Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
A dispute arose over the applicability of a notification changing the import policy for studded platinum jewellery from “Free” to “Restricted”, where the consignments had been dispatched and arrived in India before the notification was published, but the Bills of Entry were filed afterwards.
The Court held that an exorbitant settlement demand, without an intentional threat or fear of injury, does not attract Section 385 IPC.
The lawyers were fined ₹2,000 and directed to pay ₹50,000 costs each, with a Bar Council referral for action.
The Court granted ad interim relief to a pharmacy institution that had obtained approval from the Pharmacy Council of India but was unable to participate in the Central Admission Process owing to the State’s prohibition on establishment of new B. Pharmacy and D. Pharmacy institutions for the Academic Year 2026-2027.
A GST classification dispute arose over the licensing of copyright in cinematographic films and whether such film content could fall within “information technology software” for taxation purposes.
The High Court held that the delay in completion of the arbitral proceedings could not be attributed to any deliberate, wilful or negligent default on the part of the petitioner or the tribunal and that sufficient cause had been made out for extension of the mandate under Section 29-A (5), Arbitration Act.
In a copyright infringement case involving alleged unauthorised use of source codes, the Bombay High Court quashed proceedings against an employee, finding no material to show his active role beyond carrying out duties assigned by his employer. The Court also held that a company cannot maintain a criminal complaint through its Vice-President or an individual Director unless duly authorised by a Board resolution.
Material contradictions, significant omissions, and the complete absence of the alleged photographs, videos, messages, and call records persuades the Bombay High Court to suspend the sentence in a POCSO conviction, holding that the prosecution case raised serious issues requiring appellate scrutiny and that the evidence disclosed chances of acquittal pending appeal.
The Court held that the Family Court had not appreciated the jurisdictional parameters of Section 12, Guardians and Wards Act and had failed to independently assess the physical, emotional, educational or psychological welfare of the child while directing change of interim custody.
Can litigants save court fees by simply joining hands in a single writ petition? The Bombay High Court answered with a qualified no, holding that court fees on joint writ petitions are payable per petitioner when each petitioner seeks an individual benefit.
The Bombay High Court reiterated that at the Section 11 stage, the Court is concerned only with the existence of an arbitration agreement, leaving disputes relating to repudiation, limitation, and arbitrability for the Arbitral Tribunal.
The High Court held that in view of the alternative, efficacious statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act, the writ petition was not maintainable and the question of law raised under the IBC was nothing but another desperate attempt to avoid steps being taken by the secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act.
The Court noted that the executing court cannot go beyond the decree; however, in the event of an ambiguity in the decree on material aspects, it is the duty of the Court to interpret the decree in the process of giving true effect to it.
98 per cent compliant, but still under suspension. The Bombay High Court found no justification for keeping a Pune sweet shop closed only because an appeal against the suspension order was pending and ordered the Maharashtra FDA to pay ₹5 lakhs compensation to the shop for the loss suffered during the period of closure.
The High Court held that employees who have worked for six months or more in a particular year would be entitled to the benefit of annual increment and their retiral benefits would be calculated by reckoning such increment while calculating their last drawn wages.
Holding that FDA’s recalled restrictions on ACILOC drug stocks stood neutralised, the Court directed fresh show-cause notices under Rule 85, Drugs Rules, 1945, before any further action.
The High Court held that the enquiry under Section 12-A(1), Commercial Courts Act is limited to whether the suit genuinely contemplated urgent interim relief and that the plaint must be examined holistically without adjudicating the merits of the interim relief.
The Bombay High Court held that employees who had rendered more than six months of qualifying service from the date of their last annual increment could not be denied the benefit of annual increment merely because they retired before 1 July.
The judgment provides important guidance on the interpretation of the exception to mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act. It clarifies that while the exception must be construed strictly, courts must assess urgency on the basis of the overall factual matrix rather than a narrow or merits-based inquiry.
The High Court held that the victim’s testimony was natural, credible and inspiring of confidence, while the trial court’s appreciation of evidence was not only unreasonable but perverse, rendering its conclusions untenable and contrary to any possible view of the evidence.