Corporate Law

Background and Facts An assessee who pays the demand and gives up its right of appeal in exchange for immunity from penalty should not then be asked to prove a negative. The Delhi High Court has set aside an order rejecting an immunity application under Section 270AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the assessee had produced no documentary evidence that it had not filed an appeal. The judgment in Shantijanak Estates Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of I

Background and Facts Filing a Section 34 challenge in the wrong court costs years, and the question of which court is correct is not answered by where the arbitrator happened to sit. The Supreme Court has held that where no Commercial Court has been set up, the District Court within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court may entertain the petition. The judgment in Mahanadi Coalfields Limited v. GSCO Infrastructure Private Limited [arising out of Special Leave Petition

When an overseas vendor suspends services because a sanctions list somewhere names your company, a counterparty or a shareholder, the first instinct is to negotiate. That is often right, but it is not a substitute for a legal position, and the position weakens with every week the suspension goes unchallenged. The Delhi High Court's order in Nayara Energy Limited v. SAP India Private Limited, made on September 22, 2026, shows what the analysis looks like when it reaches a cour

Background and Facts A shareholder who cannot get the board to convene an extraordinary general meeting has two routes, and the question of how they relate to each other is now before the Supreme Court. On September 22, 2026 a Bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli issued notice on a challenge to an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in the Pearl City Marine Products Private Limited matter, and listed the case for November 6, 2026. The appe

Background and Facts An Indian vendor cannot suspend performance of an Indian law contract by pointing at foreign sanctions it has not proved apply to it. The Delhi High Court has ordered SAP India Private Limited to restore enterprise and software support services to Nayara Energy Limited, holding that at the interlocutory stage the suspension was prima facie a breach. The order in Nayara Energy Limited v. SAP India Private Limited was made by Justice Vikas Mahajan on Septem

Deciding where to file a trade mark infringement suit used to be a short exercise: Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 bars institution in any court inferior to a District Court, and Section 134(2) tells the plaintiff which District Court. The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has complicated it, because a State may constitute a Commercial Court at a level below District Judge, and the Supreme Court has now referred the resulting conflict to a larger bench in I.S.D.S. Private

Background and Facts A shareholder who believes a false statement has been filed with the Registrar cannot prosecute it himself. A private complaint will not support cognizance of an offence under Section 448 of the Companies Act, 2013, because the second proviso to Section 212(6) reserves that step to the Director of the Serious Fraud Investigation Office or an authorised officer of the Central Government. The Supreme Court settled that in January 2026 and, on September 21,

Background and Facts Where a State has notified Civil Judges (Senior Division) as Commercial Courts, a trade mark infringement suit is now being tried by a court that Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 appears to put out of bounds. The Supreme Court has referred the conflict to a larger bench. The order was made in I.S.D.S. Private Limited v. Khemka Food Products Private Limited and was reported on September 21, 2026. The underlying suit, Commercial Suit No. 11 of 2023,

Depositing an arbitral award amount in court is the standard price of a stay, and it is routinely assumed to stop interest as well. It does not. The Supreme Court held in National Seeds Corporation Limited v. National Agro Seed Corporation (India), 2026 INSC 1017, that a deposit is not payment, and that interest continues to run until the award holder can actually withdraw the money without conditions. Where an award carries interest at twelve per cent, the difference between

Background and Facts Award debtors routinely deposit money in court to obtain a stay and then assume that interest on an arbitral award has stopped running. The Supreme Court has held that it has not, unless the deposit is unconditional and the award holder can actually take the money out. The judgment in National Seeds Corporation Limited v. National Agro Seed Corporation (India) [arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5710 of 2025] carries the neutral citation 20

Background and Facts An assessee cannot build a deduction on a departmental memorandum that the statute does not support. The Supreme Court has restated that CBDT circulars reflect the Executive's understanding of the law, bind the officers who administer it, and do not bind a court at all. The judgment in Orient Crafts Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi [Civil Appeal Nos. 143-144 of 2013, heard with Civil Appeal Nos. 137-138, 139-140 and 141-142 of 2013] carrie

A tribunal e-filing portal that refuses papers on the last day of limitation used to be an almost unanswerable problem, because statutes such as Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 cap the period that can be condoned. The Supreme Court's judgment of September 10, 2026 in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II v. Ms. Mamta Binani and Others, 2026 INSC 1003, supplies the answer: the date of the first bona fide attempt to e-file is the date of presentation

Background and Facts Where a tribunal's own e-filing system refuses the papers, the date of presentation of an appeal is the date of the first bona fide attempt to file, not the later date on which the portal finally accepted it. The Supreme Court so held in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II v. Ms. Mamta Binani and Others, reported as 2026 INSC 1003 and decided on September 10, 2026. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner sought to appeal against an order of the Natio

Background and Facts The Supreme Court has stayed a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that declared Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 unconstitutional, but has done so on terms that stop the Revenue from pressing ahead in the meantime. The order was passed on September 18, 2026 in Union of India and Others v. Bharat Industrial Enterprises Private Limited [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 33196 of 2026]. Section 147A was inserted into the Income-tax Act, 1961 by

An unlawful vehicle repossession is rarely defeated by disputing the default. It is defeated on the manner of the seizure. The Supreme Court's judgment of September 16, 2026 in Hari Dutta Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 2026 INSC 998, is the clearest recent illustration: the borrower was admittedly in default, and still recovered the sale proceeds, Rs 10 lakh in compensation and costs, because the lender had not given the notice its own agreement required and had