Thursday, 6 August 2026

The dispute. KKH Finvest sought total acquisition of Sensorise entities via a May 2022 MoS; consultant shareholder Ashiesh Shukla executed a separate SPA with a clause stating his transfer was independent of the MoS. The Delhi High Court held Shukla was not a veritable party; KKH Finvest appealed to the Supreme Court.

The reasoning. The Court applied the veritable-party factors from Cox v. SAP India: mutual intent, performance interdependence, and composite nature of the transaction. Identical independence clauses in co-sellers' SPAs defeated Shukla's claim of separation.

For your practice. A severance clause in an ancillary agreement will not exclude a party from arbitration where their performance is essential to the main deal.

The order. High Court order of 21 October 2024 set aside. Shukla held a veritable party; his disputes referred to the sole arbitrator appointed 12 April 2023. Each side bears its own costs.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Case

KKH FINVEST PVT. LTD. VS ASHIESH SHUKLA

Citation

Supreme Court of India · C.A. No.-010056-010056 - 2026 · 2026 INSC 803 · 05.08.2026

Bench

Sanjay Kumar, Sanjeev Sachdeva

The dispute. Revenue alleged Xerox India's warehouse kitting of imported CKD photocopier modules amounted to manufacture, demanding Rs.17.86 crore in excise duty and penalties. CESTAT found no manufacture; Revenue appealed to the Supreme Court.

The reasoning. The Court applied the two-fold test: manufacture requires a new article with different name, character or use. Kitting of already-complete machines cleared under heading 8471 satisfied neither limb.

For your practice. Revenue must prove physical transformation creating a new commodity; absent that proof, excise demands for assembly-only warehouse operations will fail.

The order. Civil Appeals 5939-5941/2010 and 11870-11872/2018 dismissed. No excise duty, ED Cess or penalty imposed.

Section 2(f), Central Excise Act, 1944

Case

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE HYDERABAD IV COMMISSIONER VS M/S XEROX INDIA LTD. & ors.

Citation

Supreme Court of India · C.A. No.-005939-005941 - 2010 · 2026 INSC 805 · 05.08.2026

Bench

S.V.N. Bhatti, N.V. Anjaria

The dispute. T-Mobile's patent application for a mobile terminal optimisation method was refused under Sections 3(k) and 3(m) by the Controller General of Patents in December 2016. T-Mobile appealed to the Delhi High Court, which also received a draft guidelines report from an Amicus Curiae.

The reasoning. The Court laid down a seven-step test: construe the claim as a whole, ask whether infringement is possible by mere thinking, and keep the Section 3(m) inquiry separate from novelty and inventive-step.

For your practice. Patent applicants must draft claims with integral hardware or technical effects; a token physical step that is non-essential will not defeat a Section 3(m) objection.

The order. Binding seven-step guidelines for Section 3(m) examination issued; guidelines to be placed before the Controller General of Patents within six weeks. Appeal closed; no monetary relief awarded.

Section 3(m), Patents Act, 1970

Case

T-MOBILE INTERNATIONAL AG AND CO. KG. THROUGH MR. TANMAY JOSHI, CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY vs THE CONTROLLER GENEREAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS AND ANR.

Citation

Delhi High Court · C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT)-149/2022 · 2026:DHC:6266 · 04.08.2026

Bench

Tushar Rao Gedela

The dispute. Two senior Gokhale Institute faculty members were suspended on 17 October 2025; no charge-sheet was served before the three-month deadline of 17 January 2026, and the charge-sheet eventually issued on 16 April 2026 came three months late. The petitioners challenged the suspension orders by writ petition before the Bombay High Court.

The reasoning. Under Clause 1(A)(i) of the April 2025 Government Resolution, read with MCS Rules 1979, suspension ceases automatically after three months if no charge-sheet is served; any extension requires a reasoned order passed within that window.

For your practice. A disciplinary suspension unsupported by a charge-sheet within three months is void; writ petitions filed promptly after that deadline will succeed without more.

The order. Suspension orders of 17 October 2025 quashed. Both petitioners reinstated immediately. Disciplinary inquiry permitted to continue under applicable Rules. No costs awarded.

Clause 1(A)(i), Government Resolution dated 22 April 2025, Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979

Case

DR. DILIP KAJALE Vs GOKHALE INSTITUTE OF POLITICS AND ECONOMICS & ors.

Citation

Bombay High Court · WP/8665/2026 · 05.08.2026

Bench

R.I. Chagla, Farhan P. Dubash

The dispute. NHAI challenged a fresh arbitral award for NH-275 land acquisition at Bengaluru; its Section 33 correction application was filed 153 days after receiving the award, far outside the statutory window. The Arbitral Tribunal rejected the application; the District Court upheld the award on 13.02.2026; NHAI appealed under Section 37.

The reasoning. Section 33 permits extension only by party agreement, which is impossible in a statutory arbitration; Section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded by the A&C Act's scheme and the proviso to Section 34(3).

The period within which an application to set aside an arbitral award can be made is inflexible.

For your practice. Calendar a 30-day deadline from the date of receiving an arbitral award; condonation arguments under the Limitation Act will fail in NH Act arbitrations.

The order. Appeal dismissed; award dated 01.12.2023 and District Court order dated 13.02.2026 upheld; no relief granted.

Section 33, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Case

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA V/S THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER - 3

Citation

Karnataka High Court · MFA/3756/2026 · 05.08.2026

Bench

Vibhu Bakhru, K.S. Hemalekha

The dispute. Six co-accused were convicted in 2002 for the 1997 murder of a Delhi resident; the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, witness identification, and police disclosure statements. The Additional Sessions Judge sentenced all to life; six separate appeals were heard together by the High Court.

The reasoning. A Section 302 conviction requires an unbroken chain of circumstances; identification after witnesses see the accused outside a formal TIP cannot be the sole basis for conviction.

When the witnesses have had an opportunity to see the accused prior to the holding of the TIP, the evidentiary worth of such proceedings stands considerably diminished.

For your practice. TIP must precede any exposure of the accused to witnesses; disclosure statements implicating co-accused are inadmissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

The order. Firoz, Shehzad and Sanjay Kumar acquitted; Rajesh, Nasim and Rahish convicted under Section 304 Part-II with Section 34 IPC; Rahish's Arms Act conviction upheld; bail bonds valid six months.

Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Case

FIROZ @ SAGAR vs STATE

Citation

Delhi High Court · CRL.A.-609/2002 · 2026:DHC:6282-DB · 05.08.2026

Bench

Navin Chawla, Ravinder Dudeja

The dispute. A US-based distributor sued an Indian colostrum powder manufacturer for breach of an exclusivity agreement, seeking injunction and specific performance without undergoing pre-institution mediation. The Commercial Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 for non-compliance with Section 12-A; the distributor appealed to the Bombay High Court.

The reasoning. The Section 12-A exception requires a factual foundation of genuine urgency, assessed holistically from the plaint and annexures; the enquiry is jurisdictional and not a merits review.

The statutory exception contained in Section 12-A(1) of the CC Act stood sufficiently invoked and the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the plaint at the threshold.

For your practice. Urgency must be grounded in specific facts throughout the plaint; a generic prayer for injunction alone will not satisfy the pre-institution mediation exception.

The order. Order of 9 December 2025 set aside; suit restored; trial court directed to consider the interim application on merits; no order as to costs.

Section 12-A, Commercial Courts Act, 2015

Case

HIGH POINT SUPPLY CO. LLC Vs AGATI HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LTD.

Citation

Bombay High Court · COMFA/15/2026 · 05.08.2026

Bench

R.I. Chagla, Farhan P. Dubash

The dispute. A Chhattisgarh police officer contracted a second marriage in 2007 and filed for retrospective permission; the employer issued a charge sheet in February 2023, fifteen years after the marriage. The officer petitioned the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the charge sheet dated 14 February 2023.

The reasoning. Inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings amounts to condonation of the alleged misconduct; fifteen years of inaction rendered the charge sheet arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

For your practice. A charge sheet issued long after the misconduct, without explanation, is open to challenge; departments must act promptly once misconduct is discovered.

The order. Charge sheet dated 14 February 2023 quashed; all disciplinary proceedings arising therefrom set aside; no costs awarded.

Rule 22(1), Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965

Case

IRFAN-UL-RAHIM KHAN VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH IRFAN-UL-RAHIM KHAN VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH -->

Citation

Chhattisgarh High Court · WPS/1883/2023 · 2026:CGHC:34039 · 05.08.2026

Bench

Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

The dispute. The widow, daughters, and mother of A. Kumar, killed in a 2021 road accident, claimed compensation against the lorry owner and insurer under the Motor Vehicles Act. The MACT awarded Rs.29,25,000 but directed deduction of ESI pension already received by the family. The insurer defended the deduction under Sections 53 and 61 of the ESI Act; claimants appealed to the Madras High Court.

The reasoning. Section 53 of the ESI Act bars only employment-injury claims brought against the employer, not tort claims against a third-party tortfeasor. Because the claim ran against the lorry owner, no deduction from the MV Act award was permissible.

For your practice. Where a deceased employee's dependants sue a third-party tortfeasor, ESI pension receipts cannot reduce the MV award; the full compensation stands.

The order. Rs.29,25,000 payable in full with 7.5% interest from the petition date; ESI pension deducted only up to 31.07.2024 and ceasing thereafter; amount to be deposited within six weeks.

Section 53, Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948

Case

Jayanthi vs Soundararajan

Citation

Madras High Court · CMA.2106/2026 · 2026:MHC:3231 · 05.08.2026

Bench

N. Anand Venkatesh

The dispute. Family members of Zile Singh, aged 25, killed in a June 2002 road accident involving a Tata-608, claimed enhanced compensation from the vehicle's owner-driver and insurer, and the tractor owner claimed repair costs. The MACT Kurukshetra awarded Rs.3,30,000 for death and Rs.25,000 for tractor damage; claimants appealed the quantum.

The reasoning. The Court assessed notional income at Rs.4,000 per month, applied the 18-multiplier for six dependants, and added conventional heads; joint and several liability of owner-driver and insurer was affirmed on established principles.

For your practice. Claims for unorganised-sector victims should set notional income on realistic market rates and claim all conventional heads; interest runs from the petition filing date.

The order. Enhanced death compensation of Rs.8,47,000 awarded with 9% interest from 18 July 2002; tractor damage confirmed at Rs.25,000 with same interest rate; respondents jointly and severally liable.

Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Case

MEENA & ors. Vs RAJBIR SINGH & ors.

Citation

Punjab and Haryana High Court · FAO/4886/2003 · 2026:PHHC:106113 · 04.08.2026

Bench

Yashvir Singh Rathor

The dispute. Mehta Cosmetics applied for the "BLUE CHIP" trademark in 1992 and obtained registration in 2005 but never received the certificate. The mark was removed from the Register in 2010 without any Form-O2 renewal notice having been served. A writ petition challenged the removal; the Registrar could not produce dispatch records for either the certificate or the renewal notice.

The reasoning. Section 25(3) makes the renewal notice a mandatory condition precedent to removal; the word "if" signals a condition that must be satisfied before the Registrar can delete a mark.

It held that the word "if" in the provision signals a condition that must be satisfied before the Registrar can delete a mark from the Register.

For your practice. Confirm that Form-O2 was issued before advising a client that a mark has lapsed; absent proof of dispatch, a removal order is open to writ challenge and restoration.

The order. "BLUE CHIP" registration restored; petitioner may file renewal application within six weeks; Registrar must process and, if in order, renew within three months of completion of formalities.

Section 25(3), Trade Marks Act, 1999

Case

AMRIT SINGH MEHTA TRADING AS MEHTA COSMETICS vs CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADE MARKS

Citation

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C)-IPD-5/2026 · 2026:DHC:6357 · 04.08.2026

Bench

Jyoti Singh

The dispute. Developer Paresh Vohra sought de-registration of a Thane industrial co-operative society under Section 21A, alleging forged documents and absence of NA permission; the Registrar and Minister both allowed de-registration. Society members challenged both orders before the Bombay High Court by writ petition.

The reasoning. Section 21A empowers de-registration only for misrepresentation so material that, without it, registration would not have occurred; post-registration construction irregularities and planning permissions fall outside this ground.

For your practice. A Section 21A petition anchored in post-registration lapses will fail; the correct remedy for a disputed registration is a Section 152 appeal filed promptly.

The order. Registrar's order of 15 July 2024 and Minister's order of 23 June 2025 set aside. De-registration application dismissed. Society's registration restored. No costs awarded.

Section 21A, Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960

Case

UDAY PATIL & ors. Vs PARESH SATYENDRA VOHRA THR. POA TAUFAL RIYAZ RAHI & ors.

Citation

Bombay High Court · WP/6144/2026 · 05.08.2026

Bench

Sandeep V. Marne

The dispute. Dr. Poonam Mishra terminated a sixteen-year-old's pregnancy in 2019 without guardian consent and failed to report the offence under the POCSO Act. A supplementary chargesheet followed, charging her under Sections 313, 201 IPC and Section 7 MTP Act. She challenged the further-investigation order and the cognizance order before the Delhi High Court.

The reasoning. A magistrate may order further investigation after taking cognizance, and guardian consent under Section 3(4) MTP Act is mandatory before terminating a minor's pregnancy. Non-reporting under Section 19 POCSO is an independent offence.

For your practice. Doctors handling minor pregnancies face criminal exposure on two fronts: absence of written guardian consent and failure to report under Section 19 POCSO.

The order. The petition was dismissed; the further-investigation order of 29.09.2020 and the cognizance order of 31.07.2021 were upheld.

Section 19, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

Case

DR. POONAM MISRA vs STATE AND ANR.

Citation

Delhi High Court · CRL.M.C.-2900/2021 · 2026:DHC:6344 · 05.08.2026

Bench

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

The dispute. Usha Martin imported spares for its coke-oven plant in 2013 using SHIS credits; Revenue raised a demand of Rs 1,30,06,857 alleging the goods were not capital goods and the 10% ceiling was breached. The order-in-original of 31.10.2017 confirming the demand was challenged before CESTAT's Eastern Zonal Bench.

The reasoning. Capital goods under Notification 104/2009-Cus. include accessories used for modernisation; the 10% ceiling applies only to spares of earlier-imported capital goods. The demand was also barred by the one-year limit in Section 28(9).

The goods imported by the appellant are not spares/parts but are 'capital goods' covered under Notification No. 104/2009-Cus.

For your practice. In SHIS disputes, argue imports as fresh capital goods to escape the 10% ceiling, and check that the demand was decided within the Section 28(9) period.

The order. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the demand of Rs 1,30,06,857 under Section 28(4) Customs Act 1962, and vacated the interest and penalty under Sections 28AA and 114A.

Section 28(4), Customs Act, 1962

Case

Usha Martin Ltd vs Kolkata(Port)

Citation

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal · Customs Appeal No. 75353 of 2018 · 05.08.2026

Bench

Ashok Jindal, K. Anpazhakan