AI-curated court updates, legal developments, and practice-area insights for Indian legal professionals.
The Bombay High Court in Ashit Padhaya v. Assistant Controller of Patents emphasized that Controllers must base patent revocations on disclosed evidence, as fresh undisclosed evidence cannot be considered. This marks a significant procedural clarification.
The Bombay High Court has quashed Section 148A(d) and 148 notices for the assessment year 2018-19 after determining that the sanction from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was invalid under Section 151.
The SAFEMA Tribunal has upheld the attachment of ₹1.01 crore under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, clarifying that Section 13(1)(e) does not require specific bribe allegations for establishing disproportionate assets.
The Karnataka High Court rebuked the Bengaluru Police for arresting a Hindutva leader over a Facebook post celebrating the cancellation of a Kunal Kamra event. The court found the police's actions to be based on unfounded concerns of social disharmony.
The Government of India has announced a buyback of dated securities totaling ₹30,000 Crore through auction, signaling a move to manage government debt.
The Reserve Bank of India has issued directives to Ashok Sahakari Bank Ltd. under the Banking Regulation Act, restricting certain bank operations.
The Bombay High Court in Ashit Padhaya v. Assistant Controller of Patents stressed the necessity for Controllers to disclose all evidence considered to parties involved in post-grant opposition proceedings. This enforcement of procedural transparency aligns with the principles of fairness in patent adjudications.
In the case of Array Biopharma Inc. v. Deputy Controller of Patents, the Delhi High Court reiterated that patent objections must be substantiated with evidence rather than being mere assertions. The ruling underscored the importance of claim-specific details when assessing inventive steps under Sections 3(d) and 3(i) of the Patents Act.
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has announced the exclusion of eligible Foreign Currency Non-Resident (FCNR(B)) and Non-Resident External (NRE) funded advances from the Adjusted Net Bank Credit (ANBC) calculation for Priority Sector Lending (PSL) targets, introducing specific deposit period conditions.
The SAFEMA Tribunal has upheld the attachment of ₹8.28 lakh under the PMLA, ruling that the appellant could not prove the bona fide nature of the funds due to the absence of relevant bank statements. The court emphasized that simply claiming to be a victim is insufficient without requisite evidence.
The NCLT has admitted Canara Bank's insolvency plea of ₹119.64 Crores, stating that pending Corporate Insolvency Resolution Processes (CIRP) for a principal borrower does not hinder the liability of a corporate guarantor. This ruling sets important precedents for creditor recovery.
The NCLT has rejected a personal guarantor's moratorium plea, allowing corporate insolvency proceedings for a ₹46.62 Crore financial default. This ruling clarifies the independence of corporate insolvency proceedings from guarantor status.
The NCLT has admitted an insolvency plea of ₹11.83 Crores after bank records established the financial debt and continued default. This ruling underscores the significance of documentary evidence in insolvency proceedings.