While Commercial Speech Falls Within Free Speech, Contract Prohibit Adverse Remarks: Bombay HC Imposes 90-Day Injunction On Wonderchef's Distributor

Observing that commercial speech is a part of 'free speech' guaranteed by the Constitution of India, the Bombay High Court imposed a 90-day injunction against an Australia-based distributor of Wonderchef Home Appliances, owned by Celebrity Chef Sanjeev Kapoor, from making any comments or communications which could harm the reputation of the company, due to a contractual clause preventing them from doing so.Single-judge Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan while imposing the injunction, also ordered...

Court Cannot Assume Jurisdiction To Appoint Arbitrator Unless Request For Reference Of Dispute Is Received By Respondent: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice R. M. Joshi has held that compliance with Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is mandatory and that the court cannot assume jurisdiction to appoint an Arbitrator under Section 11 unless a request for a reference of dispute is received by the respondent. Brief Facts: The dispute arose with respect to a sub-contract between the parties. Clause No. 32 of the sub-contract provides for the settlement of dispute amicably and, on...

Bombay High Court Refuses To Stay Release Of Akshay Kumar's 'Sky Force'

The Bombay High Court on Thursday refused to grant any ad-interim order to stay the release of Akshay Kumar - starrer 'Sky Force' film, which is expected to hit the screens from Friday (January 24).Single-judge Justice Manish Pitale noted that the plaintiff Sandeep Gangatkar, who claimed that the film's theme has breached his copyright work titled 'Free Bird' which he created in 2014 and shared with the makers of the film. The judge noted that the teaser of the film was out in public domain ever...

Serving Signed Copy Of Award To Employee Of Party Does Not Constitute Valid Service U/S 31(5) Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Justices A.S. Chandurkar and Rajesh S. Patil has held that service of a signed copy of an award on an employee of a party to an arbitration agreement is not a valid service under section 31(5) of the Arbitration Act. Brief Facts The respondent and the appellant had business dealings. Dispute arose between them and an arbitration clause was invoked. The arbitrator passed an award granting relief to the claimant. The appellants argued that they were...

Substantive Objections On Validity Or Existence Of Arbitration Agreement Can Be Adjudicated By Tribunal U/S 16 Of Act: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that substantive objections concerning the validity and existence of an arbitration agreement can be adjudicated by the Arbitral Tribunal and not by the court under section 11 of the Arbitration Act. Brief Facts This is a Petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) seeking to refer disputes and differences that have arisen between the parties in connection with an agreement...

Belated Filing Of Form 9A Is Not Attributable To Trust: Bombay HC Allows Exemption U/S 11 After Condoning Delay Under IT Act

The Bombay High Court held that bonafide delay in filing Form 9A on part of trust, has to be construed as procedural lapse and shall be condoned by exercising powers u/s 119(2) of Income tax Act.The Division Bench of Justice G S Kulkarni and Justice Advait M Sethna observed that that the jurisdictional AO completely lost sight of the fact that at the time when assessee claimed deductions towards depreciation and capital expenditure u/s 11(1) by filing the revised computation, the time limit for...

S.147 Of IT Act Doesn't Postulate Review Jurisdiction Such That Assessment Can Be Reviewed By AO Intending To Form Different Opinion: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court ruled that the materials which were already available before AO and which ultimately were considered in passing assessment order u/s 143(3), cannot form basis of reopening, on ground that such materials were ignored in finalizing assessment.Section 147 does not postulate review jurisdiction, so that assessment can be reviewed by the Assessing Officer intending to form different and/or a new opinion, added the Court. The Division Bench of Justice G S Kulkarni and Justice...

ITO Acted On Complete Change Of Opinion On Same Material With Intent To Review Assessment Order Passed By Him: Bombay HC Quashes Reopening

While setting aside the reassessment proceedings, the Bombay High Court held that 'change of opinion' or 'review of already completed assessment', is not permitted to AO.While holding so, the Division Bench of Justice G.S Kulkarni and Justice Advait M Sethna observed that there is no whisper of allegations against the assessee that income that has escaped assessment was attributable to the assessee for not disclosing fully & truly all material facts necessary for assessment.Facts of the...

High Court Under Article 226/227 Can Examine Validity Of Interlocutory Orders Passed By Arbitrator: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Justices Shailesh P. Brahme and S.G. Mehare has held that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is not excluded from examining the validity of the interlocutory orders passed by the Arbitrator. Brief Facts The respondent was selected through tender process by the petitioner for constructing building for ladies hostel and extension work of electrical buildings. The work was completed and then disputes were started...

Delisting Regulations Of SEBI Not Applicable To Delisting Of Equity Shares Under Resolution Plan: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Justices M.S.Sonak and Jitendra Jain has held that Delisting Regulations framed by the SEBI would not be applicable to the delisting of shares of the company in pursuance of the approval of a Resolution Plan under section 31 of the code. Brief Facts In this case, the petitioner challenges the vires of Regulation 3(2)(b)(i) of the SEBI Delisiting Regulations, 2021 on the ground that it is violative of the SEBI Act. Along with this, the petitioner also...

"Maintainability" And "Jurisdiction" Cannot Be Conflated While Deciding Application U/S 20 Of Arbitration Act, 1940: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Amit Borkar has held that maintainability and jurisdiction cannot be used interchangeably as they connote different things. Lack of jurisdiction results in the nullity of proceedings, as the court inherently lacks authority to adjudicate. Non-compliance with maintainability bars leads to dismissal without deciding the merits of the case but does not affect the court's inherent power. Brief Facts: The petitioner is challenging the order dated...

SARFAESI And Arbitration Proceedings Can Proceed Parallely As Nature Of Both Proceedings Is Distinct: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Advait M Sethna has affirmed that SARFAESI proceedings are in the nature of enforcement proceedings, while arbitration is in the context of an adjudicatory proceedings. The SARFAESI proceedings and arbitration proceedings thus can proceed parallely. The court further observed that the role of referral court under section 11 of the Arbitration Act is very limited to verifying the existence of an arbitration agreement. Brief Facts This...