Bombay High Court
IGST Refund Claims Cannot Be Rejected Under Omitted Law: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that refund claims cannot be thrown out on the basis of a statutory rule that no longer exists and must be looked at afresh once such a rule is omitted (deleted) without any saving clause. The court set aside orders rejecting Integrated Goods and Services Tax refunds claimed by Kelvion India Private Limited and sent the matter back to the tax department for a fresh decision. A Division Bench of Justice M S Sonak and Justice Advait M Sethna noted that the...
Bombay High Court Restrains GetShaadi.com For Infringing Shaadi.com Trademark, Imposes ₹25 Lakh Costs
The Bombay High Court has permanently restrained the operators of www.getshaadi.com, a matrimonial and matchmaking website, holding that it infringes and passes off the trademark Shaadi.com.In a judgment delivered on January 6, 2026, Justice Arif S Doctor ruled in favour of People Interactive, which operates the popular matrimonial platform “Shaadi.com.” The court held that the rival operator's adoption and use of “getshaadi.com” for identical matrimonial and matchmaking services violated...
Bombay High Court Quashes Tax Reassessment Against Hospital Over Unsigned Reopening Notice
The Bombay High Court has set aside reassessment and penalty proceedings against Ambernath City Hospital Pvt. Ltd., holding that the Income Tax Department lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment, as the mandatory notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was unsigned.Relying on its own decision in Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj vs. Income Tax Officer,(2023), the court held, “the Notice issued under Section 148, having no signature affixed to it, either digitally or...
No GST On Assignment Of Long-Term Leasehold Rights: Bombay High Court Quashes Notice Against MIDC Unit
The Bombay High Court at Nagpur on Friday has set aside a GST show cause notice seeking to tax the assignment of long-term leasehold rights. The court held that such a transaction is a transfer of benefits arising out of immovable property and is not a taxable “supply” under the GST law. A division bench of Justice Anil L. Pansare and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta said the tax department had wrongly treated the transaction as a service. Agreeing with the Gujarat High Court in Gujarat Chamber of...
Bombay High Court Quashes Special Audit Order For Want Of Mandatory DIN
The Bombay High Court has held that an approval for a special audit issued without a Document Identification Number (DIN) is invalid and deemed never to have been issued. A Division Bench of Justice B P Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P Pooniwalla allowed a writ petition filed by assessee Sanjay Nathalal Shah and quashed a special audit ordered for Assessment Year 2023–24 . Relying on a CBDT circular issued in August 2019, which mandates that every communication, including statutory approvals,...
Stamp Duty Must Be Refunded If Sale Agreement Was Never Executed : Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that stamp duty paid for a property transaction that never went through must be refunded, even if the application is filed beyond the six-month limitation period under the law. A single-judge bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan said the state cannot keep money collected as stamp duty when no sale agreement was ever executed. “Stamp Duty is not a transaction tax but a duty payable on an instrument, which necessarily has to conform to the definition set out in...
Court Intervention In Arbitrator Appointment Required Only If Institution Fails: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that court intervention for the appointment of arbitrators is required only when an arbitral institution fails to discharge its designated functions in appointing an arbitrator. A single-judge bench of Justice Sandeep V Marne held that once parties agree to resolve disputes through an arbitral institution, the appointment procedure prescribed by that institution must be followed.“In case of an institutional arbitration, application for appointment of...
Bombay High Court Declares Radhakrishna Productions Sole Owner of Rights Of 'Will You Marry Me' Film
The Bombay High Court has declared Radhakrishna Productions Pvt. Ltd. as the lawful owner of copyright and allied rights of the 2012 Hindi film Will You Marry Me, permanently restraining Ikkon Films Pvt. Ltd. and its affiliates from exploiting the film or creating any third-party rights.A single-judge bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor passed the judgment on January 5, 2026. He held that the copyright assignment and financing agreements placed on record by Radhakrishna Productions clearly vested...
Individual Members' Suit Does Not Abandon Society's Arbitration Clause With Developer: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that a civil suit filed by individual members of a housing society against a developer does not amount to abandonment of the arbitration clause in a redevelopment agreement. The Court said such a decision can be taken only by the society acting as a collective body. A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan said that once a co-operative housing society is formed, individual members give up their separate will to the collective will of the society....
Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief To Minco India Against Group Company Over 'MINCO' Mark
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused to grant interim relief to Minco India Private Limited in a trademark dispute over the use of the word “MINCO”. The court held that the company had suppressed material facts and had allowed the rival firm to use the name since at least 2012 without objection. Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh dismissed an interim application seeking to restrain Minco India Flow Elements Private Limited from using “MINCO” as part of its trade name. The court found that the...
Software Ownership Disputes Involving IPR Not Arbitrable: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has recently held that an arbitral tribunal was right in refusing to decide who owns a software product, saying such questions involve intellectual property rights that affect the public at large (rights in rem) and cannot be settled through private arbitration.A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Sandeep V Marne said that deciding ownership of the “Test Magic” software would inevitably involve ruling on trademark and copyright rights, which are not meant for arbitration. The...