Wednesday, 14 October 2026

The dispute. Arcis Clean Energy and Parshva Innovation executed a contract vesting exclusive jurisdiction in Goa courts, though another clause designated Delhi for arbitration. Following disputes, the respondent petitioned the Delhi High Court to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6). The High Court appointed an arbitrator and left venue selection to the parties, which the appellant challenged for lack of jurisdiction.

The reasoning. Where an agreement names multiple places, an exclusive jurisdiction clause anchors the juridical seat. By implied exclusion, submitting to Goa courts ousted all other jurisdictions, rendering Delhi a mere venue.

For your practice. Arbitration agreements must align venue terms with jurisdiction clauses, as exclusive forum selection determines the competent High Court under Section 11.

The order. The Supreme Court set aside the appointment order for lack of jurisdiction, allowing the appeal. It granted parties liberty to approach the competent court in Goa for arbitral proceedings.

Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Case

ARCIS CLEAN ENERGY PVT. LTD vs PARSHVA INNOVATION

Citation

Supreme Court of India · C.A. No.-013663-013663 - 2026 · 2026 INSC 1109 · 12.10.2026

Bench

Manoj Misra, Vijay Bishnoi

The dispute. An Indian-born minor applied to renew his passport after his father acquired British citizenship by naturalisation while his mother remained an Indian citizen. The Regional Passport Officer refused renewal, asserting that the child lost Indian citizenship upon the father's foreign naturalisation. The minor petitioned the High Court through a writ of mandamus to compel processing of the renewal application.

The reasoning. Section 8(2) terminates a child's citizenship only upon parental renunciation under Section 8(1), not upon naturalisation under Section 9. A child's citizenship by birth cannot be stripped without express statutory authority.

In the absence of statutory sanction, the minor cannot be stripped of citizenship merely because his father acquired the citizenship of the United Kingdom in 2021.

For your practice. Passport authorities cannot withhold renewals for minors born in India simply because a parent acquired foreign citizenship without formal renunciation.

The order. The High Court set aside the objections and directed the Regional Passport Officer to consider and dispose of the renewal application within three months. No order as to costs was passed.

Section 9, Citizenship Act, 1955

Case

Aarush Shanmugam Gurudev vs The Regional Passport Officer

Citation

Madras High Court · WP(MD).25412/2026 · 13.10.2026

Bench

Senthilkumar

The dispute. A co-owner sought possession and mesne profits from his brother's wife occupying a room in a family residential property. He claimed exclusive ownership under their mother's will bequeathing her entire share and an unregistered surrender deed executed by the brother. Both courts below dismissed the suit, prompting the plaintiff to prefer a regular second appeal before the High Court.

The reasoning. Under Muslim law, a bequest exceeding one-third of an estate requires heir consent, while an unregistered surrender passes no title. Under Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act, transfers cannot defeat a wife's subsisting residence right.

For your practice. Title examinations in Muslim family property must verify heir consent for bequests exceeding one-third and check for protected spousal residence rights.

The order. The High Court dismissed the second appeal with costs, confirming that the plaintiff failed to establish exclusive title and holding the wife entitled to retain occupation of the room.

Section 39, Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Case

S.F. v. F.

Citation

Delhi High Court · RSA-316/2015 · 2026:DHC:9079 · 13.10.2026

Bench

Neena Bansal Krishna

The dispute. For assessment year 2004-05, Indian Bank claimed a bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(viia)(a) of the Income-tax Act. The lender additionally claimed Rs 96.65 crore under the first proviso for assets classified by the Reserve Bank of India as doubtful or loss. The tax tribunal disallowed the additional claim as mutually exclusive to the main provision, prompting the bank's statutory appeal.

The reasoning. The phrase "at its option" grants a choice to the assessee that is not exhausted by claiming the primary deduction. Banks may claim cumulative deductions for doubtful assets under the proviso, subject only to statutory percentage ceilings.

Such an interpretation is not permissible where the statutory language expressly vests a choice in the assessee.

For your practice. Banks can claim cumulative tax deductions across both the main clause and its proviso for RBI-classified doubtful assets without exhausting statutory benefits.

The order. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the tribunal's disallowance of the Rs 96.65 crore deduction. The assessing officer was directed to allow the claim upon verifying RBI asset classifications and statutory ceilings.

Section 36(1)(viia)(a), Income Tax Act, 1961

Case

Indian Bank vs Commissioner of Income Tax -II, Kolkata

Citation

Calcutta High Court · ITA/8/2018 · 13.10.2026

Bench

Rajarshi Bharadwaj, Sudip Deb

The dispute. The widow and sons of a deceased co-parcener filed a suit claiming a one-half share in joint family ancestral properties. The surviving brother resisted partition, disputing the widow's marriage and asserting sole ownership by survivorship while pleading the claim was time-barred. After the appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal and decreed partition, the brother's legal representatives filed a second appeal.

The reasoning. Limitation under Article 110 runs only when an overt exclusion is made known to the claimant, not from mere absence of possession. Cohabitation, progeny, and acknowledgement in a will establish marriage, defeating sole survivorship.

For your practice. Parties raising a limitation defence under Article 110 must prove positive communication of ouster rather than mere separate residence or exclusive possession.

The order. The High Court dismissed the second appeal with costs and confirmed the plaintiffs' entitlement to a one-half share, directing partition of agricultural land by the Collector and houses by a Court Commissioner.

Article 110, Limitation Act, 1963

Case

NARAYAN GANPATI SASTE (DECEASED)BY LRS. & ors. vs BANUBAI BABURAO SASTE (DECEASED) BY LRS

Citation

Bombay High Court · SA/598/1999 · 2026:BHC-AS:41130 · 13.10.2026

Bench

Sandeep V. Marne

The dispute. Yashaswi Academy for Skills, a Section 8 entity holding charitable registration under Section 12AB, faced a tax survey. The revenue alleged that income was diverted to directors through personal expenses and loans during periods prior to April 2022. The Principal Commissioner cancelled its registration under Section 12AB(4), which the assessee challenged before the appellate tribunal.

The reasoning. Section 13(1)(c) breaches are not specified violations under Section 12AB(4) to justify registration cancellation. Furthermore, the statutory regime operates prospectively from April 2022 and cannot penalise past conduct.

For your practice. Counsel can resist registration cancellation by confining Section 13(1)(c) issues to assessment proceedings and defeating retrospective invocation of Section 12AB(4).

The order. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashed the cancellation order dated 29 September 2025, and directed restoration of the academy's registration under Section 12AA and Section 12AB.

Section 12AB, Income Tax Act, 1961

Case

Yashaswi Academy For Skills,Pune vs Pcit (Central), Pune

Citation

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · ITA Nos.2447 & 2448/PUN/2026 · 13.10.2026

Bench

R. K. Panda, Astha Chandra

The dispute. Lufthansa German Airlines collected cancellation and no-show fees from passengers, paying service tax on carriage under applicable abatements. The revenue treated these breach penalties as a taxable service of tolerating an act, demanding over Rs 5 crore without abatement. The adjudicating authority confirmed the tax demand with penalties, prompting the airline to appeal before the appellate tribunal.

The reasoning. Cancellation fees represent liquidated damages for contractual breach, not consideration for a service. Section 66E(e) applies only where an agreement's purpose is to tolerate an act, not where charges redress default.

For your practice. Assessees can resist tax demands on cancellation fees by establishing that breach penalties represent compensatory damages rather than agreements to tolerate default.

The order. The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside service tax demands totaling Rs 5,07,87,202 and associated penalties. It ordered refund of all amounts paid under protest with applicable interest.

Section 66E, Finance Act, 1994

Case

Lufthansa German Airlines vs Additional Director General ...

Citation

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal · SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50004 OF 2020 & SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50849 OF 2025 · 13.10.2026

Bench

Rachna Gupta, P.V. Subba Rao