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: #TaxLitigations

  • 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

  • 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

  • Supreme Court: Complex Biotechnology Patent Validity Cannot Be Decided Summarily Without Trial and Expert Evidence

    Supreme Court: Complex Biotechnology Patent Validity Cannot Be Decided Summarily Without Trial and Expert Evidence

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

    Date: 12.09.2026

    Supreme Court: Complex Biotechnology Patent Validity Cannot Be Decided Summarily Without Trial and Expert Evidence

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

    In a significant ruling concerning patent protection for biotechnology, genetically modified cotton technology and the scope of Section 3(j) of the Patents Act, 1970, the Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court Division Bench judgment that had effectively decided Monsanto’s patent validity against it at the interim stage.

    The Supreme Court held that technically complex questions concerning patentability, patent exclusion and biotechnology cannot be summarily adjudicated without a full trial, evidence and expert testimony. It restored the earlier order of the Single Judge and remanded the suit for adjudication in accordance with law.

    Importantly, the Supreme Court did not finally decide whether Monsanto’s patent was valid or whether its biotechnology was excluded from patentability under Section 3(j). Those substantive questions were expressly left open for determination in appropriate proceedings on evidence.

    Background: Monsanto’s BOLGARD and BOLGARD II Technology

    • Monsanto Technology LLC and the other plaintiffs had instituted a commercial suit seeking a permanent injunction against Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. and others in relation to the trademarks β€œBOLGARD” and β€œBOLGARD II” and alleged infringement of registered Patent No. 214436.
    • Monsanto also sought to restrain the defendants from selling or using seeds and hybrid seeds bearing the patented technology, along with rendition of accounts.
    • The parties had entered into a sub-licence agreement dated 21 February 2004, initially for ten years. Under the agreement, the defendants were permitted to develop genetically modified hybrid cotton planting seeds using Monsanto’s technology, subject to contractual restrictions and payment of licence fee/trait value.
    • Disputes subsequently arose over the payment of licence fee or trait value following the introduction of a statutory price-control regime. Monsanto ultimately terminated the agreement on 14 November 2015 and sought an injunction against continued use of its patented technology.

    Nuziveedu Challenges Monsanto Patent Under Section 3(j)

    • Nuziveedu contested Monsanto’s claim and relied upon the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 (PPVFR Act).
    • It also filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of Monsanto’s patent under Section 64 of the Patents Act, arguing that the patent fell within the exclusion contained in Section 3(j) concerning plants, seeds and essentially biological processes.
    • This raised a legally and scientifically complex question: whether the patented nucleic acid sequence and associated biotechnology constituted a patentable invention or whether, when incorporated into a plant or seed, it attracted the statutory exclusion under Section 3(j).

    Single Judge Says Patent Questions Require Evidence

    • At the interim stage, the Delhi High Court’s Single Judge declined to finally determine the validity of the patent.
    • In the order dated 28 March 2017, the Single Judge observed that the issues required formal proof and, particularly in a technically complicated patent dispute, expert opinion was crucial for determining the nature and breadth of the monopoly claimed under the patent.
    • Pending disposal of the suit, the parties were directed to remain bound by their respective obligations under the sub-licence agreement, with licence fee/trait value governed by the applicable law. Significantly, the Single Judge merely issued notice on Nuziveedu’s counterclaim for revocation; the counterclaim itself was not adjudicated.

    Division Bench Rules Against Monsanto on Section 3(j)

    • Both sides challenged the Single Judge’s order.
    • The Division Bench dismissed Monsanto’s appeal and accepted the defendants’ contention concerning the exclusion from patentability under Section 3(j) of the Patents Act. It held that Monsanto could seek registration under the PPVFR Act and consequently allowed the defendants’ counterclaim.
    • The underlying suit was, however, permitted to continue in relation to damages and other reliefs.
    • The matter then reached the Supreme Court.

    Supreme Court: Division Bench Went Beyond the Injunction Appeal

    • The Supreme Court identified a fundamental procedural problem with the Division Bench’s approach.
    • The defendants’ counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent had never been adjudicated by the Single Judge; only notice had been issued on it. The Supreme Court found no justification for the Division Bench effectively deciding the validity of the patent in the course of appeals arising from the interim injunction proceedings.
    • According to the Supreme Court, the Division Bench ought to have confined itself to deciding whether the interim injunction granted by the Single Judge was justified.
    • It should not have assumed the Single Judge’s jurisdiction and proceeded to determine the unpatentability of the claims through a summary exercise.

    Patent Disputes Involving Biotechnology Require Expert Evidence

    • A particularly important aspect of the judgment is the Supreme Court’s recognition of the technical complexity involved in biotechnology patent litigation.
    • The Court noted that the dispute involved questions concerning chemical, biochemical, biotechnological and microbiological processes. Among the questions requiring examination were whether the nucleic acid sequence, once inserted into a plant variety, could subsequently be removed and whether the patented DNA sequence constituted a plant or part of a plant.
    • Such questions, the Court held, could not properly be decided merely from pleadings and publicly available documents without evidence from expert witnesses.
    • The Court therefore observed that summary adjudication of a technically complex patent suit requiring expert evidence at the injunction stage was neither desirable nor permissible in law.

    Section 64 Counterclaim Cannot Be Decided Without Proper Trial

    • The Supreme Court also considered the procedural framework for revocation of patents under Section 64 of the Patents Act.
    • It held that a counterclaim seeking revocation necessarily requires proper consideration of both the suit and counterclaim in accordance with law. Such a dispute cannot be decided summarily and without evidence merely through an abstract consideration of textbooks or other materials.
    • The Court emphasised the importance of ordinary civil trial safeguards, including settlement of issues, examination and cross-examination of witnesses, discovery and inspection of documents, followed by a proper hearing.

    Supreme Court: β€œThere Are No Short-Cuts in the Trial of Suits”

    • The Supreme Court relied upon Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta, (2010) 10 SCC 141, reiterating the fundamental principle that civil litigation ordinarily has to proceed through the procedure prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure.
    • The cited precedent emphasised that courts cannot short-circuit a civil suit by deciding disputed questions of fact merely from pleadings and documents without conducting a trial.
    • This principle assumed particular importance in Monsanto’s case because the controversy involved sophisticated scientific questions whose resolution required expert and technical evidence.

    Supreme Court Does Not Decide Whether Monsanto’s Patent Is Valid

    • One of the most important aspects of the ruling is what the Supreme Court did not decide.
    • Despite extensive arguments concerning the Patents Act, the PPVFR Act, WTO obligations, GATT, TRIPS and the technical nature of Monsanto’s biotechnology, the Supreme Court expressly declined to rule upon those substantive issues at this stage.
    • The Court stated that, given the nature of the order it proposed to pass, it was unnecessary to determine those questions and accordingly left all questions of fact and law open for consideration in appropriate proceedings.
    • Therefore, the judgment should not be interpreted as a final Supreme Court declaration that Monsanto’s Bt cotton patent was either valid or invalid under Section 3(j).
    • Rather, the Supreme Court’s ruling was primarily procedural: such a technically complex question had to be decided through a proper trial.

    What Were Monsanto’s Patent Claims?

    • The judgment records that Claims 1–24 related to processes, whereas Claims 25–27 concerned the chemical product described as a nucleic acid sequence (NAS).
    • According to Monsanto, the latter was a man-made DNA construct that did not exist in nature. Monsanto argued that when inserted into a plant, the construct conferred insect-tolerant characteristics upon the plant.
    • The competing arguments over whether such technology remained independently patentable or became inseparable from a plantβ€”and therefore potentially subject to Section 3(j)β€”were precisely the kind of scientific and legal questions the Supreme Court considered inappropriate for summary determination.

    Division Bench Judgment Set Aside; Single Judge’s Order Restored

    • Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench judgment.
    • The order of the Single Judge dated 28 March 2017 was restored, and the suit was remanded to the Single Judge for disposal in accordance with law. Given the importance of the questions involved, the Supreme Court also expected the parties to cooperate in facilitating an early disposal of the suit.
    • The connected appeals and intervention applications were accordingly disposed of.

    Who Won the Supreme Court Case?

    • In terms of the immediate appellate outcome, Monsanto Technology LLC succeeded before the Supreme Court because the Division Bench judgment that had gone against Monsanto on patentability was set aside.
    • However, Monsanto did not obtain a final declaration from the Supreme Court that Patent No. 214436 was valid or that Nuziveedu had infringed it.
    • Instead, the Supreme Court restored the Single Judge’s interim arrangement and sent the substantive patent dispute back for trial. Thus, Monsanto succeeded on the issue of improper summary adjudication, while the ultimate questions of patent validity, Section 3(j) exclusion and infringement remained open.

    Legal Significance of the Judgment

    The judgment is important well beyond the immediate Monsanto-Nuziveedu dispute. It establishes a strong procedural principle for intellectual-property litigation: courts should not finally determine technically complex patent validity questions at an interim stage when those questions require scientific evidence and expert testimony.

    It also reinforces the distinction between deciding whether an interim injunction should operate and finally adjudicating a counterclaim for revocation of a patent.

    For biotechnology disputes in particular, the judgment recognises that questions involving genetic constructs, biological processes, plant characteristics and patent exclusions cannot necessarily be resolved simply by reading statutory provisions and technical literature. Where competing scientific propositions are involved, those propositions must ordinarily be tested through evidence.

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

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

    Source: Supreme Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • Supreme Court: β€œPatent Illegality” Cannot Be Invoked to Re-Appreciate Evidence or Substitute Court’s View for Arbitrator’s Findings

    Supreme Court: β€œPatent Illegality” Cannot Be Invoked to Re-Appreciate Evidence or Substitute Court’s View for Arbitrator’s Findings

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

    Date: 12.09.2026

    Supreme Court: β€œPatent Illegality” Cannot Be Invoked to Re-Appreciate Evidence or Substitute Court’s View for Arbitrator’s Findings

    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 significant judgment governing judicial interference with arbitral awards, the Supreme Court has restored an arbitral award of β‚Ή3.71 crore with statutory interest in favour of contractor Ramesh Kumar Jain against Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (BALCO), holding that the Chhattisgarh High Court exceeded the limited jurisdiction available under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by effectively re-appreciating evidence and substituting its own interpretation for that of the arbitrator.

    The Court reiterated that an arbitral award cannot be set aside merely because a court considers another interpretation of the evidence or contractual arrangement to be more plausible. The threshold of β€œpatent illegality” requires something substantially more serious than an erroneous factual assessment or a difference of opinion with the arbitrator.

    Background of the Dispute

    • BALCO had invited tenders for mining and transportation of 3,70,000 metric tonnes of bauxite from its Mainpat mines to the Korba Alumina Plant. Ramesh Kumar Jain submitted the lowest bid, and after negotiations an agreement dated 11 December 1999 was entered into for mining and transportation of 2,22,000 MT of bauxite at β‚Ή634.20 per MT.
    • The work was originally required to be completed within 18 months, by May 2001, but was extended until September 2001. After the contracted quantity had been supplied, BALCO requested Jain, through a letter dated 5 January 2002, to continue the mining and transportation work, with the rate for the additional work to be decided subsequently after consultation.
    • Jain continued the work and supplied approximately 1,95,000 MT of additional bauxite between 16 June 2001 and 31 March 2002. A dispute thereafter arose regarding payment for the additional work, resulting in invocation of the arbitration clause. The High Court eventually referred the dispute to arbitration under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act.

    Arbitrator Awards β‚Ή3.71 Crore With Statutory Interest

    • After considering the pleadings and evidence and framing 13 issues, the sole arbitrator passed an award dated 15 July 2012 in favour of Jain.
    • The award covered, among other things, compensation for additional work, increased transportation costs arising from restrictions on truck capacity, idle manpower and machinery during a strike period, and interest attributable to delay in payment of a running-account bill. The aggregate amount of the substantive claims, inclusive of the specified pre-award interest, was β‚Ή2,34,57,783.
    • The arbitrator further awarded 12% interest from 1 September 2007 to 15 July 2012 amounting to β‚Ή1,37,22,801, bringing the total award to β‚Ή3,71,80,584, along with statutory interest under Section 31(7)(b) from the date of the award until payment.

    Commercial Court Upholds Award, High Court Sets It Aside

    • BALCO challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Commercial Court, Raipur, rejected the challenge on 2 January 2017, finding that the arbitrator had rendered reasoned findings on the claims after considering the oral and documentary evidence and that the award could not be characterised as arbitrary or capricious.
    • BALCO thereafter approached the Chhattisgarh High Court under Section 37. The High Court allowed the appeal on 3 May 2023 and set aside the arbitral award that had been affirmed by the Commercial Court.
    • This brought the original claimant, Ramesh Kumar Jain, before the Supreme Court.

    Supreme Court: Section 37 Does Not Permit Re-Appreciation of Evidence

    • The Supreme Court framed the central question as whether the High Court could interfere with the arbitral award on the ground of patent illegality under Section 37 after the award had already survived scrutiny under Section 34.
    • The Court emphasised the legislative policy of minimal judicial intervention in arbitration. Section 34 provides only a narrow supervisory jurisdiction, and courts exercising that jurisdiction do not sit as appellate courts over arbitral awards.
    • More importantly, the scope of scrutiny under Section 37 is not wider than Section 34. The Court relied upon authorities including MMTC Ltd. v. Vedanta Ltd., Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. v. Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking and Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. NHAI to reiterate that Section 37 does not enlarge the appellate court’s power to reassess an arbitral award.
    • The Supreme Court further observed that the scope of interference under Section 37 is even narrower where the arbitral award has already been upheld or substantially upheld under Section 34. Reassessment or re-appreciation of evidence lies outside the permissible contours of judicial review under both provisions.

    What Constitutes β€œPatent Illegality”?

    • The judgment contains an important exposition of the meaning of patent illegality in arbitration law.
    • Following the 2015 amendment to Section 34, an award cannot be set aside merely because there has been an erroneous application of law or because a court would appreciate the evidence differently. The illegality must go to the root of the award.
    • The Supreme Court explained that an award may be vulnerable where an arbitrator ignores a binding precedent or an express contractual prohibition, or where a finding is based on no evidence at all. But if there is some evidence on the record from which the arbitrator has drawn a reasonably plausible inference, a court should ordinarily not substitute its own view.
    • The Court made an especially important distinction between β€œno evidence” and weak or scant evidence. Patent illegality may arise when a crucial conclusion has absolutely no evidentiary basis. However, where even some relevant evidence existsβ€”including witness testimony or documentsβ€”the court cannot label the award patently illegal merely because it considers that evidence to have low probative value.

    Arbitrator Is the Master of Facts and Evidence

    • On examining the award, the Supreme Court found that the arbitrator had considered both oral and documentary material, including the evidence of claimant R.K. Jain and BALCO’s Assistant General Manager/Engineer-in-Charge, along with affidavits and correspondence.
    • The Court noted that the arbitrator had not mechanically accepted every claim. Certain claims were reduced while another claim relating to removal of extra overburden was rejected altogether. This demonstrated an application of mind rather than arbitrary acceptance of the contractor’s calculations.
    • The Supreme Court therefore rejected the High Court’s conclusion that the award was founded merely upon guesswork or lacked evidence.

    Arbitrator Can Apply Quantum Meruit Where Contract Is Silent

    • Another major aspect of the ruling concerns Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the principle of quantum meruit.
    • The Supreme Court clarified that an arbitrator cannot make an award contrary to an express contractual prohibition. However, where the contract is simply silent on a legitimate claim naturally arising from the parties’ contractual relationship, the tribunal can interpret implied terms or fill the contractual gap, provided it does not contradict an express provision.
    • Section 70 creates a restitutionary obligation where one person lawfully does something for another without intending it to be gratuitous and the other person enjoys the resulting benefit. In such circumstances, compensation may be payable for the benefit received.

    β‚Ή10 Per MT Additional Compensation Did Not Rewrite Contract

    • BALCO had contendedβ€”and the High Court had acceptedβ€”that the arbitrator effectively rewrote the contract by increasing the compensation for additional work by β‚Ή10 per MT.
    • The Supreme Court disagreed.
    • It found that after the earlier contractual period, Jain continued mining and transporting an additional 1,95,000 MT of bauxite at BALCO’s request, while the price for such additional work had expressly been left open to be settled subsequently by mutual consensus. That exercise was never completed.
    • In those circumstances, the arbitrator did not rewrite an agreed contractual rate. Rather, he filled a contractual vacuum by awarding reasonable compensation under Section 70 of the Contract Act to prevent unjust enrichment.
    • The additional β‚Ή10 per MTβ€”raising the rate from β‚Ή634.20 to β‚Ή644.20 per MTβ€”was therefore treated as reasonable compensation for additional work rather than an impermissible modification of an agreed contractual term.
    • The Supreme Court further held that claims based on quantum meruit or unjust enrichment can be determined in arbitration where they fall within the scope of disputes referred to the tribunal, either expressly or by necessary implication.

    β€œGuesswork” Does Not Automatically Make an Award Patently Illegal

    • The Supreme Court also rejected the High Court’s reasoning regarding percentage-based or approximate calculations adopted by the arbitrator.
    • It held that the alleged errors concerning lack of evidence or percentage-based allowances did not, individually or cumulatively, reach the threshold of patent illegality. There was at least some evidence and logical reasoning supporting each component of the award, and the arbitrator’s conclusions constituted a possible view that a reasonable decision-maker could take.
    • The Court also stressed that arbitrators are not bound by strict rules of evidence, having regard to Section 19 of the Arbitration Act. A court cannot interfere simply because an arbitrator’s reasoning is brief, so long as the reasoning path leading to the conclusion can be discerned.

    Supreme Court Restores Arbitral Award

    • Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the Chhattisgarh High Court had impermissibly re-appreciated the evidence and substituted its own interpretation for that of the arbitrator while exercising its limited jurisdiction under Section 37.
    • Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed Ramesh Kumar Jain’s appeal and set aside the High Court judgment dated 3 May 2023.
    • As a consequence, the Commercial Court’s judgment dated 2 January 2017 affirming the arbitral award dated 15 July 2012 was restored. The β‚Ή3.71 crore arbitral award, together with the statutory interest directed by the arbitrator, therefore stands revived.

    Significance of the Judgment

    • The ruling reinforces three important principles of Indian arbitration law.
    • First, Sections 34 and 37 do not provide courts with appellate jurisdiction over the merits of an arbitral award. Secondly, β€œpatent illegality” cannot become a device for reopening factual findings merely because another interpretation appears preferable. Thirdly, where a contract is silent regarding compensation for additional work that was requested and accepted, an arbitral tribunal may, in an appropriate case, apply Section 70 of the Contract Act and principles of quantum meruit/unjust enrichment to determine reasonable compensation.

    The judgment therefore strengthens the principle of arbitral finality and minimal judicial interference, while also clarifying the dividing line between an arbitrator impermissibly rewriting a contract and legitimately filling a contractual vacuum arising from additional work performed and accepted by the other party.

    Connected Matter

    Supreme Court: β€œPatent Illegality” Cannot Be Invoked to Re-Appreciate Evidence or Substitute Court’s View for Arbitrator’s Findings

    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

  • Allahabad High Court: RERA Recovery Proceedings Cannot Be Challenged Directly Through Writ When Statutory Appeal Is Available

    Allahabad High Court: RERA Recovery Proceedings Cannot Be Challenged Directly Through Writ When Statutory Appeal Is Available

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

    Date: 12.09.2026

    Allahabad High Court: RERA Recovery Proceedings Cannot Be Challenged Directly Through Writ When Statutory Appeal Is Available

    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 .  

    In an important ruling concerning the remedies available against orders and recovery proceedings initiated under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), the Allahabad High Court has declined to interfere with a recovery certificate challenged directly under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court held that the petitioners could approach the competent Appellate Tribunal under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act against the underlying order on which the recovery proceedings were founded.

    Background of the Case

    • The writ petition was filed by M/s Singh Brothers, Kanpur Nagar, through its partner Amarpreet Singh and seven others against U.P. RERA and other respondents. The petitioners sought quashing of a recovery certificate dated 25 November 2023 issued by U.P. RERA to the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar. They also sought a direction restraining the authorities from taking coercive action pursuant to the recovery certificate.
    • According to the petitioners, they were owners and in legal possession of land situated at Govind Nagar, Kanpur. A builder agreement had been entered into on 30 July 2008 with M/s College Group Infrastructure Private Limited for development of the land, and a General Power of Attorney was also executed in favour of the builder for implementation of the agreement.

    Petitioners Claimed They Were Not Co-Promoters

    • The builder subsequently launched a project known as β€œViva City Square” in Kanpur and registered itself on the U.P. RERA portal. Significantly, the petitioners contended that they were never registered as co-promoters of the project.
    • Certain allottees subsequently filed a complaint before U.P. RERA regarding the conduct of the builder. After adjudication of the complaint, a recovery certificate was issued. The petitioners’ grievance was that the recovery certificate was being sought to be enforced against them even though, according to them, they were neither registered as co-promoters nor proprietors of the project.
    • They further contended that the original RERA complaintβ€”Complaint No. LKO157/07/55720/2020, Lalit Kumar Singh v. M/s College Group Infrastructure Private Limitedβ€”was not filed against them and that they had not been heard when U.P. RERA passed its order dated 1 April 2021.

    Earlier High Court Direction for Execution of Recovery Certificate

    • U.P. RERA brought to the Court’s attention an earlier order dated 18 March 2024 passed by a coordinate Bench in Lalit Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. & Others, Writ-C No. 2557 of 2024.
    • In that proceeding, the High Court had directed the District Magistrate, Kanpur, to execute the recovery certificate dated 25 November 2023 within three months from the date on which a certified copy of the order was furnished.
    • RERA therefore argued that the authorities were merely acting in compliance with the earlier direction of the High Court and that the petitioners could have sought review of that order before the concerned Division Bench.

    Alternative Remedy Under RERA

    • To overcome the objection regarding availability of an alternative statutory remedy, the petitioners relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Others v. Commercial Steel Limited, Civil Appeal No. 5121 of 2021, decided on 3 September 2021.
    • The petitioners argued that existence of an alternative remedy does not automatically bar the High Court from exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

    The High Court examined the Supreme Court judgment and noted that an alternative remedy is indeed not an absolute bar to maintainability of a writ petition. However, interference despite availability of a statutory remedy is ordinarily justified in exceptional situations such as:

    • breach of fundamental rights;
    • violation of principles of natural justice;
    • excess of jurisdiction; or
    • challenge to the vires of a statute or delegated legislation.

    The Division Bench, however, concluded that the petitioners’ case did not fall within any of those recognised exceptional circumstances.

    High Court Directs Petitioners Towards RERA Appellate Remedy

    • The Court took note of the petitioners’ contention that they were not named as proprietors, were not parties to the original complaint and had not been heard when U.P. RERA passed the underlying order dated 1 April 2021.
    • Nevertheless, instead of adjudicating these issues in the writ proceedings, the High Court held that if the petitioners were aggrieved by the order dated 1 April 2021, which formed the basis of the subsequent recovery certificate, they could approach the Appellate Tribunal under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act.
    • The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with the above observations.

    Key Legal Takeaway

    The ruling reiterates the principle that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is wide, and availability of an alternative remedy is not an absolute prohibition against entertaining a writ petition. However, where an effective statutory appellate mechanism exists and the case does not fall within one of the recognised exceptional categories, the High Court may decline to exercise writ jurisdiction.

    The judgment is particularly relevant in the RERA context because a person who claims to have been wrongly affected by an underlying RERA order cannot ordinarily bypass the statutory appellate mechanism merely by challenging the consequential recovery certificate through a writ petition. The appropriate course, as indicated by the Court in this case, is to challenge the foundational RERA order before the competent Appellate Tribunal under Section 43(5).

    Connected Matter

    Allahabad HC: RERA Application Pending Beyond 30 Days Results in Deemed Registration; UPRERA Cannot Insist on Landowner as Co-Promoter

    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: Allahabad 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 Upholds Section 138 NI Act Conviction; Says Unrebutted Statutory Presumption Supports Cheque Dishonour Liability

    Karnataka High Court Upholds Section 138 NI Act Conviction; Says Unrebutted Statutory Presumption Supports Cheque Dishonour Liability

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

    Date: 12.09.2026

    Karnataka High Court Upholds Section 138 NI Act Conviction; Says Unrebutted Statutory Presumption Supports Cheque Dishonour Liability

    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 . 

    In an important ruling concerning cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Karnataka High Court has upheld the conviction of an accused after finding that the cheque admittedly belonged to him, his signature was undisputed, and he failed to rebut the statutory presumption available to the complainant under Section 139 of the NI Act.

    The High Court, however, partly allowed the revision by setting aside the additional β‚Ή25,000 fine imposed towards defraying the expenses of the State, while leaving the conviction and the remainder of the sentence intact.

    Background of the Case

    • The dispute arose from a complaint filed by M/s MABA Corporate Services Private Limited, a finance company, against G.B. Chandre Gowda under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
    • The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay a total fine of β‚Ή90 lakh. In default of payment, he was directed to undergo six months’ simple imprisonment. Out of the fine amount, β‚Ή89.75 lakh was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation, while β‚Ή25,000 was ordered to go to the State.
    • The accused challenged the conviction before the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2149 of 2018. After re-appreciating the evidence, the appellate court dismissed his appeal and confirmed the trial court’s decision. He thereafter approached the Karnataka High Court in revision.

    Accused Contended There Was No Legally Recoverable Debt

    • Before the High Court, the accused principally argued that the cheque in question did not represent any legally recoverable debt and therefore his conviction under Section 138 suffered from legal infirmity and factual error.
    • He additionally challenged the imposition of β‚Ή25,000 towards the expenses of the State and sought interference with the sentence to that extent. The complainant, on the other hand, supported the concurrent findings of the courts below.

    Signature on Cheque Was Not Disputed

    • After examining the record, the Karnataka High Court found that the cheque marked as Ex.P2 belonged to the accused, had been dishonoured, and, importantly, the accused did not dispute his signature on the cheque.
    • According to the complainant, the cheque had been issued towards repayment arising out of loan transactions. The complainant had also produced substantial documentary material to support its claim.
    • This evidence included on-demand promissory notes marked Ex.P14 to Ex.P18, ledger account Ex.P19, statements of account Ex.P20 to Ex.P26 and acknowledgment letters Ex.P27 and Ex.P28. The High Court held that this material was sufficient for the trial magistrate to raise the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act in favour of the complainant.

    Section 139 Presumption Is Rebuttable, But Accused Must Rebut It

    • The Court acknowledged that the presumption available under Section 139 is rebuttable. The crucial question, therefore, was whether the accused had produced sufficient material to rebut it.
    • The High Court found that he had not.
    • The accused neither entered the witness box nor produced documentary evidence to rebut the statutory presumption. Further, the cross-examination of the complainant’s witness, PW-1, did not bring out sufficient material capable of rebutting the presumption operating in favour of the complainant.
    • This aspect became central to the High Court’s decision to sustain the conviction.

    High Court Refuses to Interfere With Concurrent Conviction

    • Justice V. Srishananda held that the trial magistrate was justified in convicting the accused and directing payment of compensation. The First Appellate Court had also properly re-appreciated the material and affirmed the conviction.
    • The High Court emphasised the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction and held that there was no ground warranting annulment of the concurrent orders of conviction.
    • The decision therefore reinforces that revisional jurisdiction is not intended to provide another unrestricted opportunity to reassess factual findings when the trial and appellate courts have concurrently evaluated the evidence and the conclusions do not disclose a sufficient legal ground for interference.

    β‚Ή25,000 Fine Payable to State Set Aside

    • Although the conviction was upheld, the High Court found merit in one limited aspect of the accused’s challenge.
    • The trial court had directed that β‚Ή25,000 out of the total fine should be paid towards defraying the expenses of the State. The High Court held that this part of the sentence required interference because the dispute was essentially private between the parties and no State machinery was involved.
    • Accordingly, the β‚Ή25,000 component payable to the State was set aside.

    Conviction and β‚Ή89.75 Lakh Compensation Remain Intact

    • The Karnataka High Court consequently allowed the revision petition only in part.
    • The conviction of G.B. Chandre Gowda for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was maintained. Only the β‚Ή25,000 fine earmarked for State expenses was removed, while the rest of the sentence remained unaltered.
    • The Court further directed that the amount already deposited could be withdrawn by the complainant upon due identification.

    Legal Significance

    The judgment highlights an important practical aspect of Section 138 litigation. Once foundational facts are established and the statutory presumption under Section 139 becomes operative, merely asserting that no legally enforceable debt existed may not be sufficient. The accused must bring material capable of rebutting that presumption.

    In the present case, the admitted signature on the dishonoured cheque, coupled with promissory notes, ledger records, statements of account and acknowledgment letters, supported the complainant’s case. In the absence of contrary evidence from the accused, the High Court found no justification for disturbing the concurrent conviction.

    At the same time, the ruling demonstrates that a revisional court may still interfere with a specific and severable component of the sentence even where the underlying conviction is otherwise found to be legally sustainable.

    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

  • CESTAT Mumbai: EPCG Duty Demand Cannot Survive Once DGFT Issues EODC Confirming Fulfilment of Export Obligation

    CESTAT Mumbai: EPCG Duty Demand Cannot Survive Once DGFT Issues EODC Confirming Fulfilment of Export Obligation

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

    Date: 12.09.2026

    CESTAT Mumbai: EPCG Duty Demand Cannot Survive Once DGFT Issues EODC Confirming Fulfilment of Export Obligation

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

    In a significant ruling concerning imports under the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme, the CESTAT Mumbai has set aside the customs duty demand, redemption fine and penalties imposed upon Unison Hotels Limited and its Managing Director, Umesh Saraf, in relation to the import of a Honda CR-V under an EPCG authorization.

    The Tribunal held that the alleged violation of EPCG conditions could not legally survive once the competent DGFT authority had issued an Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) in favour of the importer.

    Background of the Dispute

    • Unison Hotels Limited is engaged in providing hotel-related services. For its business operations, it obtained EPCG authorizations from the Directorate General of Foreign Trade for importing four vehicles as capital goods while availing concessional customs duty benefits. One Honda CR-V was imported through Mumbai Sea Port, while three BMW cars were imported through Chennai Sea Port.
    • The Department initiated investigation on the basis of information alleging that the vehicles were being used as private vehicles for the personal use of the Managing Director and his family members rather than for commercial purposes connected with earning foreign exchange and fulfilling the prescribed export obligation.
    • In respect of the Honda CR-V imported through Mumbai, a show cause notice dated 30 August 2011 sought recovery of customs duty of β‚Ή9,41,922 along with interest, besides confiscation and penalties. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, ordered confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962, permitted redemption on payment of a fine of β‚Ή7 lakh, and imposed penalties of β‚Ή1.50 lakh on Unison Hotels and β‚Ή1 lakh on Umesh Saraf. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order.

    Issue Before CESTAT

    • The principal question before the Tribunal was whether the appellants had violated the conditions of the EPCG authorization and consequently failed to satisfy the requirements of Notification No. 97/2004-Customs dated 17 September 2004, under which concessional customs duty had been availed for import of the Honda CR-V.
    • The EPCG authorization required the importer, among other things, to fulfil an export obligation equivalent to eight times the duty saved within eight years and comply with the actual-user condition. In respect of the Honda CR-V, the authorization recorded an export obligation connected with the imported vehicle and required fulfillment through use of the imported capital goods.

    Appellants Relied on Earlier Chennai CESTAT Decision

    • The appellants argued that an identical dispute involving the other three BMW cars imported under the same EPCG arrangement had already been decided in their favour by a coordinate Bench of CESTAT Chennai through Final Order Nos. 40598-40599/2023 dated 21 July 2023. They contended that the facts and legal issues relating to the Honda CR-V were materially identical and therefore the same reasoning ought to apply.
    • The Mumbai Bench accepted this contention, observing that the factual matrix relating to the Honda CR-V was exactly similar to that relating to the BMW cars already adjudicated by the coordinate Bench. It consequently held that it could not take a different view in relation to the same appellants and substantially identical EPCG conditions.

    Revenue’s Allegation Found Premature

    • The Tribunal reproduced the reasoning adopted in the earlier proceedings, where it had been held that initiation of proceedings before expiry of the period available for fulfilment of the export obligation was premature. The EPCG authorization allowed eight years for fulfilment of the export obligation, whereas the show cause proceedings were initiated well before that period had expired.
    • The earlier Bench had also found that the importer had declared substantial foreign-exchange earnings, which were not disputed by the Revenue. The Tribunal emphasized that the essential inquiry was whether the imported capital goods had satisfied the actual-user requirement, and observed that the existence of foreign-exchange earnings supported the appellant’s case.
    • It further noted that allegations concerning vehicle registration, insurance or parking arrangements were matters primarily within the jurisdiction of the concerned transport or other authorities and could not, by themselves, establish a violation of EPCG conditions enforceable by Customs.

    DGFT’s EODC Became Crucial

    • A decisive factor in the Mumbai proceedings was that the DGFT had eventually issued the EODC/Redemption Letter on 11 January 2024 in respect of the relevant EPCG authorization.
    • The Tribunal recorded that the appellants had furnished the vehicle’s installation certificate, registration certificate showing the Honda CR-V as a β€œTourist Taxi Deluxe”, details of foreign-exchange earnings and repeated requests for issuance of the EODC.
    • The Bench held that once the competent DGFT authority had issued the EODC, the allegation of non-compliance with EPCG conditions under Notification No. 97/2004-Customs could no longer legally sustain. It also noted that the importer had asserted fulfillment of the export obligation even during the original proceedings and that DGFT had subsequently formally discharged the obligation.
    • The Tribunal further observed that non-production of the EODC during the earlier adjudication and appellate proceedings could not be held against the appellants because the certificate had not yet been issued by DGFT and the delay was beyond their control.

    Earlier Judicial Authorities Considered

    • The Tribunal also referred to several earlier decisions dealing with EPCG imports and actual-user requirements. Among them was Goldfinch Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, 2015 (328) E.L.T. 282 (Tri.-Mumbai), where CESTAT had held that mere parking of an EPCG vehicle at a particular place or statements of drivers could not, without more, establish breach of the actual-user condition. The Bombay High Court later dismissed Revenue’s appeal against that decision.
    • The order also refers to Vadilal Chemicals Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2005 (192) E.L.T. 33 (S.C.), and M Far Hotels Ltd. v. Union of India, 2011 (270) E.L.T. 158 (Ker.), in the context of EPCG benefits and compliance with prescribed statutory or policy conditions.
    • The Tribunal additionally referred to the Delhi High Court’s ruling in Interglobe Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India, 2006 (203) E.L.T. 202 (Del.), as followed in subsequent EPCG litigation, noting that the Supreme Court had dismissed the Revenue’s SLP in the connected matter.

    CESTAT’s Final Ruling

    The Mumbai Bench concluded that the order sustaining the customs duty demand, redemption fine and penalties was not legally sustainable. It therefore set aside the impugned order and allowed both appeals in favour of Unison Hotels Limited and Umesh Saraf.

    Key Takeaway

    The ruling reinforces an important principle in EPCG disputes: where the DGFT, being the competent licensing authority, has accepted fulfillment of the export obligation and issued an EODC, Customs cannot ordinarily continue to sustain a demand founded on an allegation of non-fulfilment of the very same EPCG obligation without a legally sustainable basis to disregard that discharge.

    The decision is also significant because CESTAT rejected a purely factual inference of personal use based on matters such as vehicle location, registration-related allegations and statements, particularly when the importer demonstrated foreign-exchange earnings and subsequently secured formal discharge of its EPCG obligation from DGFT.

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

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

    Source: CESTAT Mumbai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • CESTAT Ahmedabad- Customs Cannot Reclassify Naphtha as NGL Without Conclusive Scientific Evidence

    CESTAT Ahmedabad- Customs Cannot Reclassify Naphtha as NGL Without Conclusive Scientific Evidence

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

    Date: 11.09.2026

    CESTAT Ahmedabad- Customs Cannot Reclassify Naphtha as NGL Without Conclusive Scientific Evidence

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

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad has allowed the appeals filed by Hazel Mercantile Limited and connected appellants in a major customs classification dispute concerning whether imported petroleum cargo declared as Naphtha could be reclassified by Customs as Natural Gasoline Liquid (NGL).

    A Division Bench comprising Judicial Member Somesh Arora and Technical Member A.K. Jyotishi held that the Customs Department had failed to authoritatively establish the classification sought by it and that the classification declared by the importer could not be disturbed.

    The Naphtha vs NGL Dispute

    • Hazel Mercantile is engaged in the import, export and trading of petrochemicals, including Naphtha. The dispute arose from a consignment of approximately 20,110.767 MT which the company stated had been imported as Naphtha and was ultimately intended for export.
    • Hazel filed seven Bills of Entry declaring the product as Naphtha under CTH 2710 1229. Customs, however, alleged that the imported product was actually Natural Gasoline Liquid (NGL) and proposed classification under CTH 2710 1290. The goods were consequently seized by DRI.
    • The subsequent show cause notice proposed rejection of the declared description and classification, enhancement of the assessable value, confiscation under Sections 111(d), 111(m), 111(p) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, and penalties under Sections 112(a), 112(b), 114AA and 117.

    Conflicting Laboratory Reports Become Central Issue

    • The dispute largely turned on competing technical reports.
    • CRCL Kandla and CRCL Delhi treated the product as NGL. On the other hand, the importer relied upon reports from TUV India, Geo Chem Laboratories and CSIR-Indian Institute of Petroleum (IIP), Dehradun, apart from the load-port certification, to maintain that the product was Naphtha.
    • Pursuant to directions of the Gujarat High Court, fresh samples had been drawn. Geo Chem concluded that the sample conformed to Naphtha specifications, while IIP Dehradun concluded that the sample fell within the light Naphtha range.
    • CESTAT ultimately placed considerable weight on the expertise and depth of testing undertaken by these specialised laboratories.

    Specialised Laboratory Reports Preferred Over CRCL

    • The Tribunal observed that IIP Dehradun, which specialises in petroleum and petroleum-product testing, had conducted multiple tests before concluding that the sample fell within the range of light Naphtha.
    • It similarly noted that Geo Chem had subjected the sample supplied by the Department itself to detailed examination and concluded that the product was Naphtha.
    • CESTAT rejected Revenue’s contention that the private reports were unreliable merely because the importer had referred to the sample as Naphtha while forwarding it for testing. The Bench reasoned that a laboratory of such stature would not simply accept the description supplied by the party without conducting its own technical analysis.
    • The Tribunal therefore preferred the reports of the specialised testing agencies, finding that they had greater wherewithal to test petroleum products than the departmental laboratories.

    Burden to Prove Reclassification Lies on Customs

    • CESTAT reiterated the settled principle that where the Department seeks to change the tariff classification declared by an importer, the burden of proving the proposed alternative classification rests upon Revenue.
    • The Tribunal referred to Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, observing that even where classification emerges from self-assessment, the Department must discharge the burden if it seeks to alter that classification.
    • It also relied upon Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Union of India v. Garware Nylons Ltd. and Commissioner of Customs, Mundra v. Sunrise Traders on the relevance of scientific evidence, BIS standards and the insufficiency of inconclusive expert reports for disturbing an assessee’s classification.

    Reliance Industries Naphtha–NGL Ruling Considered

    • Hazel placed substantial reliance upon the earlier CESTAT Ahmedabad decision in Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad, 2024 (10) TMI 1555 – CESTAT Ahmedabad.
    • In that case, the Tribunal had observed that Naphtha is the genus and NGL is a species, and that NGL could fall within the broader description of Naphtha in the context considered there.
    • The Revenue’s appeal against the Reliance Industries decision was subsequently dismissed by the Supreme Court on 9 April 2025 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5133–5137 of 2025, the Court finding no good reason to interfere with CESTAT’s order.
    • CESTAT considered this jurisprudence while analysing Hazel’s classification dispute.

    β€œMost Akin” Test Does Not Help Revenue

    • The Department relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Gastrade International Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla and argued that the imported goods were most akin to NGL.
    • CESTAT, however, found the argument to be self-defeating in the facts of Hazel’s case.
    • The Bench observed that the reports of IIP Dehradun and Geo Chem were based on a significantly wider range of parameters and were issued by more specialised agencies. Those reports supported the appellant’s case even when the β€œmost akin” test was applied.
    • The Tribunal consequently held that whether the dispute was examined on the basis of akinness, inconclusive test reports or the common-parlance understanding that NGL is a species within the broader category of Naphtha, Revenue had failed to establish its proposed classification.

    Importer’s Classification Cannot Be Disturbed

    The Tribunal therefore reached the categorical conclusion that:

    β€œthe classification of the appellant cannot be allowed to be disturbed.”

    • It further held that the conclusions reached by the adjudicating authority were incorrect and could not be adopted.
    • This finding went to the root of the proceedings because the Department’s confiscation and penalty case substantially flowed from its allegation that Hazel had misdeclared NGL as Naphtha.

    CESTAT Allows Appeals on Merits

    • Having decided the fundamental classification controversy in favour of Hazel Mercantile, CESTAT observed that it was inclined to allow the appeals without going into the Department’s other pleas, since the appellants succeeded on the factual and legal merits of the classification issue.
    • The Tribunal accordingly allowed the appeals through Final Order Nos. 10728–10735/2026, pronounced on 7 September 2026.

    Important Observation on WhatsApp and Electronic Evidence

    • The proceedings also involved reliance by Revenue upon WhatsApp chats and other material extracted from mobile devices.
    • While deciding the matter principally on classification, CESTAT referred to Section 138C of the Customs Act, concerning admissibility of computer-generated evidence, and made an unusual concluding observation suggesting that the Department should consider a dedicated statutory provision governing mobile-phone evidence and the procedure for its extraction, rather than relying solely on Section 138C.
    • This observation could assume wider significance in customs investigations increasingly dependent upon mobile-phone data, messaging applications and digital forensic evidence.

    Key Legal Takeaway

    The decision reinforces a fundamental customs-classification principle: the Department cannot disturb an importer’s declared tariff classification merely by asserting an alternative description; the proposed reclassification must be affirmatively established through reliable technical evidence.

    Where competing laboratory reports exist, the expertise of the testing body, comprehensiveness of the parameters tested and reliability of the methodology become critical considerations.

    The ruling is particularly significant for the petroleum and petrochemical sector because it also engages with the continuing tariff distinction between Naphtha and Natural Gasoline Liquid, the β€œmost akin” test and the earlier Reliance Industries ruling recognising NGL as a species within the broader genus of Naphtha.

    Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

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

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

    Source: CESTAT Ahmedabad

    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