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

  • Delhi HC: Common Words in Earlier Registered Marks Do Not Automatically Bar New Trademark Applications

    Delhi HC: Common Words in Earlier Registered Marks Do Not Automatically Bar New Trademark Applications

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

    Date: 21.10.2026

    Delhi HC: Common Words in Earlier Registered Marks Do Not Automatically Bar New Trademark Applications

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

    The Delhi High Court has set aside the Trade Marks Registry’s refusal to register β€œPlanet E School” for educational services, holding that the mark must be assessed as a whole rather than rejected merely because it contains common words such as β€œPlanet,” β€œE,” and β€œSchool.”

    Background of the dispute

    Grey Matters Educational Trust applied to register β€œPlanet E School” in Class 41 for educational services. The Trade Marks Registry refused the application on 25 January 2019, citing Sections 9 and 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

    Section 9 bars marks that lack distinctiveness, while Section 11 addresses marks that may conflict with earlier trademarks and create a likelihood of confusion. The Registry’s order, however, stated only that the application was objectionable under these provisions, without providing detailed reasons or dealing with the applicant’s response to the examination report.

    Grey Matters Educational Trust appealed to the Delhi High Court under Section 91 of the Act. It argued that its mark was visually, structurally and phonetically different from the cited marks, and that the phrase β€œPlanet E School” had to be considered in its full commercial form.

    Court rejects a fragmented comparison of trademarks

    The Court found that the cited registrations and the applied-for mark shared elements such as β€œPlanet” and β€œE.” But that commonality alone was not enough to establish deceptive similarity.

    The Court applied the anti-dissection rule, a central principle of trademark law. Under this rule, a composite trademark must be evaluated in its entirety. Courts should not split a mark into individual words or components and compare those isolated pieces with portions of another mark.

    The relevant question is the overall impression created for an ordinary consumer. In this case, the Court held that the cited marks, when viewed as whole marks, were not prima facie similar or deceptively similar to β€œPlanet E School.” The Section 11 objection was therefore found to lack merit.

    Generic words can form a distinctive combination

    The Court also addressed the distinctiveness objection under Section 9. It accepted that β€œPlanet,” β€œE,” and β€œSchool,” viewed individually, are generic or commonly used expressions. Yet it held that their combination in the phrase β€œPlanet E School” creates a distinctive and unique commercial identity.

    This distinction is important for trademark applicants. A mark does not necessarily fail because some or all of its individual elements are descriptive, ordinary or generic. The legal assessment must focus on whether the combination, taken as a whole, can distinguish one party’s services from those of others.

    The Registry’s one-line refusal was inadequate

    A significant feature of the judgment is the Court’s criticism of the refusal order itself. The Registry had issued a one-line rejection without explaining how the mark failed under Sections 9 and 11. It also did not address the detailed reply filed by the applicant in response to the First Examination Report.

    The decision reinforces that trademark refusals must be reasoned. Where an applicant has placed substantive arguments on record, the Registry must engage with those arguments rather than issue a conclusory order.

    Conditions attached to the registration process

    Although the Court allowed the appeal, it imposed two important qualifications:

    • No exclusive right over β€œPlanet” alone: Grey Matters Educational Trust cannot claim exclusive rights in the standalone word β€œPlanet.”
    • Punjab-only territorial restriction: Use of the β€œPlanet E School” mark is restricted to the State of Punjab.

    The Court directed the Trade Marks Registry to process the application and advertise the mark under the Trade Marks Act and Trade Marks Rules. Any opposition filed during the advertisement process must be decided on its own merits.

    Why the decision matters

    The ruling provides useful guidance for businesses, schools and brand owners seeking protection for composite marks:

    • A shared word does not automatically make two marks deceptively similar.
    • Composite marks should be judged by their overall visual, phonetic and structural impression.
    • Generic or common terms may still be registrable when their combination creates distinctiveness.
    • Trademark authorities must provide reasons and consider an applicant’s substantive response before refusing registration.

    In allowing the appeal, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed that trademark examination is not a word-by-word exercise: the decisive issue is the complete commercial impression a mark creates in the marketplace.

    Connected Matter

    Delhi HC: Composite Trademarks Must Be Evaluated as a Whole Under Section 11(1) of Trade Marks 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: 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 Sets Aside NDPS Conviction Over Search Safeguard and Confession Issues

    Supreme Court Sets Aside NDPS Conviction Over Search Safeguard and Confession Issues

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

    Date: 21.10.2026

    Supreme Court Sets Aside NDPS Conviction Over Search Safeguard and Confession Issues

    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 acquitted Nirmal Singh Pehlwan after finding that the mandatory safeguard under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was not properly followed and that reliance on his Customs confession was legally unsound.

    Background of the case

    On 4 January 1999, a joint team of Customs, Punjab Police and CIA staff set up a checkpoint near Saki Bridge, Ajnala. Officials stopped a Maruti car carrying three people. According to the prosecution, two occupants fled in dense fog while Nirmal Singh Pehlwan, also known as Nimma, was apprehended.

    Customs officials alleged that two one-kilogram packets of brown powder were found in his lap. Field testing and later laboratory analysis identified the substance as heroin. During the investigation, the accused also made a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act admitting guilt.

    The Trial Court convicted him under Section 22 of the NDPS Act and imposed 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment, a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, and a further two years’ imprisonment in default of payment. The High Court upheld that result.

    Core legal issue: Was the accused informed of his Section 50 right?

    Section 50 of the NDPS Act protects a person facing a personal search. Before conducting that search, the authorised officer must inform the person that they have a right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer.

    In this case, the prosecution relied on a consent memo stating that Nirmal Singh chose to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. The Supreme Court held that merely presenting a choice between a Magistrate and a Gazetted Officer was not enough. The officer had to clearly communicate that this was the suspect’s legal right.

    The Court noted that the Customs officer did not state in his evidence that he had informed the accused of this right. He only obtained an option recorded in the consent memo. Applying the Constitution Bench ruling in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja, the Court found complete non-compliance with Section 50.

    Why the defect mattered

    The Court reaffirmed that Section 50 is mandatory where recovery is made from a person’s body or personal possession. Its purpose is to:

    • prevent misuse of search powers;
    • protect innocent persons from false implication; and
    • reduce allegations that contraband was planted.

    A defective Section 50 procedure makes the alleged recovery suspect. Where the conviction depends on that recovery, the defect can invalidate the conviction.

    Customs confession also could not sustain the conviction

    The prosecution had also relied on the accused’s confession made to a Customs officer under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The Supreme Court preferred the reasoning in Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, which examined the investigative and prosecutorial powers exercised by Customs officers in narcotics matters.

    The Court concluded that such a confession could not be treated as admissible simply because it was made to a Customs officer rather than a conventional police officer. It found that the earlier decision relied on by the prosecution had not fully considered the protections embodied in Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

    Supreme Court’s ruling

    Because the mandatory Section 50 safeguard was not complied with and the confession could not reliably support the prosecution, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and acquitted Nirmal Singh Pehlwan.

    Key legal takeaway

    An NDPS personal search cannot be validated by a signed consent memo alone. Officers must clearly inform the suspect of the statutory right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer; failure to do so can undermine the recovery and overturn a conviction.

    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

  • Bombay High Court: Deemed Conveyance Orders Cannot Ignore Builder’s FSI and Development Rights Objections β€” Section 11 MOFA Order Set Aside

    Bombay High Court: Deemed Conveyance Orders Cannot Ignore Builder’s FSI and Development Rights Objections β€” Section 11 MOFA Order Set Aside

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

    Date: 21.10.2026

    Bombay High Court: Deemed Conveyance Orders Cannot Ignore Builder’s FSI and Development Rights Objections β€” Section 11 MOFA Order Set Aside

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

    The Bombay High Court has set aside a deemed conveyance order granted to a housing society in Vile Parle, holding that the competent authority failed to deal with material objections and provide adequate reasons for its decision.

    Background of the dispute

    The case concerns a 4,133.68 sq. metre plot at Dixit Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai, comprising Plot Nos. 157, 158 and 159 and Final Plot No. 324 of TPS II. M/s. Vimal Builders, now the proprietorship of petitioner Hasmukh Narrotamdas Malkan, had agreed to purchase the land in 1973. A residential building, Vimal Apartments, was constructed and completed in 1975, and flats were sold to individual purchasers.

    The flat purchasers formed the Vile Parle Vimal Gauri Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. in 1982. The builder later obtained conveyance of the land pursuant to a decree for specific performance against the original owners.

    The society sought conveyance of the property, first through a civil suit and later through an application for deemed conveyance under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA). In March 2025, the District Deputy Registrar granted deemed conveyance of the entire plot to the society.

    Why the builder challenged the order

    The petitioner contended that the authority had not properly considered key issues affecting the extent of the society’s entitlement. These included:

    • The agreements for sale, which the petitioner said contemplated development of more than one building on the land.
    • The petitioner’s asserted right to use remaining development potential, including FSI/TDR, for a second building.
    • A 1976 sanctioned layout plan and the claimed existence of a plinth for the proposed second building.
    • Alleged statements in the society’s earlier civil plaint that recognised the petitioner’s right to use the balance FSI.
    • The authority of the society’s secretary to institute the deemed conveyance application.

    The builder argued that a summary proceeding under MOFA does not remove the authority’s duty to consider relevant documents and explain why significant objections are rejected.

    Court’s findings

    Justice Farhan P. Dubash found that the competent authority had referred to the promoter’s statutory obligation to convey property and to clause 22 of the flat-purchase agreements. However, it did not address other contractual clauses and documents relied on by the petitioner.

    The Court held that simply recording a party’s submissions is not enough. A quasi-judicial authority must show that it has considered the material disputes relevant to the relief sought and must give reasons for its conclusions.

    The judgment identified three central deficiencies in the 2025 order:

    • Contractual documents were not fully examined: The authority did not explain why the agreements and clauses said to support a multi-building layout did not affect the society’s claim to the entire plot.
    • FSI and second-building objections were not addressed: The authority did not assess the relevance of the alleged admission in the society’s earlier plaint, the 1976 plan, or the claimed surviving plinth.
    • Secretary’s authority was left undecided: The order contained no finding on the objection that the society’s secretary lacked authority to file the application.

    The Court stressed that the issue was not that the authority’s reasons were too brief. Rather, the order lacked reasoned consideration of material points that could directly affect the scope of conveyance.

    Importance of the earlier remand

    The application had already been remanded once by the High Court in November 2024, with a specific direction to consider the parties’ submissions and issue reasoned findings. The Court held that the authority’s failure to address the material objections also amounted to non-compliance with that direction.

    The Court further noted that the authority had initially rejected the society’s application in 2023 on the basis that ownership disputes could not be decided in summary proceedings. After remand, it reached the opposite result on the same broad factual record without adequately explaining why the society was entitled to the conveyance sought.

    The ruling and its implications

    The High Court set aside the deemed conveyance order dated 20 March 2025 and remitted the society’s 2021 application to the District Deputy Registrar for fresh consideration.

    The authority must now hear all parties, consider their material submissions and relevant documents, and issue a reasoned order by 31 March 2027. The Court did not decide whether the society is ultimately entitled to deemed conveyance, whether the entire plot should be conveyed, or whether the builder’s claims regarding FSI and a second building are valid.

    The decision reinforces an important principle in MOFA deemed conveyance proceedings: although the jurisdiction is summary, authorities must still assess the relevant agreements and evidence, address material objections, and clearly explain the basis of their decision. The outcome on the merits remains open for determination by the competent authority.

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

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

    Source: Bombay High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Delhi High Court Dismisses MIAL Appeal in Mumbai Airport Sahara Lease Arbitration Dispute

    Delhi High Court Dismisses MIAL Appeal in Mumbai Airport Sahara Lease Arbitration Dispute

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

    Date: 21.10.2026

    Delhi High Court Dismisses MIAL Appeal in Mumbai Airport Sahara Lease Arbitration Dispute

    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 has dismissed Mumbai International Airport Limited’s appeal against an arbitral award that rejected its claim that the Airports Authority of India was obliged to transfer the lessor’s interest in a long-term lease at Mumbai Airport.

    The dispute at a glance

    The case arose from the privatisation and redevelopment framework for Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport in Mumbai. Airports Authority of India (AAI) had granted Sahara (Batra) Hospitality Private Limited a 29-year lease in 2002 for approximately 30,047 square metres of airport land, running until 4 June 2031.

    In 2006, AAI and Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL), a joint-venture company established to operate and develop the airport, entered into the Operation, Management and Development Agreement (OMDA) and a separate lease deed. The Sahara lease was listed as an β€œExisting Lease.”

    MIAL argued that AAI was required to transfer or novate the Sahara lease, including AAI’s rights as lessor, to MIAL during the transition phase. AAI disputed that obligation. An arbitral tribunal unanimously rejected MIAL’s claims in March 2023, and a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court later refused to set aside the award. MIAL then appealed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

    MIAL’s principal arguments

    MIAL relied on the OMDA provision requiring it to use best efforts, with AAI’s reasonable assistance, to transfer or novate existing contracts and agreements connected with the airport. It contended that this provision covered the Sahara lease and required the transfer of AAI’s lessor interest.

    MIAL also pointed to several supporting circumstances:

    • AAI’s 9 June 2006 letter stating that existing commercial and land licence or lease agreements were to be assigned or novated to the joint-venture company during the transition phase.
    • AAI’s transfer of lease-related amounts to MIAL for roughly ten years before stopping the payments in April 2019.
    • Inter-Ministerial Group minutes from 2004 recommending that the Sahara lease be assigned to the joint venture.
    • Communications from the Ministry of Civil Aviation that MIAL said supported its interpretation of the privatisation arrangement.

    MIAL further argued that the Single Judge had not independently evaluated its challenge because parts of the arbitral award were reproduced in the judgment.

    AAI’s response

    AAI maintained that the contractual documents expressly excluded land subject to Existing Leases from the premises leased to MIAL. Under the arrangements, that land would become part of MIAL’s demised premises only after the relevant third-party lease expired or ended early.

    AAI submitted that the payments made to MIAL were merely an interim arrangement and did not amount to assignment, novation, waiver, or recognition that the lessor’s interest had been transferred. It also argued that ministry communications and legal opinions could not amend the bilateral OMDA.

    Court’s reasoning: arbitration review is deliberately narrow

    The Division Bench emphasised that a court reviewing an arbitral award under Section 34 cannot reassess evidence or replace the tribunal’s contractual interpretation with its own preferred view. A challenge succeeds only where a statutory ground, such as patent illegality going to the root of the matter, is established.

    The Court held that review under Section 37 is narrower still. At that stage, the appellate court examines whether the Section 34 court stayed within its jurisdiction; it does not conduct a fresh merits appeal.

    This approach reflects a central principle of Indian arbitration law: parties who choose arbitration ordinarily receive finality, subject only to limited judicial supervision to address serious defects such as perversity, disregard of vital evidence, fraud, bias, or denial of natural justice.

    Reproducing an award does not automatically make a judgment defective

    The Court rejected MIAL’s argument that the Single Judge’s decision was invalid merely because it reproduced substantial passages from the arbitral award.

    According to the Court, the decisive issue is not the amount of copied text but whether the judgment demonstrates meaningful consideration of the objections raised. A court may adopt an arbitral tribunal’s reasoning if it finds that reasoning legally sustainable. The judgment would be vulnerable only if it mechanically reproduced the award without addressing material challenges or applying the statutory test.

    On an overall reading, the Court found that the Single Judge had considered the relevant contractual framework, MIAL’s submissions, and the applicable Section 34 standard.

    Existing leases and the transfer question

    The Court recognised that MIAL’s interpretation was arguable. The OMDA provisions on the demised premises dealt with the transfer of land to MIAL, while the transition provision dealt with transfer or novation of existing contracts. Therefore, excluding the Sahara-leased land from MIAL’s premises did not automatically answer whether AAI’s separate contractual rights as lessor could be transferred.

    However, the Court held that the arbitral tribunal’s contrary reading was not so unreasonable or perverse that judicial intervention was justified. The tribunal had read the transition provision together with the specific provisions governing Existing Leases and the demised premises. That was a permissible method of contractual interpretation within the tribunal’s authority.

    The Court also clarified that Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, addresses the consequences after a lessor’s interest is transferred. It does not itself establish that AAI had a contractual duty under the OMDA to make that transfer.

    Significance of the letter, payments and ministry communications

    The Court accepted that AAI’s 9 June 2006 letter was relevant because it referred to assignment or novation of existing commercial and land lease arrangements. But it found that the letter, as a post-contractual communication, could not independently amend the OMDA. Its meaning had to be assessed alongside the executed agreements.

    Similarly, AAI’s transfer of lease-related payments to MIAL for approximately a decade could be relevant evidence of how the parties implemented the arrangement. Yet those payments did not conclusively prove that AAI’s lessor interest had been assigned or that the OMDA compelled such an assignment.

    The Ministry of Civil Aviation communications were also insufficient to overturn the award. The Court agreed that ministry involvement in airport privatisation did not mean every later communication constituted a binding statutory policy direction under Section 40 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994.

    Finally, the 2004 Inter-Ministerial Group recommendation to assign the Sahara lease to the joint venture formed part of the background, but it did not by itself create an enforceable contractual obligation. The parties’ legal rights had to be determined primarily from the OMDA and related executed agreements.

    Outcome and wider importance

    The appeal was dismissed, leaving the arbitral award and the Single Judge’s decision intact. MIAL did not establish a ground for interference under Section 34, and therefore could not succeed under the even more limited appellate review available under Section 37. The judgment reinforces that Indian courts will not reopen arbitration disputes simply because a different contractual interpretation is plausible. To set aside an award, the challenging party must show a serious statutory defect, not merely an arguable disagreement over the contract or the weight of 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: 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

  • Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR and Charge Sheet Over Unsworn Section 156(3) CrPC Complaint

    Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR and Charge Sheet Over Unsworn Section 156(3) CrPC Complaint

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

    Date: 21.10.2026

    Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR and Charge Sheet Over Unsworn Section 156(3) CrPC Complaint

    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 quashed an FIR and subsequent charge sheet against N.V. Babu Reddy, holding that the private complaint which triggered the criminal case suffered from a fundamental procedural defect: it was not supported by an affidavit.

    Background of the case

    The criminal petition arose from Crime No. 30/2020 of Mahalakshmipuram Police Station, Bengaluru. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 323, 324, 307 and 120B read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, involving allegations of assault, threats and an alleged conspiracy.

    According to the complainant’s version, a dispute initially developed over non-payment for work completed. The complainant stated that he had earlier approached police regarding the payment issue. He further alleged that, after being asked to meet near Geleyara Balaga in Mahalakshmi Layout on December 17, 2019, he and another person, Prabhakar, were surrounded by a group that abused and attempted to physically attack them. The complainant claimed they escaped after Prabhakar allegedly saw someone taking weapons from an autorickshaw.

    The complaint also alleged continued threats to the complainant and his family. Police had received a later complaint and registered an NCR, but an acknowledgment reportedly described the dispute as civil in nature and advised the complainant to approach the court. The complainant then filed a private complaint before the Magistrate, who referred the matter for police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

    Petitioner’s challenge

    Babu Reddy sought to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC. His principal argument was that the private complaint was not accompanied by an affidavit, contrary to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

    The petitioner also argued that the complaint was an abuse of criminal process in a dispute connected to money recovery. He referred to an earlier complaint that had already been quashed by the High Court.

    The State opposed the petition on the basis that the police had investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet on May 15, 2020.

    Court’s reasoning

    Justice H.P. Sandesh found that the absence of an affidavit was a fundamental defect. The Court noted that the Supreme Court’s decision in Priyanka Srivastava, followed in later judgments, requires a private complaint seeking action under Section 156(3) CrPC to be supported by an affidavit.

    The Court distinguished this issue from the petitioner’s separate objection about compliance with Sections 154(1) and 154(3) CrPC. Since police had received the complaint, issued an NCR and provided an acknowledgment, the Court held that there was no refusal by police requiring the complainant to first approach the Superintendent of Police.

    However, that did not cure the lack of an affidavit. The Court held that an unsupported private complaint could not be entertained, and that no legal value could attach to the complaint or to the charge sheet that followed from it.

    Outcome and legal significance

    The High Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed both the proceedings in Crime No. 30/2020 and the charge sheet against the petitioner. The ruling underscores that the affidavit requirement for private complaints referred for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC is not a technical formality. Where that requirement is missing, the very initiation of criminal proceedings may be invalid, even if investigation has progressed to the filing of a charge sheet.

    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

  • Himachal Pradesh HC: Rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act Inapplicable Where Heroin Recovery Is Below Commercial Quantity

    Himachal Pradesh HC: Rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act Inapplicable Where Heroin Recovery Is Below Commercial Quantity

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

    Date: 19.10.2026

    Himachal Pradesh HC: Rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act Inapplicable Where Heroin Recovery Is Below Commercial Quantity

    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 Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted regular bail to Prince Rana and Sudhanshu Soni in an NDPS case involving the recovery of 32.56 grams of heroin, while making clear that the order does not decide their guilt or innocence.

    The case at a glance

    Justice Rakesh Kainthla decided the connected bail petitions on 16 October 2026. The petitions arose from FIR No. 28 of 2026, registered at Baijnath Police Station in Kangra district under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

    According to the prosecution, police received information on 24 February 2026 that Prince Rana, Sudhanshu Soni and others were selling heroin from a house in Village Malehad. Officers recorded and forwarded the information to a superior officer before conducting a search. The search reportedly led to the recovery of a polythene packet containing 32.56 grams of heroin, concealed beneath a sofa-cum-bed.

    The prosecution said both petitioners were present at the house when the recovery was made. It also relied on statements allegedly made during the investigation concerning the procurement and delivery of the substance. A forensic report confirmed that the recovered material was diacetylmorphine, commonly known as heroin.

    Arguments before the Court

    The petitioners denied the allegations and said they had been falsely implicated. Their counsel stressed that they were first-time accused, had no other FIRs registered against them, and that the police investigation had already concluded. The charge sheet had been filed on 24 April 2026, meaning further custodial interrogation was not required, they argued.

    The State opposed bail, contending that the allegations concerned heroin sales and that the offence had serious consequences for society. It urged the Court not to show leniency.

    Why the High Court granted bail

    The Court considered established Supreme Court principles on bail, including the nature and gravity of the accusation, the evidence available at the preliminary stage, the possibility of absconding, the likelihood of witness interference, criminal antecedents and the need to protect the trial process.

    While the Court found that the petitioners’ presence at the house during the alleged recovery created a prima facie case, it identified several factors favouring release:

    • Quantity below the commercial threshold: The Court noted that the alleged recovery was less than a commercial quantity. Therefore, the stricter restrictions on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not applicable.
    • No stated criminal history: The petitioners’ assertion that they were first offenders was not disputed by the State in its status report. The Court observed that first offenders should have an opportunity for reform and that unnecessary continued detention could expose them to hardened criminals.
    • Local roots: Both petitioners were stated to be permanent residents of Kangra district. As this was not disputed, the Court found no substantial risk of absconding.
    • Investigation complete: Since the police had completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet, and did not claim that custodial interrogation remained necessary, the Court held that continued detention would serve no useful purpose.

    The decision reflects the general bail principle that personal liberty should ordinarily be protected unless circumstances indicate a real risk of flight, interference with justice, witness intimidation or repetition of offences.

    Bail terms imposed

    Prince Rana and Sudhanshu Soni were each directed to furnish a bail bond of β‚Ή1,00,000 with one surety in the same amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court. Their release is subject to conditions intended to safeguard the proceedings:

    1. They must not intimidate witnesses or influence evidence.
    2. They must attend every hearing and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournments.
    3. They cannot leave their present address for more than seven continuous days without providing details of the intended visit to the concerned SHO, police station and trial court.
    4. They must surrender any passports to the court.
    5. They must provide their mobile numbers and social-media contact details to the police and court, comply with notices sent through SMS, WhatsApp or social-media accounts, and report any change in these details within five days.

    The Court also stated that the prosecution may seek cancellation of bail if any condition is violated.

    What the order doesβ€”and does notβ€”decide

    This is a bail ruling, not a final verdict in the criminal case. The High Court expressly stated that its observations were limited to deciding the bail applications and would not affect the merits of the prosecution at trial.

    The trial court will determine the allegations based on the evidence presented during the proceedings.

    The ruling shows that, even in narcotics cases, courts assess bail on the specific facts: the statutory quantity involved, the accused’s prior record, their connection to the local community, the status of the investigation and the safeguards available to protect a fair trial.

    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: Himachal Pradesh 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 HC: Composite Trademarks Must Be Evaluated as a Whole Under Section 11(1) of Trade Marks Act

    Delhi HC: Composite Trademarks Must Be Evaluated as a Whole Under Section 11(1) of Trade Marks Act

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

    Date: 19.10.2026

    Delhi HC: Composite Trademarks Must Be Evaluated as a Whole Under Section 11(1) of Trade Marks Act

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

    The Delhi High Court has set aside the Trade Marks Registry’s refusal to register the word mark β€œKAMA CASA”, holding that the Registry wrongly split the composite mark into separate elements and compared them with distinct earlier device marks.

    Background of the dispute

    Modi Woodspace Private Limited applied on 29 August 2023 to register KAMA CASA as a proposed-to-be-used word mark in Classes 20 and 35. The Trade Marks Registry objected under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which concerns the likelihood of confusion with earlier trademarks.

    After hearings, the Registrar refused the application on 21 May 2025. The refusal was based on earlier Class 20 registrations containing the terms β€œKAMA” and β€œCASA.” The Registrar concluded that combining those words in β€œKAMA CASA” could confuse consumers and traders about the commercial origin of the goods.

    Modi Woodspace appealed to the Delhi High Court under Section 91 of the Act.

    The key issue: Can a composite mark be broken into parts?

    The central issue was whether the Registrar could assess the applicant’s mark by isolating the words β€œKAMA” and β€œCASA” and comparing each part separately with different prior marks.

    The Court held that this approach was incorrect. It applied the anti-dissection rule, a settled trademark principle requiring a mark to be assessed as a whole rather than broken into individual components.

    According to the Court, KAMA CASA is a composite word mark and should have been evaluated in its entirety. The cited prior marks were device or label marks with their own visual and design elements. The Registry could not disregard those elements, extract the words β€œKAMA” and β€œCASA,” and use them separately to reject the composite word mark.

    Why the refusal was flawed

    The Court identified two material distinctions:

    • Different mark types: The applicant sought registration of a word mark, while the cited marks were device marks.
    • Improper comparison: The cited device marks could not be reduced to their word elements alone. Their overall visual presentation and device features formed part of the registered marks.

    The Court found it difficult to understand how the Registrar could conclude that the composite word mark β€œKAMA CASA” was deceptively similar to separate device marks containing β€œKAMA” and β€œCASA,” particularly when each cited mark had distinctive device elements.

    It further observed that the mere fact that the marks fell in the same class did not establish similarity or a likelihood of confusion.

    Relevance of other β€œCASA” registrations

    During the appeal, Modi Woodspace submitted a Trade Marks Registry search report showing numerous registrations containing the word β€œCASA” in the same or similar classes. Although this report had not been submitted to the Registrar during the original examination process, the Court considered it relevant.

    The presence of multiple registered marks containing β€œCASA” may be important when evaluating whether that word, in the relevant market context, can by itself justify refusal of a later composite mark. The Court therefore directed the Registrar to consider the search report in the renewed examination.

    Court’s decision

    In its judgment delivered on 22 April 2026, the Delhi High Court:

    • quashed the refusal order dated 21 May 2025;
    • revived trademark application No. 6087367 for KAMA CASA;
    • remitted the application to the Registrar of Trade Marks for a fresh, de novo consideration; and
    • required the Registrar to complete that reconsideration within four months.

    The Court clarified that its observations were made for the purpose of remand and should not be treated as a final finding that the mark must be registered.

    Significance for trademark applicants

    The ruling reinforces that trademark similarity assessments must be based on the overall commercial impression of competing marks. A registry or court should not artificially dissect a composite mark and assemble objections from separate earlier registrations unless the law and the facts justify that conclusion.

    For applicants, the decision also highlights the value of submitting marketplace and registry search evidence early. Evidence of numerous similar registrations may help place a disputed word or element in context, especially where the applicant’s mark combines common or widely used terms into a distinct overall expression.

    Ultimately, the case confirms that a Section 11(1) objection requires a careful comparison of the marks as consumers encounter them, not an isolated comparison of selected words taken out of their full visual and commercial context.

    Connected Matter

    Delhi HC: Common Words in Earlier Registered Marks Do Not Automatically Bar New Trademark Applications

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

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

    Source: Delhi High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

  • Madras HC: Non-Parent Customs Commissioner Cannot Suspend Customs Broker Licence Under Regulation 16 of CBLR 2018

    Madras HC: Non-Parent Customs Commissioner Cannot Suspend Customs Broker Licence Under Regulation 16 of CBLR 2018

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

    Date: 19.10.2026

    Madras HC: Non-Parent Customs Commissioner Cannot Suspend Customs Broker Licence Under Regulation 16 of CBLR 2018

    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 Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held that only the Customs authority that issued a Customs Broker’s licenceβ€”the β€œParent Commissionerate”—may suspend it under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018.

    In M/s. Sasha Shipping Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, decided on 4 November 2025, Justice G.R. Swaminathan set aside orders by the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin suspending and continuing the suspension of Sasha Shipping’s Customs Broker Licence. The Court found that Tuticorin was not the licence-issuing authority and therefore lacked jurisdiction to invoke the suspension power.

    Background of the dispute

    Sasha Shipping Pvt. Ltd. received its Customs Broker Licence from the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, in 2011. It subsequently began operating within the jurisdiction of the Tuticorin Customs Commissionerate from 21 June 2022 through a Form C intimation.

    In August 2025, the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin formed the view that the company had committed irregularities relating to certain imports. On 20 August 2025, the Commissioner suspended Sasha Shipping’s licence with immediate effect under Regulation 16(1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. A further order dated 3 September 2025 continued that suspension under Regulation 16(2).

    Sasha Shipping challenged both orders. Its central argument was that Tuticorin, being a non-parent commissionerate, could not suspend a licence issued by Chennai.

    The jurisdictional question before the Court

    The case turned on the distinction between two Customs authorities:

    • Parent Commissionerate: The Commissionerate that grants the Customs Broker Licence.
    • Non-Parent Commissionerate: A Commissionerate where the broker operates under a Form C intimation after obtaining its original licence elsewhere.

    The Court noted that a broker can transact business at Customs stations beyond its original Commissionerate, subject to the Form C process. However, Form C is only an intimation of the broker’s intention to operate at another station; it is not a fresh licence or an authorization issued by that non-parent Commissionerate.

    Initially, the Tuticorin order appeared to operate across all Customs stations. A corrigendum dated 14 October 2025 limited its reach to areas within the jurisdiction of the Tuticorin Custom House. Even after that correction, the principal issue remained: whether Tuticorin could suspend the licence at all.

    Regulation 15 and Regulation 16 serve different purposes

    The Court analysed the scheme of the 2018 Regulations, particularly Regulations 15, 16 and 17.

    Regulation 15: Local prohibition by a non-parent Commissionerate

    Regulation 15 allows a Commissioner other than the licence-issuing authority to prohibit a Customs Broker from working in one or more sections of the relevant Customs station if the broker has failed to meet its obligations. This is a limited local measure. The prohibition cannot continue for more than one month.

    According to the Court, this provision equips a non-parent Commissionerate to respond immediately to misconduct occurring within its own jurisdiction.

    Regulation 16: Suspension of the licence

    Regulation 16 permits suspension of a Customs Broker Licence where immediate action is necessary and an inquiry is pending or contemplated. The Court held that this power belongs only to the Parent Commissionerate because that authority issued the licence in the first place.

    The reasoning was straightforward: the authority that grants a licence has the inherent authority to amend, vary, rescind or suspend it. A non-parent Commissionerate, which has received only a Form C intimation, has not issued the licence and cannot suspend it.

    Regulation 17: Further disciplinary process

    Where suspension continues, Regulation 17 provides the procedure for notice, inquiry, evidence, representation and final action, including revocation or penalty. The Court read Regulations 15, 16 and 17 together as a coordinated framework:

    1. A non-parent Commissionerate may impose a temporary local prohibition.
    2. It should communicate the alleged violations to the Parent Commissionerate.
    3. The Parent Commissionerate may then initiate suspension, revocation or penalty proceedings under the applicable regulations.

    Why the Court rejected the Customs department’s argument

    The Customs department argued that Regulation 16 uses the broad phrase β€œPrincipal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs,” unlike Regulation 15, which specifically refers to Commissioners other than those mentioned in Regulation 7. It contended that this wording allowed any Commissioner to suspend a broker’s licence.

    The Court did not accept that interpretation. It held that the regulations must be read as a whole, rather than treating Regulation 16 in isolation. The existence of Regulation 15 showed that the regulatory framework already gives non-parent Commissionerates a defined remedy: temporary prohibition within their own Customs station.

    Allowing a non-parent Commissionerate to suspend the licence itself would blur the statutory distinction between local prohibition and licence-level suspension.

    Reliance on the 2010 CBIC circular

    The Court also relied on CBIC Circular No. 9/2010-Cus., dated 8 April 2010. Although issued under the earlier Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004, the Court found it remained applicable because its principles were consistent with the 2018 Regulations and it had neither been superseded nor withdrawn.

    The circular states that where a Customs broker operating under Form C is found to have committed violations at another Customs station:

    • The Commissionerate at that station should report the violations to the Commissionerate that issued the licence.
    • The licence-issuing Commissionerate should initiate suspension or revocation action.
    • The non-parent Commissionerate may, in appropriate cases, prohibit the broker from working locally.

    This approach avoids duplicative proceedings and ensures uniform disciplinary action against Customs Brokers operating at multiple stations.

    Court’s decision

    The High Court concluded that the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin was a non-parent Commissionerate because Sasha Shipping’s licence had been issued by Chennai. Consequently, Tuticorin could not exercise the suspension power under Regulation 16.

    The Court set aside:

    • Order No. 15/2025 dated 20 August 2025, suspending Sasha Shipping’s Customs Broker Licence; and
    • Order No. 16/2025 dated 3 September 2025, continuing the suspension.

    Both writ petitions were allowed, with no order as to costs.

    Significance for Customs Brokers and Customs authorities

    The ruling clarifies the limits of regulatory authority where a Customs Broker operates across India through Form C intimations. A non-parent Commissionerate can address suspected wrongdoing at its station through a short-term local prohibition, but it cannot suspend the underlying licence.

    For licence suspension, revocation or broader disciplinary action, the matter must be taken up by the Commissionerate that originally issued the Customs Broker Licence.

    The decision reinforces a clear division of powers, supports procedural consistency and prevents multiple Customs formations from taking overlapping action against the same licence.

    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 HC: Homebuyers Cannot Bypass RERA Proceedings by Filing Fresh Civil Suits Against Builders

    Delhi HC: Homebuyers Cannot Bypass RERA Proceedings by Filing Fresh Civil Suits Against Builders

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

    Date: 19.10.2026

    Delhi HC: Homebuyers Cannot Bypass RERA Proceedings by Filing Fresh Civil Suits Against Builders

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

    The Delhi High Court has dismissed Lalit Kumar’s appeal against the rejection of a wide-ranging civil suit brought by 12 homebuyers against E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., holding that the claims were vague, time-barred in part, barred by prior proceedings in part, and improperly combined multiple independent disputes.

    Background of the dispute

    The case arose from allegations by purchasers of apartments in The Jewel of Noida, a group-housing project developed by E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The homebuyers alleged shortcomings in the project’s development, maintenance arrangements, owners’ association, electricity services, parking, charges, and contractual documentation.

    According to the plaintiffs, the developer had represented that the project would provide high-quality facilities and amenities. They later alleged a substantial mismatch between the apartments’ actual or carpet areas and the super areas on which charges were based. They also challenged several levies, including maintenance, club, electricity-meter, preferential-location, green-belt, lease-rent, tax, and parking charges.

    The plaintiffs further alleged that the developer had not transferred maintenance responsibilities to a lawful apartment owners’ association despite possession having been offered years earlier. They disputed the formation and functioning of the registered association, claiming that it was created through irregular procedures and without proper elections.

    Reliefs sought by the homebuyers

    The suit sought a broad set of remedies, including:

    • Restoration of essential services, including garbage collection and DG electricity supply;
    • Refunds for alleged excess area charges, maintenance charges, club charges, electricity-related charges, taxes, interest, parking charges, preferential-location charges, and green-belt charges;
    • Appointment of an independent architect, consultant, or court commissioner to measure carpet area, super area, and loading;
    • Directions concerning maintenance accounts and transfer of maintenance to an owners’ association;
    • Changes to allegedly one-sided provisions in the sub-lease deeds;
    • Adequate and independent parking arrangements; and
    • Compensation, punitive damages, and rendition of accounts.

    Why the civil suit was rejected

    The trial court dismissed the suit on 31 August 2024. On appeal, the High Court found no reason to interfere with that decision.

    1. Maintenance and electricity issues had already been pursued before RERA

    The court noted that disputes concerning electricity and maintenance charges were already before U.P. RERA and were subject to related proceedings. Under Section 79 of the RERA Act, civil courts cannot entertain matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the RERA authorities or appellate tribunal.

    The court therefore held that the plaintiffs could not use a civil suit to reopen or nullify adverse outcomes from the competent regulatory forum.

    2. Monetary recovery claims were beyond limitation

    The homebuyers’ refund claims were connected to purchases that had culminated in individual sale deeds. The suit was filed in 2024, while the relevant limitation period for recovery claims based on alleged misrepresentation or fraudulent sale was treated as three years.

    The court found that these claims were filed too late and were consequently barred by limitation.

    3. Earlier suits had been withdrawn

    The record showed that earlier civil suits concerning maintenance and electricity had been filed and later withdrawn. The High Court observed that where a suit is withdrawn without liberty to file afresh, Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code prevents a party from bringing another suit on the same cause of action.

    The plaintiffs had not specifically shown that permission had been obtained to preserve their right to refile those claims. The court also endorsed the trial court’s concern that repeated proceedings before different forums amounted to forum hunting.

    4. The suit combined distinct claims of 12 purchasers

    The court stressed that each of the 12 plaintiffs had an individual transaction and a separate cause of action. Their claims could not be treated as one consolidated dispute merely because they related to the same housing project.

    The pleading was therefore held to suffer from misjoinder of parties and causes of action. The claims were also viewed as unquantified, omnibus, and insufficiently specific, particularly because several refund demands were left to be determined later through a proposed local commissioner.

    High Court’s ruling

    Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed Regular First Appeal No. 949/2025 on 11 May 2026. The court affirmed the trial court’s conclusion that the suit was an abuse of the legal process and upheld the dismissal with costs of Rs. 3,000 imposed on each plaintiff.

    Only Lalit Kumar pursued the appeal, while the other original plaintiffs were not parties to the appeal. The court found no merit in the challenge and disposed of the pending applications.

    Key legal takeaway

    The ruling shows that homebuyer grievances, even where numerous and connected to one project, must be pursued before the appropriate forum, within the applicable limitation period, and through precise, properly structured pleadings. A consolidated civil suit cannot be used to revisit matters already adjudicated or pending before RERA, nor to combine unquantified and legally distinct claims of multiple purchasers.

    Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

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

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

    Source: Delhi High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Himachal Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Arbitration Order Over Commercial Court Jurisdiction

    Himachal Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Arbitration Order Over Commercial Court Jurisdiction

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

    Date: 19.10.2026

    Himachal Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Arbitration Order Over Commercial Court Jurisdiction

    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 Himachal Pradesh High Court has set aside a district court order in an arbitration dispute involving M/s Ech Ess Builders and the State of Himachal Pradesh, holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to decide the matter because it had not been constituted as a Commercial Court at the relevant time.

    Background of the construction dispute

    The dispute arose from a public works contract awarded in December 2005 to M/s Ech Ess Builders for a project valued at β‚Ή1.60 crore. The stipulated completion period was two years.

    According to the contractor, the work was disrupted when the site began sliding during the 2010 monsoon season. It said that the work was stopped, cracks developed in the area, and no further execution instructions were provided despite repeated communications. The contractor also alleged that designs and drawings were not made available in time, contributing to the delay.

    M/s Ech Ess Builders sought compensation for idle infrastructure and staff, additional overheads, unpaid work, price escalation, withheld security deposit, and earnest money. It also claimed costs and interest at 18% per annum.

    Arbitration award and court proceedings

    The arbitrator issued an award on 5 December 2019. Among other directions, the award granted simple interest at 8% per annum on:

    • β‚Ή4,46,039 from 27 November 2013 to 22 August 2019; and
    • β‚Ή2,52,492 from 27 November 2013 to 4 August 2017.

    Both the State authorities and the contractor challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. On 9 August 2024, the District Judge, Kinnaur dismissed both sets of objections and upheld the arbitral award.

    The State then appealed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The High Court also condoned the delay in filing that appeal, accepting that it resulted from administrative processes rather than deliberate inaction.

    Why the High Court intervened

    Justice Sandeep Sharma held that this was a commercial dispute because it arose from a construction and infrastructure contract, which falls within the scope of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

    The decisive issue was jurisdiction. When the Section 34 objections were filed in July 2020, the District Judge was not notified or constituted as a Commercial Court under Section 3 of the Commercial Courts Act. Commercial Courts at the district level in Himachal Pradesh were notified only in May 2026.

    Relying on earlier High Court decisions, the Court concluded that a court not constituted as a Commercial Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over such commercial arbitration objections. As a result, the 2024 judgment was treated as having been passed without jurisdiction.

    Court’s order

    The High Court did not examine the merits of the contractor’s claims or the State’s objections to the arbitration award. Instead, it:

    • set aside the District Judge’s order dated 9 August 2024;
    • directed the District Judge to return the parties’ Section 34 objections for presentation before the appropriate forum under the Commercial Courts Act; and
    • ordered that the period from filing the appeal until the parties receive a certified copy of the High Court’s order will be excluded when calculating limitation.

    Legal significance

    The ruling reinforces that jurisdictional requirements under the Commercial Courts Act are mandatory in commercial arbitration matters. Even where a district court has considered an arbitral award in detail, its decision cannot stand if the court was not legally designated to hear commercial disputes when the case was instituted and decided.

    For parties to government construction contracts, the decision highlights the importance of filing arbitration challenges before the correctly constituted commercial forum. Procedural defects in forum selection can invalidate years of litigation without resolving the underlying contractual dispute.

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

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

    Source: Himachal Pradesh 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