#commercial law

Delhi HC held that a lender cannot get extra Section 9 relief if mortgage security exists and SARFAESI enforcement is pending, absent proof of immediate asset threat. The decision affects banks seeking arbitration interim relief alongside loan remedies.

The Delhi HC held that a prima facie case under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act warrants interim relief, directing arbitration and restraining the respondent from dealing with the sub-leased premises, aiding landlords to secure interim measures.

Non-deposit of 75% award under Sec 19 MSME Act 2006 renders a Sec 34 challenge under Arbitration Act 1996 non-entertainable, Calcutta HC ruled, and without pre-deposit restoration applications are ineffective, clarifying jurisdictional bar for MSME arbitration.

The Delhi HC held that an arbitral award lacking proper stamp duty must be impounded under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, but granted the decree holder liberty to withdraw the enforcement petition and re-file after paying the deficient stamp duty and any penalty. This clarifies that stamp deficiency is a curable defect, affecting parties seeking to enforce arbitral awards in Delhi.

The Karnataka HC held that where a contract limits relief to extension of time only, an arbitral award cannot grant monetary claims for parapet works, revised rates or reinforcement quantities, and it upheld the denial of a time-related costs claim for lack of proof of quantum.

The Division Bench held that the vendor's obligation to transfer 51% shares and reconstitute the board was a condition precedent, so its non-performance discharged the purchaser's payment duty. The purchaser's SMS communication avoiding the contract was lawful, and the vendor's Rs. 5.51 crore damages claim failed for want of proof. The purchaser's Rs. 1 crore advance was refunded under Section 65 of the Contract Act.

The Delhi High Court quashed the ex-parte interim injunction against Nugenesys after finding the plaintiff deliberately concealed a cease-and-desist notice, breaching the duty of candour in the Statement of Truth. The decision warns trademark litigants that material suppression will invalidate injunctive relief under the Commercial Courts Act.

Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is deemed applicable to appeals arising from suits filed before the Act’s commencement, even after the suits are re-numbered. Consequently, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable, signalling that pre-Act commercial litigants cannot invoke the Act’s appeal provisions.

The Bombay High Court clarifies the scope of Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, holding that urgent interim relief must be genuinely pleaded to bypass pre-institution mediation.

Delhi High Court ruled that a plaintiff can obtain a Section 12A exemption when a continuing IP infringement case demands urgent interim relief, permitting the court to order release of title deeds against cash security. This clarifies that mediation waiver is available for time-sensitive IP disputes, affecting commercial litigants seeking swift injunctive relief.

The Calcutta High Court ruled that a plaintiff must demonstrate genuine urgent interim relief to retain leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and to satisfy the mandatory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. Absent such urgency, the court revoked the leave and ordered the suit to be re-filed in the appropriate forum, tightening compliance with pre-litigation mediation for commercial disputes.

Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that a decree for return of goods cannot be treated as ancillary to monetary recovery and must be independently valued under the Suit Valuation Act. Failure to pay separate court fees for such relief results in its dismissal, impacting commercial litigants seeking recovery of both money and goods.

The Supreme Court ruled that litigants cannot adopt a piecemeal approach to document production under the Commercial Courts Act, especially when documents were in their possession from the outset. Failure to adhere to prescribed timelines results in forfeiture of the right to submit additional evidence later, reinforcing procedural discipline in commercial disputes.

The Supreme Court ruled that while financial corporations must exercise their statutory power to auction properties fairly under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, borrowers cannot obstruct recovery through frivolous or delayed litigation. The auction sale is final unless vitiated by fraud or material irregularity, and persistent defaulters forfeit equitable relief.

Bombay High Court reaffirms that applications under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act must be disposed of within 30 days, directing Magistrates to comply with the timeline or face writ jurisdiction. The ruling underscores judicial intolerance for delays in secured creditor rights enforcement, impacting banking and finance litigation strategies.