#commercial litigation

The Delhi High Court ruled that an arbitration clause embedded in an invoice, though unsigned, is enforceable if the parties’ subsequent conduct indicates assent, allowing a Section 8 application to refer the dispute to arbitration. This clarifies that a physical signature is not essential for arbitration agreements, benefiting businesses relying on conduct-based acceptance.

The Bombay High Court has directed trial courts to resolve pending injunction applications in commercial suits before any writ petition challenging status quo orders can be heard. This preserves the hierarchical integrity of civil litigation, prevents premature judicial interference, and ensures that interim relief is decided on merits by the court of first instance, not appellate writ jurisdiction.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that rejecting a Section 10 CPC stay application without analyzing pleadings or citing factual grounds violates natural justice. This sets a binding standard for commercial courts nationwide: mechanical rejections without reasoning are invalid and subject to immediate quashing.

The Karnataka High Court ruled that the 120-day deadline for filing written statements under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, is absolute. Defendants lose the right to file beyond this period, regardless of court vacations or delays, unless immediate action is taken. This reinforces strict statutory timelines in commercial litigation, impacting defendants' procedural rights.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that non-compliance with Section 12-A’s pre-institution mediation requirement does not warrant rejection of a commercial suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, provided the court has directed mediation and kept the suit in abeyance. This protects litigants from procedural dismissal when courts actively facilitate mediation, reinforcing the Act’s intent to encourage settlement without penalizing procedural delays caused by judicial direction.

The Bombay High Court ruled that 'ABSUN PHARMA' is deceptively similar to 'SUN PHARMA', constituting trademark infringement and passing off under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act and common law. Exporting goods to Africa does not exempt the defendant from liability in India, reinforcing that consumer confusion in the domestic market is the decisive factor.

The Bombay High Court ruled that when parties execute a later agreement with a conflicting jurisdiction clause, even in complex multi-party transactions, the most recent intent controls-rendering prior forum selections void. This clarifies that entire agreement clauses in commercial assignments override earlier terms, giving businesses certainty in choosing litigation venues post-negotiation.

Calcutta High Court clarifies that Order XII Rule 6 CPC permits summary judgment only when liability and quantum are unconditionally admitted. Conditional or partial admissions do not suffice, even if the defendant acknowledges part of the claim. The ruling underscores the strict threshold for judgment on admission in commercial disputes.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that compounding under Section 147 of the NI Act can override a conviction even after final judgment, provided the accused settles the cheque amount and the complainant consents. This decision reinforces the primacy of settlement in cheque bounce cases, offering relief to accused parties post-conviction.

The Calcutta High Court ruled that an unconditional liability admitted in a balance sheet constitutes a binding judicial admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, which overrides any defense based on debt absorption during a third party’s Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. This sets a critical precedent for creditors seeking recovery against guarantors or third-party obligors even when the original debtor is under IBC proceedings.

Himachal Pradesh High Court clarifies that mixed issues of law and fact under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC cannot be treated as preliminary issues, requiring evidence for determination.

Himachal Pradesh High Court holds that Section 138 NI Act offences can be compounded post-conviction upon mutual settlement, affirming Supreme Court precedent in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.

Delhi High Court holds that non-compliance with CPC Order VI Rule 15A is curable and cannot defeat substantive rights when merits have been fully adjudicated.

Bombay High Court permits plaintiff to withdraw commercial suit to pursue arbitration, preserving all contentions and mandates strict timelines for court fee refunds.

Bombay High Court holds that a non-contracting party may be sued for tortious interference with contractual obligations, rejecting threshold rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.