𝐀𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐚 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #TaxLitigations

Karnataka High Court Upholds RERA Authority’s Power: Promoters Ordered to Refund Excess Charges to Homebuyers
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 29.08.2026

Karnataka High Court Upholds RERA Authority’s Power: Promoters Ordered to Refund Excess Charges to Homebuyers

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 .

This article provides a detailed overview and analysis of a recent judgment by the High Court of Karnataka concerning a dispute under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). The case highlights key issues around project registration, refund claims, and the jurisdiction of regulatory authorities in Karnataka’s real estate sector.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose between the appellants—Mr. Navaratan Jhunjhunwala and M/s Durga Projects and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.—and the respondents, including the Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority, and two individual allottees (Sowmya Nayak Ullal and Ullal Prakash Nayak). The appellants challenged an order from the Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, which had upheld a previous order by the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA Authority) directing the promoters to refund excess amounts collected from the allottees.

Key Facts
1. Excess Collection Allegation: The promoters collected an additional deposit of Rs. 1,75,000 from the allottees for payments to BESCOM, BWSSB, Khata, and transfer of electric meter.
2. Occupancy Certificate and Sale Deed:
  - Sale deed executed: 23 March 2016
  - Occupancy certificate obtained: 5 February 2020
3. Refund Claim: The allottees claimed that only Rs. 75,000 was actually spent for the stated purposes, and sought a refund of the remaining Rs. 1,00,000 plus interest.
4. Agreement Terms: The agreement to sell did not mention any additional charges for the stated purposes, strengthening the allottees’ claim.
Legal Issues Examined

1. Jurisdiction of RERA and Appellate Tribunal

The promoters argued that since the project was not registered under RERA, the Authority lacked jurisdiction. They cited Explanation (iv) to Rule 4 of the Karnataka RERA Rules, 2017, claiming their project was not ongoing and thus exempt from registration.

Court’s Finding:
- The project was not registered, and no evidence was provided that a completion or occupancy certificate application was made before RERA’s commencement.
- Section 3 of the RERA Act mandates registration of ongoing projects unless a completion certificate was obtained before the Act commenced. The promoters failed to demonstrate such exemption.
- The court held that the RERA Authority and Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction in this matter.
2. Entitlement to Refund

The core issue was whether the promoters could charge amounts not specified in the agreement to sell.

Court’s Finding:
- The agreement did not authorize the collection of additional amounts for BESCOM, BWSSB, or meter transfer.
- The allottees were entitled to a refund of Rs. 1,76,811 (including interest), as calculated up to 30 November 2023.
Judgment and Implications
- The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the orders of the RERA Authority and the Appellate Tribunal.
- The promoters were directed to refund the excess amount collected, with interest, to the allottees.
- The judgment reinforces the importance of project registration under RERA and strict adherence to the terms of the agreement to sell.
Key Takeaways for Stakeholders
1. Promoters/Builders:
  - Must register ongoing projects under RERA unless a valid exemption applies.
  - Cannot collect charges from allottees beyond what is specified in the agreement.
2. Homebuyers/Allottees:
  - Can seek redressal and refunds for unauthorized charges through RERA mechanisms.
  - Should ensure all payment terms are clearly documented in the agreement.
3. Legal Practitioners:
  - The case sets a precedent for interpreting RERA’s jurisdiction and the enforceability of agreement terms.
Conclusion

This judgment by the Karnataka High Court underscores the robust protections offered to homebuyers under RERA and the necessity for promoters to comply with statutory requirements. It serves as a cautionary tale for real estate developers and a reassurance for allottees seeking transparency and fairness in real estate transactions.

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
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
August 29, 2026
Gujarat High Court Clarifies Limits of Arbitration in Partnership Disputes: Section 8 Applications and Legal Heirs’ Rights
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 29.08.2026

Gujarat High Court Clarifies Limits of Arbitration in Partnership Disputes: Section 8 Applications and Legal Heirs’ Rights

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

The Gujarat High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Nirmal Arvind Mody vs. Neha H. Trivedi & Ors. (First Appeal No. 2665 of 2026), addressing the interplay between arbitration clauses in partnership deeds and the right to seek civil remedies for recovery of loans and dissolution of partnerships. This article provides a detailed analysis of the judgment, its legal context, and its implications for partnership and arbitration law in India.

Background of the Case
- The dispute arose from a partnership firm, M/s. Team Engineers, where the plaintiffs (legal heirs of a deceased partner) sought multiple reliefs:
  - Recovery of loans given by the plaintiffs to the partnership firm.
  - Dissolution and winding up of the partnership firm.
  - Settlement of accounts and distribution of assets, goodwill, and profits as per the deceased partner’s share.
- The defendants argued that, due to an arbitration clause in the partnership deed, the matter should be referred to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
- The Commercial Court refused to refer the matter to arbitration, leading to the present appeal.
Key Legal Issues Considered
1. Scope of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
  - Whether the existence of an arbitration clause mandates referral of all disputes to arbitration, even if some claims (like loan recovery) are not covered by the arbitration agreement.
2. Bifurcation of Causes of Action
  - Whether courts can split the suit, referring arbitrable issues to arbitration and retaining non-arbitrable issues.
3. Binding Nature of Arbitration Clauses on Legal Heirs
  - Whether legal heirs of a deceased partner are bound by the arbitration clause in the partnership deed.
Court’s Analysis and Findings

1. Arbitration Clause and Its Limits
- The Court acknowledged that the partnership deed contained an arbitration clause, binding both the original partners and their legal heirs for disputes relating to dissolution and settlement of accounts.
- However, the claim for recovery of loans given by the plaintiffs in their individual capacity was not covered by the arbitration agreement.
2. Inextricable Link Between Claims
- The Court found that the reliefs sought (loan recovery and dissolution/accounting) were closely linked and could not be separated for piecemeal adjudication.
- Referring only some issues to arbitration would risk conflicting decisions, delay, and increased costs.
3. Precedents and Amendments Considered
- The judgment reviewed key Supreme Court and High Court decisions, including:
  - Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Jayesh H. Pandya (2003): Pre-2015, courts could not bifurcate causes of action for arbitration.
  - Ameet Lalchand Shah v. Rishabh Enterprises (2018): Post-2015 amendments, courts must refer matters to arbitration unless there is no valid arbitration agreement.
  - Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation (2021): Laid down tests for non-arbitrability and clarified the limited scope of judicial review at the referral stage.
- The Court emphasized that, post-amendment, the only bar to referral is the non-existence of a valid arbitration agreement for the subject matter.
4. Application to the Present Case
- The Court held that, since the loan recovery claims were not covered by the arbitration clause and were inextricably linked to the dissolution/accounting claims, the entire dispute could not be referred to arbitration.
- The plaintiffs did not structure their suit to avoid arbitration; rather, the nature of their claims necessitated a single proceeding.
Final Judgment and Its Implications
- The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Commercial Court’s refusal to refer the matter to arbitration.
- The judgment clarified that:
  1. Not all disputes involving a partnership with an arbitration clause must be referred to arbitration—only those covered by the agreement.
  2. Where claims are inextricably linked and not all are arbitrable, courts may retain jurisdiction over the entire suit.
  3. Legal heirs are bound by the arbitration clause for partnership-related disputes, but not for independent claims like personal loans.
- The Court cautioned that this judgment is based on the specific facts and should not be treated as a binding precedent for all Section 8 applications.
Practical Takeaways for Partnerships and Arbitration
1. Drafting Arbitration Clauses: Ensure that the scope of the arbitration clause is clear and covers all intended disputes, including those involving legal heirs or related financial transactions.
2. Filing Suits with Multiple Reliefs: Plaintiffs should be aware that if their claims are closely linked and not all are arbitrable, courts may refuse to split the proceedings.
3. Legal Heirs’ Rights: Legal heirs can enforce or be bound by arbitration clauses for partnership matters, but not for independent claims unless expressly covered.
This judgment reinforces the importance of precise drafting in partnership agreements and provides clarity on the limits of arbitration in complex partnership disputes.

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

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

Source: Gujarat 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
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
August 29, 2026
Karnataka HC Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws in Matrimonial Dispute for Lack of Specific Allegations Under Sections 498A, 504, and 34 IPC
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 29.08.2026

Karnataka HC Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws in Matrimonial Dispute for Lack of Specific Allegations Under Sections 498A, 504, and 34 IPC

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 recently delivered a significant judgment in Criminal Petition No. 2918 of 2019, quashing criminal proceedings against several family members accused under Sections 498A, 504, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This article provides a comprehensive overview of the case, the legal principles involved, and the broader implications for matrimonial disputes in India.

Background of the Case

The petitioners, who were family members of the complainant’s husband, approached the High Court seeking to quash the charge sheet filed against them. The original complaint alleged cruelty and harassment, leading to the registration of a criminal case under Section 498A (cruelty by husband or relatives), Section 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), and Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the IPC.

Key Facts
1. Parties Involved:
  - Petitioners: Accused family members (not including the husband)
  - Respondent: The complainant (wife)
  - The husband was not a party to this particular petition.
2. Nature of Allegations:
  - The complainant alleged general harassment and cruelty by the husband and his relatives.
  - The charge sheet did not specify any concrete or particular acts by the petitioners.
Court’s Analysis

Lack of Specific Allegations

The High Court observed that the charge sheet contained only general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners. There were no specific instances or evidence indicating their direct involvement in any act of cruelty or harassment.

Reference to Supreme Court Precedents

The judgment relied heavily on several Supreme Court decisions, including:
- Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (2022): The Supreme Court cautioned against prosecuting relatives of the husband based on vague or general allegations, emphasizing the need for specific accusations.
- Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014): Highlighted the misuse of Section 498A and the tendency to implicate all family members in matrimonial disputes.
- Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010): Stressed the importance of scrutinizing complaints to prevent unnecessary harassment of innocent relatives.
- Maram Nirmala v. State of Telangana (2025): Reiterated that mere reference to family members without specific allegations should not result in criminal prosecution.
Abuse of Legal Process

The Court concluded that allowing the proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the legal process, as the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not met. The Court also noted that such cases often arise from matrimonial discord and can be used as tools for personal vendetta.

Section 504 IPC: Intentional Insult

The Court analyzed the requirements for an offence under Section 504 IPC and found that the complaint did not specify any intentional insult or abusive language that could provoke a breach of peace. Mere allegations of abuse, without details, were deemed insufficient.

Final Order
- The criminal petition was allowed.
- The proceedings against the petitioners in the pending criminal case were quashed.
Broader Implications
1. Protection Against False or Vague Allegations:
  - The judgment reinforces the principle that criminal law should not be misused to settle personal scores in matrimonial disputes.
2. Need for Specific Evidence:
  - Courts require concrete and particularized allegations before proceeding against family members in such cases.
3. Judicial Caution:
  - The decision urges lower courts to exercise caution and prevent unnecessary harassment of innocent relatives.
Conclusion

This judgment is a significant reaffirmation of the judiciary’s commitment to preventing the misuse of criminal law in matrimonial disputes. It underscores the necessity for specific, evidence-based allegations and serves as a safeguard for innocent family members who might otherwise be drawn into protracted and baseless litigation.

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
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
August 29, 2026
CESTAT Chandigarh Clarifies Classification of Aluminum Profiles for Solar Panel Manufacturing
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 29.08.2026

CESTAT Chandigarh Clarifies Classification of Aluminum Profiles for Solar Panel Manufacturing

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

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

Background: The Dispute Over Aluminum Profiles

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

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

Key Legal Issues Examined

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

1. Classification Must Reflect Goods as Imported

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

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

3. Eligibility for Duty Exemption

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

4. No Grounds for Penalties or Extended Limitation

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

Final Order and Impact

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

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

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

Source: CESTAT Chandigarh

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
August 29, 2026
Jurisdictional Bar of Civil Courts in Real Estate Disputes: under Section 79 of RERA
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 27.08.2026

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

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

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

Background of the Case

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

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

Legal Proceedings and Arguments

Plaintiffs’ Stand

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

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

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

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

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

Connected Matter

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

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

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

Source: Calcutta High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

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

Date: 27.08.2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scope of Judicial Review

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

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

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Connected Matter

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

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

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

Source: Delhi High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
August 27, 2026
Karnataka High Court on Quashing FIRs and Charge Sheets Against Juveniles in Multiple Udupi District Cases
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 27.08.2026

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

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

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

Background of the Cases

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Karnataka High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
August 27, 2026
Supreme Court Affirms Acquittal Under Sections 8/18(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 27.08.2026

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

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

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

Background of the Case

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

High Court Proceedings

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

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

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

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

Connected Matter

Supreme Court Clarifies Electronic Evidence and Re-trial Principles in NDPS Act

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

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

Source: Supreme Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
August 27, 2026
Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Customs Ruling, Orders Fresh Review of Halton India’s Kitchen Exhaust Hood Classification
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 27.08.2026

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

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

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

Background of the Case

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

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

The Dispute

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

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

The Appeal to the High Court

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

The High Court’s Judgment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Karnataka High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
August 27, 2026
Supreme Court Clarifies Electronic Evidence and Re-trial Principles in NDPS Act
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 26.08.2026

Supreme Court Clarifies Electronic Evidence and Re-trial Principles in NDPS Act

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

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

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

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

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

Connected Matter

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

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

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

Source: Supreme Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
August 26, 2026