Re-assessment proceedings were sought to be initiated against a non-existent company as it had amalgamated with Petitioner and income of assessee had already been accounted for in books of accounts of Petitioner.
Delhi High Court held that rewriting of a contract between two parties, especially a commercial contract, is completely impermissible in law. Accordingly, an arbitral award which rewrites the contract is bound to be set aside.
Delhi High Court held that import of firearms is not prohibited the Arms Act and also there is no restriction that import is permissible only if the parts cannot be manufactured locally. Accordingly, it was directed to release the goods so imported.
Delhi High Court held that a suit, which contemplates urgent interim relief, is excluded from the rigor of Section 12A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Thus, a plaintiff seeking to institute a suit involving urgent interim relief(s) is not required to exhaust the remedy of pre-institution mediation.
Sanjay Chadha Trading As M/S Eveready Tools Emporium Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) A well known mark under Section 2(1)(zg) of Trademarks Act cannot be allowed to be infringed Conclusion: Delhi High Court dismissed appeals and restrained appellant from using word ‘EVEREADY’, as the same is a well-known mark due to […]
Delhi High Court restrained Respondents from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, importing, exporting or in any manner dealing with products infringing the Subject Design under the Designs Act, 2000 for the main reason that a mere trade variant which is a combination of known designs would not be entitled to protection under the provisions of the Designs Act
Vikas Jain Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) In view of the report of DDIT (Inv.) Unit-7(1) and 7(3) Mumbai, shared with the AO which suggests that the LTCG earned by the petitioner in AY 2014-15 was bogus and since, the said LTCG was claimed as exempt income, the AO at this stage, concluded that the […]
AGL Logistics Private Limited Vs CIT (Delhi High Court) In this case Assessing Officer failed to dispose of stay application dated 10th September, 2021 filed by the Petitioner within four weeks from its filing, as directed by Delhi High Court vide order dated 2nd September, 2021. Assessing Officer states that he could not comply with […]
HC held that amendment of Section 14A, which is for removal of doubts cannot be presumed to be retrospective even where such language is used, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood.
Rastriya Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) The Appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking and is a Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies’ Act, 1956. The Appellant engages in the manufacture of fertilizers and other chemicals, falling under Chapter Heading 29 and 31 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Appellant […]
