#Jurisdiction

Calcutta High Court quashed eviction orders under SARFAESI Act Section 14 where an HFC sought possession for a Rs 16.56 lakh debt, below the Rs 20 lakh jurisdictional floor for NBFCs/HFCs. The court ruled the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction, directing restoration of possession within 15 days and affirming the threshold as a mandatory precondition for enforcement.

The Delhi High Court ruled that a flawed Section 21 notice under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not strip an arbitral tribunal of its jurisdiction when a valid arbitration agreement is in place. The court proceeded to appoint a sole arbitrator, clarifying that procedural defects in notice service cannot override the parties’ arbitration agreement.

Calcutta HC held Customs officers may sample imported food under Section 144 for tariff classification even with food safety concerns, letting revenue probe duty evasion without waiting for separate food safety clearance.

The Patna HC held that post-registration, authorities lack jurisdiction to levy deficit stamp duty under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act and quashed the orders demanding it. It directed refund of any pre-deposited amounts within eight weeks, affecting buyers, sellers and revenue officials in Bihar.

A Section 16 jurisdictional objection decision constitutes an interim award challengeable under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. The MP HC ruling lets parties challenge such jurisdictional orders, affecting arbitration under the Act.

The Orissa High Court quashed the Collector's eviction order and show cause notice, holding that under the OPLE Act, 1972 only the Tahasildar may issue eviction notices after giving reasonable opportunity. The ruling affects landowners and authorities in Odisha, clarifying that eviction proceedings must commence at the Tahasildar level, not the Collector.

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a clerical error in revenue records does not bar court jurisdiction under Section 57 of the Consolidation Act when the dispute arises from that error, protecting landowners’ title and injunction rights.

The Calcutta High Court held that arbitral tribunals may grant Section 17 interim measures without first deciding Section 16 jurisdictional objections, treating such orders as neutral fact finding steps to preserve the status quo and enable relief in arbitration.

The NCLAT held that Section 238 of the IBC overrides rent control laws, letting a liquidator evict occupants under Section 60(5)(c) without rent control proceedings. This speeds asset recovery in insolvency, affecting liquidators, creditors and occupants.

Bombay HC held no Letters Patent Act leave needed for admiralty suits if cause of action arises in India, as Section 17 of the Admiralty Act, 2017 repeals that colonial prerequisite, clarifying jurisdiction for claims in India and affecting shipowners.

The Supreme Court referred to a Larger Bench the question whether Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, which mandates infringement suits before a District Court, is rendered ineffective by Jharkhand’s notification treating Civil Judge (Senior Division) as a Commercial Court, and stayed the suit, affecting trademark litigants and clarifying IP-commercial court jurisdiction.

The Calcutta High Court ruled that an exclusive jurisdiction clause in the arbitration agreement overrides the statutory venue of the West Bengal Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council for post-award extensions under Section 29A. This decision limits parties’ ability to seek extensions at the WBMSEFC, reinforcing the primacy of contractual forum selection in MSME arbitrations.

The NCLAT Principal Bench ruled that Section 60(2) IBC mandates personal guarantor insolvency proceedings to be heard by the same NCLT bench adjudicating the corporate debtor's CIRP. The tribunal upheld the New Delhi Principal Bench's refusal to transfer a guarantor's case to Chandigarh, confirming that jurisdiction vests exclusively with the bench seized of the main corporate insolvency process.

The Delhi High Court ruled that MSME registration under Section 18 operates prospectively, so pre-registration claims are not maintainable before the Facilitation Council. A party cannot abandon arbitration and later obtain MSME registration to invoke MSEFC jurisdiction - this constitutes forum hunting. Territorial jurisdiction of MSEFCs is also strict, preventing forum shopping.

The ITAT Delhi held that satisfaction recorded after 1 April 2021 invalidates a Section 153C search assessment, mandating reassessment under Section 148 instead. The ruling clarifies the procedural switch introduced by the Finance Act 2021 amendment, directly impacting assessees and tax authorities in search-related proceedings.