Other Case Law
86 decisions indexed and categorized for practitioners and IP owners.
Recent Key Judgments
State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr v.M/S Ech Ess Builders
The State of Himachal Pradesh and another challenged the judgment dated 09.08.2024 of the District Judge, Kinnaur, which had dismissed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against an arbitral award dated 05.12.2019 in a construction contract dispute with M/s Ech Ess Builders. The High Court held that since the dispute was a 'commercial dispute' under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the District Judge was not designated as a commercial court at the time the objections were filed on 17.07.2020, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The appeal was disposed of by setting aside the District Judge's judgment and directing return of the objections for presentation before the appropriate forum.
Atul Bhaleraav Patil v.State Of Gujarat & Ors.
The applicant filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash FIR No.11191037211559 of 2021 registered at Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad, for offences under Sections 51, 63 and 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957, arising from seizure of duplicate Honda two-wheeler accessories bearing counterfeit Honda stickers. The Gujarat High Court dismissed the application, holding that a prima facie case of copyright infringement was disclosed and that the remedies under the Copyright Act operate independently of the Trade Marks Act.
Sanjeet Prakash v.The State Of Bihar
This is an anticipatory bail application filed by Sanjeet Prakash and Abhishek Kumar, directors of Glowline Poly Plast Pvt. Ltd., in connection with Parsa Bazar P.S. Case No. 246 of 2026 registered for offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 303(2), 324(4), 352, 351(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The case arose from allegations by Usha Polytubes that the petitioners' company was manufacturing and selling PVC pipes bearing the counterfeit 'Usha Gold' trademark. The Patna High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, directing that the petitioners be enlarged on bail upon arrest or surrender within eight weeks, subject to furnishing bail bonds and conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Md. Gyas Alam @ Gyas Alam v.The State Of Bihar
The petitioner, Md. Gyas Alam, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered for offences under the Copyright Act, the Trade Marks Act, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, arising from the alleged manufacture and sale of counterfeit lubricant products at a godown in Nawada. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated merely because he was the brother of co-accused Md. Niyaz, the actual proprietor of the firm from whose premises the counterfeit goods were recovered. The Patna High Court, considering the nature of the accusation and the petitioner's clean antecedent, allowed the anticipatory bail application subject to conditions.
Sh Shashi Bhushan & Ors v.State Of Delhi & Ors
The petitioners (10 in number, led by Mr. Shashi Bhushan) filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No. 0896/2022 registered at P.S. Sadar Bazar under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, alleging stocking and sale of counterfeit products bearing infringing marks. The parties entered into a compromise deed dated 27.07.2026, and the court, applying the principles laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, quashed the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom, holding that the non-compoundable offences were essentially against the rights of the IP proprietor and were of a commercial/civil character.
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors v.Nitin Sonkhla
The State of Himachal Pradesh and others filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the District Judge's dismissal of their Section 34 objections against an arbitral award in favor of contractor Nitin Sonkhla. The dispute arose from a road construction contract that was rescinded after the contractor failed to complete the work within the stipulated time. The High Court set aside the District Judge's judgment on the ground that the District Judge was not designated as a 'commercial court' under Section 3 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 at the time of filing or adjudicating the objections, and therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the commercial dispute.
TCL Monitors Pvt Ltd v.State Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by TCL Monitors Pvt Ltd before the Delhi High Court concerning a trademark dispute. The petitioner's counsel suggested mediation, but the respondent's counsel informed the Court that a prior mediation attempt had failed and that the respondents had already voluntarily discontinued use of the impugned mark. The Court declined to refer the matter to mediation, permitted the parties to file short written submissions, directed summoning of the e-TCR record, and required the petitioner's Director to appear in person on the next date of hearing.
Shri Nand Kishore v.The State Of Madhya Pradesh
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the Tehsildar's order dated 26.2.2026 rejecting their mutation application and seeking direction to mutate their name as bhumiswami over agricultural land in Sardarpur, District Dhar. The State raised a preliminary objection regarding availability of alternative efficacious remedy under Section 44(1) of the MP Land Revenue Code. The High Court disposed of the writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail the statutory appellate remedy, directing the appellate authority to decide the appeal expeditiously.
State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others v.Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Thakur
The State of Himachal Pradesh and others appealed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the District Judge Mandi's dismissal of objections under Section 34 against an arbitral award in a construction contract dispute. The High Court found that the District Judge lacked jurisdiction because it had not been designated as a 'commercial court' under Section 3 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 at the time of hearing the objections, as commercial courts at the district level were notified only on 13.5.2026. The appeal was disposed of by setting aside the impugned judgment and directing the District Judge to return the objections for presentation before the appropriate forum, with the limitation period being excluded.
Mujeeb A.K v.State Of Kerala
This writ petition was filed before the Kerala High Court by Mujeeb A.K challenging an order of the 6th respondent (Jofin Lukose). During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the service of the 6th respondent had already been terminated. In light of this submission, the court closed the writ petition while leaving open all contentions of the petitioner.
Alok Niwas Private Limited v.Debasish Pal and Ors.
The Calcutta High Court allowed an appeal filed by Alok Niwas Private Limited against the rejection of its temporary injunction application by the trial court in a suit for specific performance. The plaintiff had entered into an oral agreement with the respondent for mutual conveyance of land to set up an industrial park, and sought to restrain the respondent from altering the suit property and obstructing ingress and egress. The Division Bench set aside the trial court's order and granted the injunction, restraining the respondents from changing the nature of the suit property, making constructions, alienating the property, or obstructing the common passage.
M/s. Cart Infralog Ltd. & Anr. v.The Additional Commissioner, HQ Anti-Evasion Unit, CGST & CX, Kolkata South Commissionerate & Ors.
M/s. Cart Infralog Ltd. & Anr. filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court challenging a Show Cause Notice dated 11.06.2025 issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the consequential Order in Original dated 09.12.2025, alleging ineligible and irregular Input Tax Credit (ITC) of approximately Rs. 2.37 crores with total interest and penalty aggregating to Rs. 6.3 crores. The petitioners contended that the defaulting supplier (M/s. Aster Trading Company) who failed to file GSTR-3B should be held liable, not the purchasing dealer, relying on the Division Bench decision in Suncraft Energy Pvt. Ltd. (affirmed by the Supreme Court on 14.12.2023). The Court quashed the Order in Original and the recovery notice, directed reconsideration of the matter in light of the cited precedents, and required the petitioners to deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- as a condition for remand.
Geekay Enterprises v.Ganesh Builders & Ors.
Geekay Enterprises (Plaintiff) filed an Interim Application seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the Defendants from creating third-party rights or undertaking construction on a suit property in Village Nahur, Mumbai, in connection with a redevelopment scheme. The Plaintiff claimed rights to balance FSI under an Agreement dated 28 October 1997, after M/s. Ganesh Builders had constructed 'Samata Apartments' on part of the property. The Bombay High Court rejected the Interim Application, holding that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, that the suit was not filed with necessary alacrity given an 11-year delay, and that the Plaintiff could be adequately compensated in monetary terms.
M/s. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd v.The Asst. Commissioner (CT), VMU-1
M/s. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd (TCS) challenged assessment orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner (CT) demanding VAT of Rs.52,39,44,119/- on a service turnover of Rs.11,50,52,48,700/- for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13, on transactions involving custom-made/customized software development and issuance of Digital Signature Certificates. TCS contended that these were pure service transactions on which Service Tax had already been paid under the Finance Act, 1994, and that no VAT was leviable. The Telangana High Court allowed the writ petitions, holding that the transactions did not constitute a 'sale' of goods and therefore could not attract VAT under the TGVAT Act, 2005, and set aside the impugned assessment orders.
Exquisite Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. v.Oberoi Realty Limited and Ors.
This interim application was filed by Defendant No.1, Oberoi Realty Limited, seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the Plaintiffs' failure to exhaust mandatory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The underlying suit was filed by Exquisite Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and flat purchasers against the developer and municipal authorities, seeking declarations regarding their undivided share in land and FSI, injunctions against ongoing construction, and conveyance of their share. The Bombay High Court rejected the application, holding that the suit genuinely contemplated urgent interim relief due to the continuing nature of the alleged wrong, and the prayer for interim relief was not a mere camouflage to bypass the statutory mediation requirement.
Activision Publishing Inc v.Oao Info India Pvt Ltd
This entry does not constitute a judgment but rather a cause list entry from the Bombay High Court dated 21 August 2026. Two matters filed by Activision Publishing Inc against OAO Info India Pvt Ltd were listed as fresh matters (COMMP(L)/27173/2026 and COMMP(L)/27270/2026) before Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan. As per the board's header note, the petitioner was directed to issue private notice, and the matters were to be listed as post-notice matters three weeks later on 18 September 2026.
Kanti Bhushan v.Kushal Singh
The petitioner Kanti Bhushan filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 24.06.2026 passed by the First Appellate Court (Additional District Judge-I, Mandi), which had set aside the trial court's status quo order granted under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed the petition, holding that the First Appellate Court had improperly converted itself into a trial court and reassessed the matter without first finding that the trial court's order suffered from perversity.
Jagdev Chand (Since Deceased) Through LRs v.Gurbaksh Singh & Anr
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed by Jagdev Chand (since deceased) through his legal representatives, challenging the order dated 23.04.2024 passed by the First Appellate Court (District Judge, Una) which had partly allowed an appeal filed by respondent Gurbaksh Singh. The respondent had sought a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in a suit concerning jointly owned land, which was initially dismissed by the trial court. The High Court set aside the First Appellate Court's order and restored the trial court's order dismissing the injunction application, holding that the appellate court erred in interfering with the well-reasoned findings of the trial court without recording any finding of perversity.
The Admission Supervisory Committee for Medical Education in Kerala v.Karthik Dev R
This review petition was filed by the Admission Supervisory Committee for Medical Education in Kerala (the 2nd respondent in the original writ appeal) seeking review of the Division Bench judgment dated 06.01.2026 in W.A. No. 1550 of 2025, which dismissed its writ appeal on the ground of maintainability. The core issue was whether a quasi-judicial body, whose decision was set aside by a Single Judge in a writ petition, could maintain a writ appeal to defend its own order. The Division Bench dismissed the review petition, holding that the review jurisdiction cannot be used as an appeal in disguise and that the petitioner's attempt was merely to re-agitate issues already decided on merits.
Dev Raj v.Puran Chand
This criminal appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondent/accused by the Trial Court in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant alleged that the accused had issued a cheque of ₹2,65,000/- towards discharge of liability arising from the purchase of a bus, which was dishonoured. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the complainant's own statements created doubt about the cheque being issued for consideration, and the Trial Court had taken a reasonable view warranting no interference.
M.Padmini v.The District Revenue Officer
This is a review application filed by M.Padmini seeking to reconsider the Madras High Court's judgment dated 31.01.2023 in Writ Appeal No.2675 of 2018, which had upheld the Revenue Authority's direction requiring parties to establish their competing title claims before a competent civil court. The dispute concerned ownership of 9,795 sq. ft. of land in Survey No. 46/1 of Pammal Village, with the applicant relying on a 1968 sale deed and a 1977 compromise decree, while private respondents asserted title through subsequent transactions. The Division Bench dismissed the review application as devoid of merit, holding that the grounds raised fell outside the permissible scope of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the CPC.
Ashish Sharma v.State of H.P. and Ors.
The petitioner, a computer teacher at Dayanand Public School, Shimla, sought quashing of orders dismissing his complaint seeking registration of an FIR against the school principal for offences including forgery, cheating, and criminal breach of trust. The petitioner alleged that the principal was not authorized to sign his suspension order under CBSE affiliation by-laws, rendering it a forged document. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that an order signed by a person lacking authority does not constitute forgery under Section 464 IPC, and such an order must be treated as valid unless set aside by a competent court.
Aerotech Aviation India Pvt. Ltd. v.Oshma Aeronautics
The plaintiff, Aerotech Aviation India Pvt. Ltd., placed an order with the defendant, Oshma Aeronautics, for a Main Rotor Blade of Helicopter VT-ATA valued at Rs.17,50,000/-, paying a 60% advance of Rs.10,50,000/- via RTGS. The defendant failed to deliver the product and issued multiple cheques towards refund, all of which were dishonoured. The defendant did not file a written statement, and the court, relying on Modula India v. Kamakshya Singh Deo, decreed the suit for Rs.5,70,000/- with simple interest at 9% p.a. (reduced from the claimed 24% p.a.) from the date of filing till realization, plus costs.
Om Prakash Rathore v.Smt. Laxmi Devi
The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the Board of Revenue's order directing eviction of the petitioners from 67.89 square meters of land in Survey No. 211, Village Moja Jhingura, Shivpuri. The Court held that summary proceedings under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, could not be invoked to evict persons in long, open, and settled possession of a permanent residential structure, and that a subsequent demarcation could not revive a remedy already barred by the two-year limitation period.
Rajnath And 11 Others v.State Of U.P. And Another
The applicants filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated under Section 3/5 of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, alleging illegal encroachment upon Banjar (Gram Sabha) land. The Allahabad High Court held that the P.D.P.P. Act was enacted to curb vandalism and damage to public property during riots and public commotion, and cannot be invoked for cases of alleged encroachment on Gram Sabha land. The court quashed the criminal proceedings, charge sheet, cognizance order, and non-bailable warrant, observing that the proper remedy lies under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Basamma & Anr. v.Goparappa And Ors.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court of Karnataka's judgment that had set aside Paragraph 24 of the First Appellate Court's order. The Court held that the High Court violated the principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem) by adjudicating the writ petition without hearing the appellants, who were necessary parties whose ownership and possession rights were directly affected. The First Appellate Court's judgment dated 02.08.2021 was restored, with the Court clarifying that no opinion was expressed on the merits and granting respondents three months to pursue alternative remedies.
Kamal Mahanty v.Jhantu Mohapatra
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a revisional application filed by Kamal Mahanty seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, arising from Complaint Case No. C-323 of 2016 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Contai, Purba Medinipur. The court held that a prima facie case was made out based on the presentation of the cheque, its return with the endorsement 'Payment stopped by Drawer,' and the failure to comply with the statutory demand notice. The petitioner's contentions regarding limitation, contractual defenses, and the alleged absence of a money-lending license were rejected as triable issues of fact.
Murti Markandeshwar Ji Maharaj Gopal Ki Bagiya City Jhansi v.Smt. Jyoti Gangwani And Another
The petitioner, a temple/trust entity, filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Rent Tribunal that set aside the Rent Authority's order allowing its impleadment in eviction proceedings under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021. The petitioner had sought impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC to dispute the landlord's title over the premises. The Court held that proceedings under Section 21 of the Act are confined to adjudication of landlord-tenant disputes and cannot be expanded to adjudicate complex title questions, and dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.
M/S Bansal Construction Co. v.Union of India
This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 challenged a District Judge's order setting aside an arbitral award in favor of M/S Bansal Construction Co. The appellant had been awarded a railway contract in 2004 for CTR of 15.75 km of non-circulated yard lines, which could not be completed due to the respondent's failure to provide P-Way materials. The Arbitral Tribunal allowed 7 out of 8 claims and awarded ₹22,44,464/-, but the Commercial Court set aside the award holding that pendente lite interest could not be granted as the contract expressly prohibited it. The Delhi High Court upheld the District Judge's decision and dismissed the appeal.
Dr. Kavitha.A v.Brincy Mani
This original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenged an order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in a transfer dispute within the Dairy Development Department. The 1st respondent, Brincy Mani, a Deputy Director posted at Thrissur, had challenged her transfer to Kozhikode as Principal of the Dairy Training Centre, alleging mala fides and political motivation. The petitioner, Dr. Kavitha.A, who was to be transferred to Thrissur under the same order, sought to vacate the Tribunal's interim order. The Tribunal disposed of the original application, and Dr. Kavitha.A approached the High Court challenging that order.