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: #Telegram

  • Gujarat High Court on Recovery of Duty Drawback from Exporters

    Gujarat High Court on Recovery of Duty Drawback from Exporters

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

    Date: 12.08.2026

    Gujarat High Court on Recovery of Duty Drawback from Exporters

    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 analyzes a significant judgment by the Gujarat High Court regarding the recovery of duty drawback payments made to exporters under the Customs and Central Excise Duty Drawback Rules. The case, involving Pratibha Syntex Limited and others versus the Union of India, addresses the legality and timeliness of recovering excess drawback payments from exporters.

    Background: Duty Drawback Scheme and Dispute

    The petitioners, recognized export houses, exported fabrics made from 100% polyester filament yarn. Under the Drawback Rules, exporters of specified goods are entitled to a refund (drawback) of duties paid on inputs. The relevant schedule (Sub Serial No. 5404) initially allowed a 20% drawback (subject to a maximum of Rs. 62 per kg of filament yarn content) if certain conditions were met. Later, a reduced rate of 17% was introduced for cases where exporters could not provide specific excise certificates, but there was confusion about whether the Rs. 62 per kg cap applied to this reduced rate.

    Sequence of Events

    1. Initial Payments: Exporters received drawback at 17% of FOB value without the Rs. 62 per kg cap, based on the authorities’ interpretation at the time.
    2. Clarifications Issued: In September 1996, the Commissioner (Drawback) clarified that the Rs. 62 per kg ceiling applied even to the 17% rate. This was later reinforced in 1999, stating the clarification was effective from the original notification date.
    3. Recovery Notices: Over three years after the original payments, show cause notices were issued to recover the excess drawback paid above the Rs. 62 per kg limit.
    4. Legal Proceedings: The exporters challenged these recovery actions, arguing that such delayed demands were time-barred and violated principles of fairness.

    Key Legal Issues

    1. Applicability of Limitation Period

    • Rule 16 of the Drawback Rules: Allows recovery of erroneously paid drawback but does not specify a time limit.
    • Petitioners’ Argument: Even if no explicit limitation is prescribed, a reasonable period must be implied, drawing on Supreme Court precedents.
    • Government’s Argument: The absence of a statutory limitation means recovery can be initiated at any time.

    2. Judicial Reasoning

    The High Court examined:

    • Supreme Court rulings (e.g., Government of India v. Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals) that, in the absence of a statutory limitation, authorities must act within a “reasonable period.”
    • The facts: Drawback was paid between December 1995 and August 1996; recovery notices were issued only in February 2000, despite clarifications being available much earlier.

    The Court’s Decision

    • The Court held that a delay of more than three years in issuing recovery notices was not reasonable.
    • It ruled that, although Rule 16 does not specify a limitation period, the concept of a reasonable period must be read into the rule to prevent arbitrary and disruptive actions against exporters.
    • The show cause notices and subsequent recovery orders were quashed as time-barred.

    Implications of the Judgment

    1. Protection for Exporters: The judgment safeguards exporters from indefinite exposure to recovery actions, ensuring administrative certainty.
    2. Guidance for Authorities: Customs and excise authorities must act promptly and within a reasonable timeframe when seeking to recover excess payments.
    3. Legal Precedent: The decision reinforces the principle that, in the absence of explicit statutory limitation, a reasonable period is implied by law.

    Conclusion

    This Gujarat High Court judgment is a landmark in balancing government powers and exporters’ rights under the duty drawback scheme. It underscores the necessity for timely administrative action and provides clarity on the interpretation of limitation in recovery proceedings under the Drawback Rules.

    Connected Matter

    Gujarat HC Upholds Finality of Goods Classification and Grants Relief on Duty Drawback Claims

    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

  • Bombay High Court Dismisses Challenge to RERA Refund Order

    Bombay High Court Dismisses Challenge to RERA Refund Order

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

    Date: 11.08.2026

    Bombay High Court Dismisses Challenge to RERA Refund Order

    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 . Β 

    The Bombay High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Marvel Landmarks Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., addressing the enforceability and jurisdictional validity of refund orders passed by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) in light of subsequent Supreme Court interpretations. This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, the legal arguments, and its broader implications for real estate regulation and dispute resolution in India.

    Background and Context

    The dispute centered on an order dated December 17, 2019, by a RERA Adjudicating Officer, directing Marvel Landmarks Pvt. Ltd. to refund over Rs. 1.35 crore with interest to a flat purchaser. Marvel did not appeal this order within the statutory period. When Marvel failed to comply, a recovery order was issued in October 2021, treating the refund as arrears of land revenue. Subsequently, Marvel challenged both orders, arguing that a 2021 Supreme Court judgment (Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP) rendered the original RERA order void, as it was allegedly passed without jurisdiction.

    Core Legal Issue

    The central question was whether, after the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Newtech, Marvel could claim immunity from the refund order, arguing that the Adjudicating Officer lacked jurisdiction to order refunds (as opposed to compensation), and whether such an order could be quashed years after it had attained finality.

    Arguments Presented

    Marvel Landmarks (Petitioner)

    1. Jurisdictional Defect: Citing Newtech, Marvel argued that only the RERA Authority (not the Adjudicating Officer) could order refunds, making the original order a nullity.
    2. Precedent and Nullity: Relied on Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan) to argue that orders passed without jurisdiction are void and unenforceable at any stage.
    3. Non-Enforcement by RERA: Claimed that RERA itself had stopped enforcing similar refund orders post-Newtech.

    Flat Purchaser (Respondent)

    1. Finality of Orders: Emphasized that the refund order was not appealed and had become final and executable.
    2. Delay and Laches: Pointed out Marvel’s significant delay in challenging the orderβ€”almost five years after the original order and three years after the Newtech judgment.
    3. Retrospective Effect of Judgments: Cited Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange to argue that while judicial decisions are retrospective, they do not disturb matters that have attained finality.
    4. Discretionary Writ Jurisdiction: Argued that the High Court should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to reopen closed matters, especially when the petitioner was not vigilant.

    Court’s Analysis and Findings

    Scheme of the RERA Act

    • Section 18: Grants allottees the right to a refund and compensation for non-performance by the promoter.
    • Section 71: Assigns adjudication of compensation claims to Adjudicating Officers (judicial officers).
    • Section 81: Allows RERA to delegate its powers (except regulation-making) to any officer, including Adjudicating Officers.

    Interpretation of Newtech

    • The Supreme Court in Newtech clarified that the RERA Authority can order refunds, while Adjudicating Officers are limited to compensation claims.
    • However, the High Court noted that Newtech did not address the validity of delegating refund powers to Adjudicating Officers under Section 81, nor did it declare past orders void.
    • The Court emphasized that judgments must be read in context and not as statutes.

    Discretion and Delay

    • The High Court found that Marvel had ample opportunity to appeal but failed to do so, allowing the order to attain finality.
    • The Court distinguished this case from others where relief was granted, noting the inordinate and unexplained delay.
    • It reiterated that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and should not be used to disturb crystallized rights or reopen settled matters.

    Conclusion and Implications

    The High Court dismissed Marvel’s writ petition, refusing to interfere with the refund and recovery orders. Key takeaways include:

    1. Finality of Orders: Parties must act within statutory timelines; failure to appeal leads to finality, which courts are reluctant to disturb.
    2. Jurisdictional Challenges: Even if a subsequent judgment clarifies the law, it does not automatically void past orders that have attained finality.
    3. Discretionary Relief: Extraordinary writ jurisdiction will not be exercised in favor of parties who delay or attempt to reopen closed matters.
    4. Delegation under RERA: The judgment clarifies that delegation of powers under Section 81 is permissible, and the nuances of Newtech do not automatically invalidate prior orders by Adjudicating Officers.

    This decision reinforces the importance of procedural vigilance and the limits of retrospective application of judicial pronouncements in regulatory disputes. It also provides clarity on the interplay between RERA’s statutory scheme and judicial review, offering guidance for both developers and homebuyers navigating the real estate regulatory framework.

    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 Sets Aside Arbitral Award Due to Unilateral Appointment of Arbitrator by Government Authority

    Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Due to Unilateral Appointment of Arbitrator by Government Authority

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

    Date: 11.08.2026

    Delhi High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Due to Unilateral Appointment of Arbitrator by Government Authority

    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 Union of India vs. M/S Goodrich Foodtech Ltd., addressing crucial issues surrounding the unilateral appointment of arbitrators in government contracts. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the dispute, the arbitral proceedings, the legal principles involved, and the implications of the Court’s decision.

    Background of the Dispute

    1. Tender and Contract Formation
      • The Union of India invited bids for the supply of 1,390 MT of malted milk food with cocoa for the Defence sector for the year 2017-18.
      • M/S Goodrich Foodtech Ltd. emerged as the successful bidder, leading to five separate but identical contracts, each specifying delivery periods and quantities.
      • The respondent furnished performance bank guarantees totaling Rs. 2,49,87,020/- as per contract requirements.
    2. Emergence of Disputes
      • After partial fulfillment of the contracts, the Union of India issued a defect notice, alleging the supplied product contained soya protein and non-milk fat (palm oil), contrary to contract specifications.
      • This led to show-cause notices, termination of four contracts, forfeiture and encashment of bank guarantees, and debarment of Goodrich Foodtech Ltd. from future procurements.
    3. Arbitration Proceedings
      • Goodrich Foodtech Ltd. invoked the arbitration clause, and a sole arbitrator was appointed by the Competent Financial Authority (CFA) of the Ministry of Defence.
      • The arbitrator ruled largely in favor of Goodrich Foodtech Ltd., awarding substantial sums and quashing the termination, forfeiture, and debarment actions.

    Key Legal Issues Examined

    1. Unilateral Appointment of Arbitrator

    • The core issue was whether the appointment of the sole arbitrator by the CFA (an official of the Union of India, a party to the dispute) was valid under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
    • The Court examined whether mere participation in arbitration or lack of objection constituted a waiver of the right to challenge such an appointment.

    2. Waiver under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act

    • The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents, emphasizing that a waiver of ineligibility under Section 12(5) must be an “express agreement in writing” after the dispute has arisen.
    • Conduct, participation, or implied consent does not amount to a valid waiver.

    3. Jurisdiction and Validity of Arbitral Award

    • The Court held that an award passed by an ineligible, unilaterally appointed arbitrator is a nullity and can be set aside under Section 34 of the Act.
    • Even the party that made the unilateral appointment retains the right to challenge the award on this ground.

    Court’s Findings and Decision

    • The Court found that the appointment of the arbitrator by the CFA, an official of the Ministry of Defence, was in violation of Section 12(5) and the Seventh Schedule of the Arbitration Act.
    • There was no express written waiver by both parties after the dispute arose.
    • The arbitral award was declared void ab initio and set aside.

    Implications of the Judgment

    1. Reinforcement of Party Autonomy and Neutrality
      • The judgment reinforces the principle that both parties must have an equal say in the appointment of arbitrators, ensuring neutrality and fairness in arbitral proceedings.
    2. Strict Compliance with Section 12(5)
      • Any arbitration agreement allowing unilateral appointment of arbitrators is invalid unless expressly waived in writing after the dispute arises.
      • Participation in proceedings or silence does not constitute a waiver.
    3. Impact on Government Contracts
      • Government agencies must review and revise standard arbitration clauses to comply with the law and avoid similar pitfalls.
      • Awards rendered by unilaterally appointed arbitrators are vulnerable to being set aside, even if both parties participated in the proceedings.

    Conclusion

    The Delhi High Court’s decision in Union of India vs. Goodrich Foodtech Ltd. is a landmark ruling that clarifies and strengthens the legal framework governing the appointment of arbitrators in India. It underscores the necessity for express, written waivers and equal participation in the appointment process, setting a precedent for future contractual and arbitral practices, especially in government procurement.

    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

  • Supreme Court Affirms Reduction of Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide

    Supreme Court Affirms Reduction of Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide

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

    Date: 11.08.2026

    Supreme Court Affirms Reduction of Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide

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

    This article provides a detailed overview and analysis of the Supreme Court of India’s judgment in the criminal appeal involving the State of Andhra Pradesh and Ponthati Siva Rami Reddy & Others, a case that highlights the complexities of criminal justice, evidentiary standards, and judicial reasoning in serious criminal matters.

    Background of the Case

    The case stems from a longstanding feud between two families in Andhra Pradesh. The father of the victim, Atla Siva Govinda Reddy, was allegedly murdered by the father of Ponthati Siva Rami Reddy in 1997. On the night of March 8-9, 2006, the victim was attacked with deadly weapons by the accused (A1 to A4) while tending to his crops. He suffered serious injuries and later died in hospital. The prosecution charged the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder.

    Trial and High Court Proceedings

    • Sessions Court: The trial court found A1 to A4 guilty of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment with a fine.
    • High Court Appeal: The accused appealed. The High Court noted discrepancies in the prosecution’s evidence, particularly regarding the site of the attack, the sequence of events, and the reliability of witness statements. The High Court reduced the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), sentencing the accused to six years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine.

    Key Evidence and Witness Testimonies

    1. Eyewitnesses:
      • PW1, cited as an eyewitness, turned hostile and contradicted the prosecution’s version about the location and sequence of events.
      • PW2 also turned hostile, further weakening the prosecution’s case.
      • PW3 (victim’s brother) and PW4 (victim’s widow) provided accounts that conflicted with other witnesses regarding the site of the attack and the transportation of the victim.
    2. Medical Evidence:
      • PW8 (Civil Assistant Surgeon) stated the victim was conscious and coherent when his statement was recorded, but admitted possible effects of tranquilizers and head injuries.
      • PW9 (Post-Mortem Doctor) reported 22 injuries, both sharp and blunt, and acknowledged that such injuries could cause loss of consciousness and memory.
    3. Police Investigation:
      • PW10 (police officer) and PW17 (Investigating Officer) provided evidence about the recording of the victim’s statement and the investigation, but inconsistencies and unexplained corrections in official records raised doubts.

    Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment

    The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and found significant inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case:

    • Contradictory witness statements about the location and sequence of events.
    • Doubts about the victim’s ability to give a detailed statement due to the severity of his injuries.
    • Unexplained corrections and overwriting in official records.
    • Lack of corroboration from key witnesses and absence of physical evidence (e.g., bloodstains on those who transported the victim).

    The Court criticized the High Court for making observations based on conjecture rather than evidence but ultimately agreed that the prosecution’s case did not support a conviction for murder under Section 302. Since the accused had already served the sentence under Section 304 Part II and had not challenged their conviction, the Supreme Court dismissed the State’s appeal and let the High Court’s modified judgment stand.

    Key Takeaways

    1. Importance of Consistent Evidence: The case underscores the need for consistent, corroborated evidence in criminal trials, especially in serious offenses like murder.
    2. Judicial Scrutiny: Appellate courts play a crucial role in re-examining evidence and ensuring that convictions are based on solid legal and factual grounds.
    3. Limits of Judicial Conjecture: Courts must avoid making findings based on assumptions not supported by the record.
    4. Finality and Closure: Once a sentence has been served and no further challenge is raised, courts may choose to bring closure to protracted litigation.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court’s decision in this case highlights the complexities of criminal justice and the high standards required for upholding convictions in serious crimes. It also demonstrates the judiciary’s commitment to fairness, due process, and the careful evaluation of evidence before affirming or overturning convictions.

    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: 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

  • Supreme Court Clarifies Retrospective Applicability of Omission of Rule 96(10) CGST Rules to All Pending Refund Proceedings

    Supreme Court Clarifies Retrospective Applicability of Omission of Rule 96(10) CGST Rules to All Pending Refund Proceedings

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

    Date: 11.08.2026

    Supreme Court Clarifies Retrospective Applicability of Omission of Rule 96(10) CGST Rules to All Pending Refund Proceedings

    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 recently delivered a significant judgment addressing the legal consequences of omitting Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. This rule previously imposed restrictions on exporters claiming refunds of integrated tax paid on exported goods and services. The omission of this rule by Notification No. 20/2024, effective from October 8, 2024, led to widespread litigation regarding its impact on refund claims that were still pending at the time of omission.

    The Legal Challenge

    Multiple appeals were filed before the Supreme Court, both by the Union of India and by affected assessees. The central issue was whether the omission of Rule 96(10) should benefit exporters in all pending refund proceedings, or whether the restriction should continue to apply to cases initiated before the rule was omitted.

    Key Legal Principles Applied

    1. Effect of Omission Without a Saving Clause
      • The Court relied on the principle that when a statutory rule is omitted without a saving clause, it is treated as if it never existed for pending proceedings. This principle was drawn from the precedent set in Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd v. Union of India (2000), where it was held that omission of a rule, unless accompanied by a saving clause, brings all actions under that rule to a halt.
      • Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, which allows for continuation of proceedings after repeal, does not apply to the omission of a rule unless specifically provided.
    2. Advisory Nature of GST Council Recommendations
      • The GST Council had recommended that the omission of Rule 96(10) be applied prospectively. However, the Court clarified that such recommendations are advisory and not binding on the rule-making authority.
    3. Legislative Intent
      • The omission was intended to remove unnecessary complications, and the absence of a saving clause indicated the intent to end such complications for all pending cases.

    The Supreme Court’s Final Decision

    • Dismissal of Appeals: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision that the omission of Rule 96(10) applies to all pending proceedings.
    • Application to Pending Proceedings: All pending refund claims under Rule 96 are to be considered without applying the restrictions of the omitted sub-rule (10), since there is no saving clause to preserve its effect.
    • Uniform Closure of Cases: The Court directed the Registry to circulate the order to all High Courts to ensure uniform closure of similar pending cases, bringing an end to conflicting decisions across different jurisdictions.

    Implications for Exporters and Tax Authorities

    • For Exporters: Exporters with pending refund claims as of October 8, 2024, will benefit from the omission of Rule 96(10). Their claims will be processed without the restrictions previously imposed by the rule.
    • For Tax Authorities: Tax authorities must process all pending refund claims without invoking the omitted rule, ensuring consistency and legal certainty.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court’s judgment provides much-needed clarity and finality on the applicability of omitted GST rules to pending proceedings. By affirming that the omission of Rule 96(10) applies retrospectively to all pending cases, the Court has ensured a uniform and fair approach for all stakeholders involved in GST refund 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: 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

  • Gujarat HC Upholds Finality of Goods Classification and Grants Relief on Duty Drawback Claims

    Gujarat HC Upholds Finality of Goods Classification and Grants Relief on Duty Drawback Claims

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

    Date: 11.08.2026

    Gujarat HC Upholds Finality of Goods Classification and Grants Relief on Duty Drawback Claims

    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 .  

    Veer Impex, an importer and exporter of scaffolding items such as nuts, bolts, washers, and hand tools, faced show cause notices from customs authorities. The authorities alleged misclassification of goods under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and claimed that Veer Impex had wrongly availed duty drawback benefits by declaring goods under specific headings (7318, 8205, 3926) instead of a more general heading (7308). The goods were detained and later released provisionally, but the dispute over classification and drawback claims persisted.

    Legal Issues

    The core legal issues revolved around:

    1. Finality of Classification: Whether the classification of goods under specific customs headings, already settled by previous judgments, could be reopened.
    2. Limitation Period: Whether show cause notices for recovery of excess or erroneous drawback could be issued without a prescribed time limit under Rule 16 of the Drawback Rules.
    3. Authority of DRI: Whether the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) had the power to issue such show cause notices.
    4. Procedural Fairness: Whether repeated and delayed issuance of show cause notices violated principles of natural justice.

    Court’s Analysis and Findings

    1. Binding Precedents and Finality

    The court noted that the classification of scaffolding items under specific headings had already been settled in earlier cases, and the authorities had not challenged those decisions. The Supreme Court had also dismissed the government’s appeal on this issue, making the classification final and binding.

    2. Reasonable Limitation Period

    Although Rule 16 of the Drawback Rules does not specify a limitation period, the court held that a reasonable period (three years) should be read into the rule. Show cause notices issued after three years from the date of payment of drawback were deemed unsustainable.

    3. Jurisdiction of DRI

    The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s. Canon India Private Limited, holding that the DRI did not have the authority to issue such show cause notices, further invalidating the actions taken against Veer Impex.

    4. Natural Justice and Delay

    The court criticized the authorities for keeping show cause notices pending for years without adjudication and for not informing the petitioner about the status of their cases. Such delays and repeated notices were found to be in breach of natural justice.

    Judgment and Relief Granted

    • The Gujarat High Court quashed and set aside the impugned show cause notices against Veer Impex.
    • The court directed customs authorities to release any withheld drawback amounts within twelve weeks.
    • The connected petition regarding the release of export promotional documents was also allowed.

    Significance of the Judgment

    This judgment reinforces several important legal principles:

    • Respect for Judicial Precedent: Authorities must follow binding court decisions and cannot reopen settled issues for similarly placed parties.
    • Reasonable Limitation: Even in the absence of explicit statutory limits, a reasonable period must be observed for initiating recovery actions.
    • Jurisdictional Boundaries: Only properly empowered officers can issue show cause notices, as clarified by the Supreme Court.
    • Procedural Fairness: Delays and repeated actions without proper communication violate natural justice.

    Conclusion

    The Gujarat High Court’s decision in favor of Veer Impex provides clarity and relief to exporters facing similar disputes. It underscores the importance of legal certainty, adherence to precedent, and procedural fairness in customs and trade matters.

    Connected Matter

    Gujarat High Court on Recovery of Duty Drawback from Exporters

    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

  • Supreme Court Clarifies Principles for Unconditional Stay of Money Decrees

    Supreme Court Clarifies Principles for Unconditional Stay of Money Decrees

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

    Date: 10.08.2026

    Supreme Court Clarifies Principles for Unconditional Stay of Money Decrees

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

    The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of LifeStyle Equities C.V. & Anr. vs. Amazon Technologies Inc., addressing crucial issues in trademark infringement, the execution of money decrees, and the principles guiding appellate courts in granting stays. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the case, its background, legal arguments, and the Supreme Court’s analysis and conclusions.

    Background and Factual Matrix

    LifeStyle Equities C.V., an Amsterdam-based company, is the proprietor of the well-known “Beverly Hills Polo Club” (BHPC) trademark. The company, along with its licensee, filed a suit in the Delhi High Court against Amazon Technologies Inc. and others, alleging unauthorized use of a mark identical or deceptively similar to the BHPC trademark. The plaintiffs sought:

    1. Permanent injunction against the defendants from using the infringing mark.
    2. Damages amounting to over Rs. 2 crore (later claimed to be much higher).
    3. Delivery up of infringing materials.
    4. Rendition of accounts and costs.

    The suit proceeded ex parte against Amazon Technologies Inc. (defendant no. 1), resulting in a decree awarding the plaintiffs damages of approximately Rs. 336 crore, along with costs.

    Legal Proceedings and Appeals

    Amazon Technologies Inc. challenged the ex parte decree before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, seeking a stay on the execution of the money decree. The High Court granted an unconditional stay of the decree, subject to an undertaking by Amazon to comply with the judgment if the appeal failed. LifeStyle Equities C.V. then approached the Supreme Court, contesting the unconditional stay.

    Key Legal Issues

    The Supreme Court’s judgment is structured around several pivotal legal questions:

    1. Service of Summons and Ex Parte Proceedings

    • The Court scrutinized whether Amazon Technologies Inc. was properly served with summons. It found that there was no valid service, making the ex parte proceedings against Amazon questionable.

    2. Quantum and Basis of Damages

    • The original claim was for Rs. 2 crore, but the decree awarded over Rs. 336 crore without proper amendment of pleadings or notice to the defendant. The Court noted this as a serious procedural lapse.

    3. Principles for Granting Stay of Execution of Money Decrees

    • The Court analyzed Order XLI Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which governs the stay of execution of decrees by appellate courts. It clarified that while the usual practice is to require deposit of the decretal amount, this is not mandatory. The appellate court retains discretion to grant an unconditional stay in exceptional cases.

    4. Exceptional Circumstances for Unconditional Stay

    • The Supreme Court held that unconditional stay may be granted if the decree is egregiously perverse, riddled with patent illegalities, facially untenable, or in other exceptional circumstances.

    Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings

    The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to grant an unconditional stay, emphasizing the following points:

    1. Lack of Proper Service: The absence of valid service of summons on Amazon Technologies Inc. was a fundamental flaw, undermining the basis of the ex parte decree.
    2. Procedural Irregularities: The drastic increase in damages without amending the plaint or notifying the defendant was improper.
    3. No Mandatory Deposit Requirement: The Court clarified that the requirement to deposit the decretal amount or furnish security is not absolute; discretion lies with the appellate court.
    4. Exceptional Case Justified: Given the procedural lapses and questionable findings against Amazon, the case qualified as an exceptional circumstance warranting an unconditional stay.

    Key Takeaways for Legal Practitioners and Businesses

    1. Due Process is Paramount: Proper service of summons is essential for valid proceedings. Courts cannot proceed ex parte without ensuring the defendant is duly notified.
    2. Pleadings Must Support Reliefs: Any enhancement of claims, especially for damages, must be reflected in the pleadings and notified to the opposing party.
    3. Discretion in Granting Stay: Appellate courts have discretion to grant unconditional stays in exceptional cases, especially where the decree is tainted by procedural or substantive irregularities.
    4. No Automatic Stay: Filing an appeal does not automatically stay execution; a reasoned order is required.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court’s judgment in LifeStyle Equities C.V. vs. Amazon Technologies Inc. reinforces the importance of procedural fairness and judicial discretion in civil litigation. It sets a precedent for handling ex parte decrees, the execution of money decrees, and the circumstances under which unconditional stays may be granted. Legal practitioners and businesses should ensure strict compliance with procedural requirements to safeguard their interests in 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: 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

  • Quashing of Criminal Proceedings under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006

    Quashing of Criminal Proceedings under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006

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

    Date: 10.08.2026

    Quashing of Criminal Proceedings under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006

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

    A recent judgment by the Delhi High Court has brought closure to long-standing criminal proceedings against various parties involved in the sale and distribution of MAGGI Noodles, stemming from the nationwide food safety controversy of 2015. This article provides a detailed overview of the case, the legal arguments, and the court’s reasoning that led to the quashing of the prosecutions.

    Background: The MAGGI Noodles Controversy

    In May 2015, Food Safety Officers in Delhi collected samples of MAGGI Noodles from retail outlets as part of a nationwide sampling exercise. The samples were tested, and initial reports from the Food Analyst indicated that the lead content in the masala tastemaker exceeded the permissible limit of 2.5 ppm. Additionally, some samples were alleged to be misbranded due to the β€œNo Added MSG” label.

    These findings led to criminal complaints against retailers, suppliers, and the manufacturer, NestlΓ© India Limited, under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act). The accused sought to quash these proceedings, arguing that the basis for prosecution was no longer valid.

    Legal Proceedings and Arguments

    Petitioners’ Submissions

    1. Invalidity of Laboratory Reports: Petitioners argued that the prosecution relied solely on Food Analyst reports from laboratories that were neither NABL accredited nor notified under Section 43 of the FSS Act, as required by law. This position was supported by the Bombay High Court’s 2015 judgment, which set aside the nationwide ban on MAGGI Noodles for similar reasons.
    2. Subsequent Testing and Judicial Findings: Following the Bombay High Court’s directions, fresh samples were tested by accredited laboratories, all of which found the lead content within permissible limits. The Supreme Court also directed testing by the Central Food Technological Research Institute (CFTRI), which confirmed the product’s safety.
    3. Supersession of State Laboratory Reports: Under Section 46(4) of the FSS Act, the Referral Food Laboratory’s report supersedes the Food Analyst’s report. Since the Referral Laboratory found the product compliant, the original reports lost evidentiary value.
    4. Abuse of Process: Petitioners contended that continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of the court’s process, as the scientific foundation of the case had been undermined by subsequent findings and judicial pronouncements.

    State’s Submissions

    1. Procedural Compliance: The State argued that all sampling and testing procedures were followed as per the FSS Act, and the accused had the opportunity to seek referral analysis but did not exercise this right.
    2. Validity of State Laboratory: The State maintained that, under transitional provisions, State Food Testing Laboratories could continue functioning until formal notification and accreditation, which was later obtained.
    3. Independence of Criminal Proceedings: The State asserted that the criminal complaints were independent and should proceed to trial, as the issues involved required evidence and could not be decided summarily.

    Court’s Analysis and Findings

    The High Court examined the entire sequence of events and legal developments:

    1. Judicial Scrutiny of Laboratory Reports: The Bombay High Court and Supreme Court had already scrutinized the validity of the laboratory reports and directed fresh testing by accredited and notified laboratories.
    2. Referral Laboratory Findings: The CFTRI, a Referral Laboratory, found the lead content within permissible limits. The Supreme Court directed that these findings should form the basis for adjudication.
    3. Erosion of Prosecution’s Foundation: The court noted that the prosecution was based solely on the original Food Analyst’s reports, which had been superseded and discredited by subsequent scientific and judicial review.
    4. Abuse of Process: Continuing the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the court’s process, as the very foundation of the prosecution had eroded.

    The court also referenced similar decisions by the Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand High Courts, which quashed prosecutions arising from the same controversy.

    Conclusion and Impact

    The Delhi High Court allowed the petitions, quashing the criminal complaints, summoning orders, and all consequential proceedings. This judgment reinforces the importance of scientific rigor, statutory compliance, and judicial oversight in food safety prosecutions. It also provides clarity for businesses and consumers regarding the standards and processes that must be followed in such cases.

    The decision marks a significant closure to the MAGGI Noodles controversy, emphasizing that prosecutions cannot continue when their scientific and legal basis has been invalidated by subsequent authoritative findings.

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

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

    Source: 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

  • Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Mandatory Pre-Deposit Under Section 43(5) of RERA for Promoter

    Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Mandatory Pre-Deposit Under Section 43(5) of RERA for Promoter

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

    Date: 10.08.2026

    Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Mandatory Pre-Deposit Under Section 43(5) of RERA for Promoter

    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 . Β 

    The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Vrinda Krishna Realtech Private Limited v. State of Punjab and Others, addressing the enforceability of the pre-deposit requirement for appeals under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, its background, legal arguments, and the implications for real estate promoters and stakeholders.

    Background of the Case

    Vrinda Krishna Realtech Pvt. Ltd., a real estate promoter, was developing a residential colony in Pathankot, Punjab. The company faced a penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs imposed by the Punjab RERA for violation of Section 3 of the RERA Act, primarily for not obtaining the required project registration. The penalty was imposed ex parte after the promoter failed to respond to multiple notices and did not appear before the authority.

    Subsequently, the promoter sought to challenge the penalty but was confronted with the statutory requirement under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act: a mandatory pre-deposit of 30% of the penalty amount as a condition for filing an appeal. Arguing that the project had not taken off, no third-party rights were created, and the penalty was imposed without proper service, the promoter approached the High Court seeking a waiver or reduction of the pre-deposit requirement.

    Legal Arguments Presented

    Petitioner’s Contentions

    1. No Project Execution or Third-Party Rights: The promoter argued that since the project was never executed and no third-party rights were created, the penalty was arbitrary and caused undue hardship.
    2. Ex Parte Proceedings: The penalty was imposed without proper service or opportunity to be heard.
    3. Request for Waiver/Reduction: The promoter cited previous cases where courts had relaxed pre-deposit requirements in exceptional circumstances, arguing that the High Court had the power to grant relief in cases of genuine hardship.

    Respondents’ Position

    The State and RERA authorities maintained that the pre-deposit requirement was statutory and had been upheld by the Supreme Court. They argued that the promoter had been duly served with notices but chose not to participate in the proceedings.

    Court’s Analysis and Findings

    1. Validity of Pre-Deposit Requirement: The Court emphasized that the Supreme Court, in M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., had upheld the validity of Section 43(5) of the RERA Act, confirming that the pre-deposit obligation for promoters is neither onerous nor unconstitutional.
    2. Scope for Waiver: Referring to M/s Technimont Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab, the Court acknowledged that while the High Court can interfere in cases of genuine hardship, such discretion is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.
    3. Petitioner’s Conduct: The Court found that the promoter had been served with multiple notices, including personal delivery and newspaper publication, but failed to respond or appear. The penalty was imposed only after due process.
    4. No Exceptional Hardship: The Court held that the facts did not demonstrate any exceptional hardship warranting waiver or reduction of the pre-deposit. The promoter’s arguments could be raised in the appeal, provided the statutory pre-deposit was made.

    Key Takeaways from the Judgment

    • Strict Enforcement of Pre-Deposit: The High Court reaffirmed that the pre-deposit requirement under Section 43(5) of RERA is mandatory for promoters seeking to file an appeal against penalties or orders.
    • Limited Scope for Waiver: Courts may consider waiving or reducing the pre-deposit only in rare cases of genuine hardship, which must be clearly demonstrated by the petitioner.
    • Importance of Compliance: Promoters must respond to notices and participate in proceedings to avoid ex parte penalties and subsequent procedural hurdles.

    Implications for Real Estate Promoters

    1. Mandatory Pre-Deposit: Promoters must be prepared to deposit 30% of the penalty or compensation amount when appealing RERA orders.
    2. Timely Participation: Ignoring notices or failing to appear can lead to adverse orders and limit the scope for judicial relief.
    3. Strategic Legal Planning: Before initiating appeals or writ petitions, promoters should assess the statutory requirements and ensure compliance to avoid dismissal on technical grounds.

    Conclusion

    The Vrinda Krishna Realtech judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the statutory framework of RERA and ensuring that promoters comply with procedural requirements. The decision serves as a cautionary tale for real estate developers, highlighting the importance of timely engagement with regulatory authorities and adherence to legal processes.

    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: Punjab & Haryana High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Supreme Court Upholds Amendments to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

    Supreme Court Upholds Amendments to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

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

    Date: 10.08.2026

    Supreme Court Upholds Amendments to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

    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 recently delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Manish Kumar v. Union of India, addressing the constitutional validity of key amendments to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the case, the challenged amendments, arguments from both sides, and the Court’s reasoning and verdict.

    Background: The Amendments in Question

    The petitions challenged Sections 3, 4, and 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2020. These amendments introduced significant changes:

    1. Section 3: Amended Section 7(1) of the IBC, requiring that certain financial creditors (notably, allottees in real estate projects and debenture/security holders) must file insolvency applications jointlyβ€”by at least 100 creditors or 10% of the total in the same class/project, whichever is less.
    2. Section 4: Added an explanation to Section 11, clarifying that a corporate debtor undergoing insolvency can still initiate insolvency proceedings against another corporate debtor.
    3. Section 10: Inserted Section 32A, granting immunity to the corporate debtor from prosecution for offences committed prior to the insolvency process, provided there is a change in management.

    Who Were the Petitioners?

    The majority of petitioners were homebuyers (allottees) in real estate projects, joined by money lenders and other financial creditors. They argued that the new thresholds for initiating insolvency proceedings were arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated their constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 300A.

    Key Arguments Presented

    Petitioners’ Contentions

    1. Hostile Discrimination: The amendments created an unjust distinction between different classes of financial creditors, especially disadvantaging homebuyers and small investors.
    2. Practical Difficulties: Homebuyers lack access to information about other allottees, making it nearly impossible to meet the new threshold requirements.
    3. Retrospective Application: The third proviso required pending applications (filed under the old regime) to comply with the new thresholds within 30 days, or be deemed withdrawn, which was argued to be arbitrary and unfair.
    4. Section 32A: Granting immunity to corporate debtors was claimed to undermine remedies for offences and harm creditors’ interests.

    Union of India’s Defense

    1. Reasonable Classification: The amendments were based on recommendations from an expert committee and aimed to address the unique challenges posed by large numbers and heterogeneity among homebuyers and debenture holders.
    2. Preventing Abuse: The threshold was intended to prevent frivolous or speculative insolvency applications by individual allottees, which had led to a surge in cases and burdened the adjudicating authorities.
    3. Procedural, Not Substantive: The right to file an application under Section 7 is statutory and can be conditioned by procedural requirements.
    4. Section 32A: The immunity was necessary to encourage resolution applicants to take over distressed companies without fear of past liabilities, while still holding previous management accountable.

    Supreme Court’s Analysis and Reasoning

    On Threshold Requirements (Section 7(1) Provisos)

    • The Court recognized the unique position of homebuyers and debenture holders, marked by large numbers and diverse interests, justifying a different procedural threshold.
    • The amendments were found to be a reasonable classification, not arbitrary or discriminatory, and aligned with the objectives of the IBC to ensure speedy and collective insolvency resolution.
    • The Court noted that even before the amendment, joint applications were permissible, and the new requirements merely formalized a minimum number for certain classes.
    • Practical difficulties in gathering information were acknowledged, but the Court held that mechanisms under RERA and the Companies Act provided sufficient means to obtain necessary data.

    On Retrospective Application (Third Proviso)

    • The Court held that the third proviso, which required pending applications to comply with the new thresholds within 30 days, was a one-time measure and not manifestly arbitrary.
    • It clarified that withdrawal of applications under this proviso would not bar fresh applications if the threshold was later met, and directed that court fees need not be paid again for such refiled cases.

    On Section 32A (Immunity for Corporate Debtors)

    • The Court upheld Section 32A, finding it balanced the need to attract resolution applicants with the imperative to hold previous management accountable for past offences.
    • Immunity applied only if there was a genuine change in management and did not extend to individuals responsible for the offences.

    Impact and Relief Granted

    • The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the challenged amendments.
    • It provided relief to petitioners by exempting them from paying court fees again if they refiled applications after meeting the new thresholds and allowed for condonation of delay in such cases.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court’s judgment in Manish Kumar v. Union of India affirms the validity of the 2020 amendments to the IBC, emphasizing the legislature’s prerogative in economic matters and the need for procedural safeguards to ensure the effective functioning of insolvency law. The decision strikes a balance between protecting the interests of homebuyers and creditors and maintaining the integrity and efficiency of the insolvency resolution process.

    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: 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