Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court rules INDRP doesn't bar civil courts, rejects dismissal plea. No binding arbitration agreement.</h1> <h3>Citi Corp And Anr. Versus Todi Investors And Anr.</h3> Citi Corp And Anr. Versus Todi Investors And Anr. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts vs. IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP)2. Applicability of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 19963. Adequacy of Remedies under INDRP4. Binding Nature of Arbitration AgreementIssue-wise Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts vs. IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP):The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants for using the trademark 'CITI' as a domain name, transfer of the domain name 'citi.in,' and rendition of accounts for passing off and trademark infringement. The defendants argued that the suit should be dismissed due to the INDRP, which provides for arbitration of domain name disputes. The court examined whether the INDRP ousted the jurisdiction of civil courts.The court held that under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, jurisdiction of civil courts can only be ousted by an express or implied bar. Since there was no express bar in the INDRP, the court examined whether there was an implied bar. The court referred to several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Dhulabhai v. State of M.P., which held that exclusion of civil courts' jurisdiction must be explicitly expressed or clearly implied, and even if jurisdiction is excluded, civil courts can examine cases where statutory provisions have not been complied with or where the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with fundamental principles of judicial procedure.The court concluded that the INDRP did not explicitly oust the jurisdiction of civil courts and that the policy provided only an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, not a statutory remedy. Therefore, the jurisdiction of civil courts was not excluded.2. Applicability of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996:The defendants contended that the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, particularly Section 5, excluded the intervention of civil courts in matters covered by the INDRP. The court examined whether the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act applied to the present case.The court noted that arbitration requires the consent of both parties to refer their dispute to arbitration, as provided under Section 7 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. Since there was no arbitration agreement between the parties, the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, including Section 5, did not apply. The court emphasized that the INDRP did not mandate arbitration for the complainant (plaintiffs) but only for the registrant (defendants).3. Adequacy of Remedies under INDRP:The court examined whether the remedies provided under the INDRP were adequate and sufficient for the plaintiffs. The INDRP limited remedies to the cancellation or transfer of the domain name and did not provide for other substantive reliefs such as injunctions, rendition of accounts, or adjudication of trademark infringement and passing off claims.The court concluded that the INDRP did not provide complete relief for the plaintiffs' claims, which included infringement of the trademark, passing off, and rendition of accounts. Therefore, the INDRP did not offer an adequate and effective alternative remedy, and the jurisdiction of civil courts was not ousted.4. Binding Nature of Arbitration Agreement:The court examined whether the INDRP constituted a binding arbitration agreement between the parties. The court noted that the INDRP required the registrant to submit to mandatory arbitration proceedings if a complaint was filed but did not require the complainant to do so. The INDRP Rules of Procedure also indicated that the complainant's consent to arbitration was necessary.The court concluded that there was no binding arbitration agreement between the parties, and the mere registration of the defendants with the INDRP did not imply the plaintiffs' consent to arbitration. Therefore, the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act could not be invoked.Conclusion:The court held that the INDRP did not oust the jurisdiction of civil courts to deal with the present suit. The application filed by the defendants for rejection of the plaint was rejected. The court emphasized that the INDRP provided only an alternative dispute resolution mechanism and did not offer adequate and complete relief for the plaintiffs' claims. The parties were left to bear their own costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found