(2024) 1 HCC (Bom)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Or. 7 R. 11—Rejection of plaint — Appeal against Trial Court’s decision allowing application for rejection of plaint for want of cause of action. Held, contention of defendant that plaintiff not entitled to any relief cannot be looked into. Evidence or merits of controversy cannot be examined at stage of decision of application under Or. 7 R. 11, [Diyashree Tuyenkar v. Vinod Vishwanath Tuyenkar, (2024) 1 HCC (Bom) 73]
(2023) 1 HCC (Cal)
GST—Offences and Penalties—Penalty—Assessee purchased second hand car from Assam which was intercepted and penalty was imposed for supply of goods on basis of false documents. Determination of taxable value and penalty at 200 per cent on value including tax and cess was challenged. Held. prima facie case for interim order for release of goods was made out, [Gurbux Singh Gupta v. State of W.B., (2023) 1 HCC (Cal) 647]
Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 — Ss. 46, 56, 111 and 107—Jurisdiction of civil court to decide validity of registration of trade mark — Exclusion of—Challenge to the registered trade mark “Ganesh”. Application for framing of issues with regard to the validity of the registered trade marks of the plaintiffs and to adjourn the suit for three months to enable the defendants to apply to the High Court for rectification of the register. Allowing the application, the High Court reiterated all questions with regard to the validity of a trade mark is required to be decided by the Registrar or the High Court under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 or by the Registrar or the High Court under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and not by the civil court. The Civil Court, in fact, is not empowered by the Act to decide the said question, [Ganesh Grains Ltd. v. Shree Ganesh Besan Mill, (2023) 1 HCC (Cal) 652]
(2020) 2 HCC (Del)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 22 Rule 9(2) and 4(4)—Challenge to allowance of an application for impleadment of the legal heirs under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC, subject to payment of costs of Rs 10,000 to be paid by the respondent- landlady. Held, finding that there was no vested right in favour of the tenants was upheld as the tenants cannot, on the ground that the petition had abated, claim a vested right to continue to enjoy rights in the tenanted premises, when admittedly they do not have any independent rights in the premises. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed with costs of Rs 50,000 to be paid to the respondent-landlady, [J.S. Sharma & Sons v. Shiv Devi Meena, (2020) 2 HCC (Del) 1]
(2023) 6 HCC (Del)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 8 Rule 10—Application under Order 8 Rule 10 of the CPC seeking a judgment in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in terms of the said rule. Order 8 Rule 10CPC, plainly read, applies only where a party, from whom a written statement is required either under Order 8 Rule 1 or Order 8 Rule 9 fails to present the written statement within the time permitted or the time fixed by the court. In either of these exigencies, the plaintiff is permitted, by Order 8 Rule 10, to require the court to pronounce judgment against the defendants or make such other order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. The first requirement of Order 8 Rule 10CPC, therefore, remained unsatisfied, hence, application dismissed in limine, [DLT Global Inc. v. DLT Labs Technologies (P) Ltd., (2023) 6 HCC (Del) 1]
Income Tax Act, 1961—Reassessment-Notice-Effect of S. 292-BB—Held, S. 292-BB not applicable when notice served improperly, [CIT v. Dart Infrabuild (P) Ltd., (2023) 6 HCC (Del) 15]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996– S. 34(3) proviso-Application for setting aside Award-Limitation Period—Held, proviso permits condonation of delay for a maximum period of 30 days and not thereafter. However, the delay shall not be condoned routinely, and the court is not required to peruse the merits of the case if the petitioner was unable to satisfy the court, [Omaxe Ltd. v. Joginder Singh Nijjar, (2023) 6 HCC (Del) 28]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 34—Interference with arbitral awards when not warranted-Reappreciation of evidence— Held, court while examining findings in arbitral award cannot reassess or reappreciate evidence, [NHAI v. PCL Suncon JV, (2023) 6 HCC (Del) 53]