Contempt Court Can Reverse Benefits Obtained From Disobeying Orders U/S 9 & 17 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Anish Dayal has held that the contempt court is empowered to issue directions to reverse any benefits obtained in disobedience of an order passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) to ensure that parties are restrained from violating the court's orders. In the present case, the Respondent was restrained from parting with the properties under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, and this order was...

[Arbitration] Initial Filing Without Essential Documents Non Est In Law, Limitation Can't Be Circumvented By Curing Defects: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav has held that an initial filing made without the essential documents like attaching impugned award etc. required for adjudication is non est in law and has no legal existence. Such a filing, made merely to evade the limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) cannot be considered valid. It further held that a significant delay in curing the defects cannot be condoned...

Controller Of Patents Must Specify Known Substance Against Which Claimed Invention Is Being Assessed In Hearing Notice: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Controller of Patents must clearly specify in the hearing notice the 'known substance' against which the claimed invention of an applicant is being assessed.Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970 bars the patentability of a 'new form' of a 'known substance' unless it demonstrates enhanced therapeutic efficacy.Justice Amit Bansal said that in order to sustain an objection under Section 3(d), the following factors have to be clearly identified by the...

When Deciding Application For Appointment Of Arbitrator, Court Cannot Examine Whether Claim Is Barred By Res Judicata: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh has observed that it is not open to the referral court in a petition filed under Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) to examine the issue whether the claim is barred by res judicata. Such an examination falls within the domain of the Arbitral Tribunal. Facts The present petition had been filed for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6), ACA. The parties had entered into an agreement on 30.07.2010...

'Complete Specification' Of Invention In Patent Is Sacrosanct To Determine Case Of Infringement: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the 'Complete Specification' of an invention is sacrosanct for determining infringement of its patent.Justice Amit Bansal held, “Once the plaintiff has itself identified features that are essential to the suit patent in the Complete Specification, it is estopped from contending that they are not essential so as to make out a case of infringement.”The observation comes in a patent suit filed by a city-based agrochemical company seeking an injunction to...

Rampant Misuse Of S.16 GST Act For Wrongful Availment Of ITC Will Create 'Enormous Dent' In GST Regime: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has once again flagged concerns over rampant misuse of Section 16 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 by traders, for wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit.The provision enables businesses to get input tax on the goods and services which are manufactured/ supplied by them in the chain of business transactions. It is meant as an incentive for businesses who need not pay taxes on the inputs, which have already been taxed at the source itself.A division bench of...

No Objections U/S 47 Of CPC Can Be Moved By Judgment Debtor Against Execution Of Award U/S 36 Of A&C Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has observed that a judgment debtor is not entitled to move objections under Section 47, CPC in an application for execution of award under Section 36, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA”) as it would amount to effectively opening a second round for challenging the Award which would undermine the provision of section 34 i.e. challenge to Award on limited grounds and go against the intent of ACA. Facts On 07.03.2007,...

GST | Delhi HC Rebukes Trend Of Persons Who Wrongfully Avail ITC By Invoking Writ Jurisdiction; Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost

The Delhi High Court has criticized the “pattern” of persons, who either availed fraudulent Input Tax Credit or enabled the availment of fraudulent ITC, invoking Court's writ jurisdiction to challenge orders imposing penalty under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Act 2017, on technical grounds.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta further observed,“This Court also takes note, with some consternation, that such large scale fraudulent availment of ITC...

Dept Cannot Be Blamed If Assessee Is Not Diligent In Checking GST Portal For Show Cause Notice: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an assessee cannot claim he was not granted an opportunity of hearing before an adverse order is passed, if he fails to check the GST portal for show cause notice and respond to the same.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed,“Since the Petitioner has not been diligent in checking the portal, no reply to the Show Cause Notice has been filed by the Petitioner. Thus the department cannot be blamed.”The remarks...

SMAS Auto-Leasing Entitled To Protection & Preservation Of EVs Leased To 'Blu Smart', 'Gensol' Pending Arbitration: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jyoti Singh has granted interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to the the petitioner who is the owner of electric vehicles (EVs) leased under Master Lease Agreements upon apprehensions of financial distress, default in lease payments by the respondents and a risk of dissipation or deterioration of assets pending arbitration. The Court restrained the respondents from transferring or encumbering the EVs. Brief ...

Ad-Hoc Arbitrator Can Grant Interest U/S 16 Of MSMED Act, Even If Reference Was Not Made To MSME Council: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that an ad-hoc arbitrator (appointed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996) is empowered to grant interest rate contemplated under Section 16 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, even if the reference was not made to the MSME Facilitation Council for resolving disputes. Brief Facts: Respondent No. 2 (“Owner”) owned a thermal power plant in Haldia, West Bengal. It appointed BF ...

Penalty U/S 122(1A) Of CGST Act Can Be Imposed On Both Taxable And Non-Taxable Person: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the penalty for GST evasion contemplated under Section 122(1A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, can be imposed on 'any person'— whether taxable or non-taxable.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta thus differed from the Bombay High Court's decision in Amit Manilal Haria V. The Joint Commissioner of CGST & CE & Ors. (2025) which held that Section 122(1A) cannot be invoked against an employee as he is not a...