88 β€” concerning the limited scope of appellate interference with an acquittal under Section 378 CrPC.

    Key Takeaway

    The Karnataka High Court reaffirmed two important criminal-law principles. First, where minority is an essential ingredient for application of the POCSO Act, the prosecution must prove the victim’s age through legally acceptable evidence in accordance with the prescribed hierarchy. Second, an acquittal enjoys substantial protection in appellate proceedings: where the Trial Court’s view is reasonably possible on the evidence, the High Court cannot reverse it simply because another view may also be possible.

    In the present case, the prosecution failed to satisfactorily establish the victim’s minority through the prescribed evidence, while the Trial Court’s assessment of the testimony, medical evidence and surrounding circumstances was found to be a possible view. The State therefore failed in its appeal and the accused’s acquittal was upheld.

    Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

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

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

    Source: Karnataka High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Madras HC: Subsequent Amendment Cannot Be Applied Retrospectively to Deny Provisional Release of Imported Goods

    Madras HC: Subsequent Amendment Cannot Be Applied Retrospectively to Deny Provisional Release of Imported Goods

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

    Date: 14.09.2026

    Madras HC: Subsequent Amendment Cannot Be Applied Retrospectively to Deny Provisional Release of Imported Goods

    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 Madras High Court has ruled in favour of importer M/s Smart Impex Solutions on the issue of provisional release of imported goods, holding that a subsequent statutory amendment cannot govern imports covered by Bills of Lading issued before the amendment came into force unless the notification expressly provides for retrospective operation.

    Justice Hemant Chandangoudar directed Customs authorities to consider the petitioner’s request for provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, within four weeks and, upon compliance with the conditions imposed, release the goods provisionally within a further period of two weeks.

    Dispute Over Import of Second-Hand Digital Multifunction Machines

    1. Smart Impex Solutions approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus directing Customs authorities to allow provisional release of two consignments comprising various models of second-hand Highly Specialized Equipment – Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines.
    2. The consignments were covered by two Bills of Entry dated 3 August 2026. The corresponding Bills of Lading were dated 26 May 2026 and 24 May 2026, respectively.
    3. The importer sought provisional release on execution of a simple bond for 100% of the enhanced value of the goods and payment of applicable total GST on the enhanced value. The order records that Customs Duty was exempted. The enhanced valuation was based on inspection reports and valuation certificates issued by the Chartered Engineers, M/s Supreme Techno Associates Pvt. Ltd.

    Importer Relied on Earlier Madras High Court Decision

    1. Counsel for Smart Impex Solutions argued that the issue was no longer res integra and was squarely covered by an earlier common order of the Madras High Court dated 10 July 2025 in W.P. Nos. 29418 of 2024 etc. batch.
    2. In that batch of cases, the Court had directed consideration of importers’ requests for provisional release of similar goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act.

    Customs Relied on 2026 Amendment

    • The Customs Department opposed the petition by relying upon an amendment dated 10 March 2026 to the Notification dated 1 July 2021.
    • According to the Department’s submission recorded in the judgment, the amendment provided an exemption in respect of Highly Specialized Equipment satisfying the prescribed criteria, subject to a specific exemption issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology under paragraph 2 of the Gazette Notification dated 18 March 2021, as amended on 26 April 2023, where the equipment was manufactured or imported in quantities of less than 100 units per model per year.
    • Crucially, the amendment was stated to have come into force with effect from 15 June 2026.
    • Customs further submitted that, for considering the petitioner’s claim, the date of the Bills of Lading would be considered as provided under Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962.

    Bills of Lading Pre-Dated the Amendment

    • The dates became decisive.
    • The High Court noted that the two Bills of Lading were dated 26 May 2026 and 24 May 2026, whereas the amendment relied upon by Customs came into force only on 15 June 2026.
    • The Court then laid down the central principle governing the dispute:
    • β€œUnless a statutory notification expressly provides for retrospective operation, it can only operate prospectively.”
    • Accordingly, the Court held that the amendment relied upon by Customs could not govern imports covered by Bills of Lading issued before the amendment commenced. Consequently, Customs could not refuse to consider the importer’s request for provisional release by relying upon that amendment.

    Earlier Judgment on Similar Imports Also Favoured Consideration of Provisional Release

    • The High Court further observed that the issue concerning provisional release of similar imported goods had already been considered in its common order dated 10 July 2025 in W.P. Nos. 29418 of 2024 etc. batch.
    • Importantly, the Customs authorities were unable to point out any distinguishing feature that would justify taking a different view in the case of Smart Impex Solutions.

    Customs Directed to Decide Section 110A Request Within Four Weeks

    • In view of these findings, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions.
    • The respondents were directed to consider Smart Impex Solutions’ request for provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 and pass an appropriate order within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the High Court’s order. Customs was permitted to impose such conditions as may be considered necessary in accordance with law.
    • More importantly, the Court directed that once the petitioner complies with the conditions imposed by Customs, the imported goods shall be provisionally released within two weeks thereafter.

    Provisional Release Does Not Decide Customs Adjudication

    • The High Court nevertheless made an important distinction between provisional release of the goods and final adjudication of the Customs dispute.
    • It expressly clarified that provisional release would remain subject to the outcome of adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962.
    • The adjudicating authority was directed to decide those proceedings independently on their own merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by observations made in the High Court’s order.
    • Thus, the judgment should not be interpreted as a final determination of the legality of the import, classification, valuation or any other issue that may arise during Customs adjudication. The relief granted by the High Court concerns the provisional release of the consignments.

    Why the Judgment Is Significant for Importers

    • The decision is significant for importers facing detention or non-release of goods where Customs seeks to rely upon a regulatory amendment introduced after the relevant import transaction.
    • The judgment reiterates the basic principle that, unless retrospective operation has expressly been provided, a statutory notification ordinarily operates prospectively. In the present case, because the Bills of Lading pre-dated the amendment’s commencement, Customs could not rely upon that later amendment as a ground for refusing even to consider provisional release.
    • The ruling also reinforces the practical importance of Section 110A of the Customs Act, which provides the statutory mechanism for provisional release of goods pending adjudication, subject to appropriate conditions.

    Key Takeaway

    The Madras High Court’s decision provides relief to M/s Smart Impex Solutions by requiring Customs to process its request for provisional release rather than reject it on the basis of a subsequently effective amendment.

    The key proposition emerging from the judgment is:

    A statutory amendment or notification cannot ordinarily be applied retrospectively to imports covered by Bills of Lading issued before its commencement unless retrospective operation is expressly provided. Customs therefore cannot rely upon such a subsequent amendment to refuse consideration of provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act.

    The petitioner/importer therefore succeeded on the provisional-release issue, although the underlying Customs adjudication remains open for independent determination.

    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

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • Delhi High Court Acquits NDPS Accused; Mixing Contents of Multiple Packets Before Sampling Violates Prescribed Procedure

    Delhi High Court Acquits NDPS Accused; Mixing Contents of Multiple Packets Before Sampling Violates Prescribed Procedure

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

    Date: 12.09.2026

    Delhi High Court Acquits NDPS Accused; Mixing Contents of Multiple Packets Before Sampling Violates Prescribed Procedure

    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 an important judgment concerning sampling of seized narcotic substances under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), the Delhi High Court acquitted an accused who had earlier been convicted under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment.

    The High Court found a fundamental defect in the sampling procedure adopted by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB): the contents of four separate packets were mixed together before the representative samples were drawn. The Court held that such a procedure did not conform either to Section 52A of the NDPS Act or to the applicable Standing Orders and consequently the samples sent for chemical examination could not be treated as representative of the individual packets.

    Background of the Case

    • The appellant, Amani Fidel Chris, had been convicted by the Special Judge on 28 July 2015 for an offence punishable under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act. He was sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of β‚Ή1 lakh, with six months’ simple imprisonment in default. The trial court had also directed his deportation after completion of the sentence.
    • According to the prosecution, NCB officials received secret information on 1 February 2010 that the appellant was suspected of carrying a large quantity of heroin while travelling through the Sealdah Rajdhani Express. He was intercepted at Platform No. 12 of New Delhi Railway Station.

    Four Packets Recovered From Door-Spring Machines

    • During the search of the appellant’s stroller bag, NCB officers found four cartons containing door-spring machines. Each machine allegedly contained a concealed packet carrying a powdery substance.
    • The contents of the four packets were separately subjected to a field-testing kit and tested positive for heroin. However, thereafter, the investigating officer transferred the contents of all four packets into one polythene bag, mixed them together, and then drew two samples from the combined substance. The combined quantity was stated to weigh 1.5 kg.
    • It was this method of sampling that ultimately became decisive before the High Court.

    Accused Challenges Sampling Procedure

    • The appellant’s principal argument was that once four separate packets had allegedly been recovered, representative samples ought to have been drawn from each packet individually.
    • By mixing all four packets first and drawing samples only from the resulting mixture, it became impossible to establish through laboratory analysis whether each individual packet actually contained heroin.
    • The NCB argued that no prejudice had been caused because material from each packet had initially been separately tested using a field-testing kit and all four had returned positive results.
    • The High Court did not accept this argument.

    Standing Orders Require Representative Sampling

    • Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri examined Standing Order No. 1/88 dated 15 March 1988 issued by the NCB as well as Standing Order No. 1/89 dated 13 June 1989 issued by the Department of Revenue.
    • The Court noted that where more than one package or container is recovered, the prescribed procedure contemplates drawing samples from individual packages. In appropriate circumstances, where packages are identical and satisfy the prescribed conditions, they can be bunched into lots. But even in such cases, representative quantities have to be taken from the individual packages and thereafter mixed to create the composite sample.
    • Crucially, the Court held:
    • β€œMixing of the contents of container/package (in one lot) and then drawing the representative samples is not permissible under the Standing Orders.”

    Entire Contents of Different Packets Cannot Be Mixed First

    • Applying the prescribed procedure to the facts, the High Court found that NCB officials should have drawn samples in duplicate from each of the four packets separately.
    • Even if the prosecution’s contention that all four packets could be treated as a single lot were accepted, the correct procedure would have been to first draw representative quantities from each individual packet, combine those representative quantities into a composite whole, and then draw the sample from that composite material.
    • The Court specifically observed that the Standing Order nowhere permits the entire contents of all containers or packages to be mixed together before samples are drawn.
    • This distinction is significant. Mixing entire packets first destroys their individual identity and makes it impossible to establish the nature and quantity of the substance contained in each packet through subsequent laboratory testing.

    Section 52A NDPS Act Also Not Followed

    • The High Court separately examined the sampling requirements under Section 52A of the NDPS Act.
    • Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Mohanlal, (2016) 3 SCC 379, the Court noted that the statutory scheme contemplates approaching the Magistrate for drawing representative samples and certification. The Supreme Court had emphasised that sampling should be undertaken under the Magistrate’s supervision in accordance with Section 52A.
    • In the present case, the High Court found that the NCB had followed neither route properly.
    • It had not filed an application before the Magistrate for drawing samples under judicial supervision, nor had it correctly followed the representative-sampling procedure contained in Standing Order No. 1/89.

    CRCL Sample Was Not Representative of Four Packets

    • The consequence of this procedural failure was substantial.
    • The Court held that the samples eventually sent to the Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL) were not representative samples.
    • By mixing the contents of all four packets before taking a sample, the investigating agency not only destroyed the individual identity or sanctity of each packet but also lost evidence regarding the quantity contained in each individual packet.
    • This meant that a positive laboratory result obtained from the mixed sample could not safely establish that the entire alleged quantity recovered from all four packets constituted the narcotic substance alleged by the prosecution.

    Delhi High Court Relies on Supreme Court’s Noor Aga Ruling

    • The High Court relied significantly upon Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 417, where the Supreme Court had dealt with the importance of compliance with the guidelines governing seizure and preservation of narcotic substances.
    • The Supreme Court had emphasised that such guidelines cannot simply be disregarded, particularly in penal proceedings carrying severe consequences, and that substantial compliance must be insisted upon to preserve the sanctity of physical evidence.
    • The Delhi High Court also referred to Union of India v. Bal Mukund, (2009) 12 SCC 161, where the Supreme Court recognised the requirement of proper sampling under Standing Instruction No. 1/88.

    Supreme Court’s Gaunter Edwin Kircher Principle Applied

    • The Court further relied upon Gaunter Edwin Kircher v. State of Goa, (1993) 3 SCC 145.
    • In that case, only one of two pieces of suspected charas had been chemically analysed. The Supreme Court held that the laboratory result relating to one piece could not automatically establish that the other piece also contained charas. It stressed that, where the entire seized quantity cannot be sent for analysis, sufficient representative samples should be taken from each packet or piece recovered.
    • That reasoning directly supported the appellant’s argument that chemical analysis of a mixed sample could not reliably establish the character of each separate packet.

    Delhi High Court’s Earlier Sampling Decisions Followed

    • The Court also relied upon its earlier decision in Basant Rai v. State, (2012) 191 DLT 403, where samples taken after combining material from several packets were found problematic because it could not be established that every individual packet contained contraband.
    • Similarly, in Edward Khimani Kamau v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 9860, the Delhi High Court had held that transferring powder from nine packets into one polythene bag and thereafter drawing samples caused serious prejudice because it could not be determined whether all nine packets contained heroin.
    • The Court also followed Charlse Howell @ Abel Kom v. NCB (Delhi), where material recovered from 166 polythene strips had been mixed before samples were drawn. The Court in that case held that the resulting sample was not representative of the entire quantity.

    Independent Public Witnesses Were Not Examined

    • The High Court additionally noticed that the two independent public witnessesβ€”Sher Singh and Pinkesh Kumarβ€”who had participated in the raid and had put their signatures or thumb impressions on documents prepared at the spot were not examined during the trial.
    • The Court also recorded that the prosecution had originally alleged two recoveries against the appellant. The first recovery, relating to a courier parcel, had already been disbelieved by the trial court, and the prosecution had not challenged that finding. The appeal before the High Court therefore effectively concerned the second recovery from the railway station.

    Prosecution Failed to Prove Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt

    • Considering the defective sampling procedure, the failure to comply with Section 52A and the applicable Standing Orders, and the other circumstances appearing from the record, the Delhi High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
    • Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and acquitted Amani Fidel Chris. His bail bonds were cancelled and the pending applications were disposed of.

    Why the Judgment Is Significant

    The ruling underscores the heightened importance of procedural safeguards in NDPS prosecutions, where the punishments prescribed by law are particularly stringent.

    The judgment establishes an important distinction between testing material from individual packets using a field-testing kit and obtaining a legally reliable representative sample for chemical examination. A positive field test of each packet does not necessarily cure a subsequent defective sampling process.

    Where several packets are recovered, the investigating agency cannot simply mix their entire contents and thereafter rely upon the chemical analysis of a sample drawn from that mixture to establish the nature of every individual packet. Proper representative sampling is essential to maintain the identity and evidentiary integrity of the seized material.

    The decision therefore reinforces a fundamental principle of NDPS jurisprudence: the more stringent the penal consequences, the greater the importance of preserving the sanctity of physical evidence and adhering to the prescribed safeguards governing seizure and sampling.

    Connected Matter

    Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Over 51-Day Delay in Sampling

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

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

    Source: Delhi High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi