Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
In a commercial suit alleging continuing infringement of patent and design rights, the issue was whether the plaint "contemplates any urgent interim relief" under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act so as to dispense with pre-institution mediation despite delay in filing. The Court held that continuing manufacture, sale, or offer for sale constitutes a recurring cause of action, and mere delay does not legalise infringement or bar injunctive relief; urgency must be assessed from the plaint and annexed material showing ongoing injury, irreparable harm, and public interest in preventing deception, not by deciding merits. The High Court's approach treating delay as negating urgency was set aside; the impugned orders were quashed and the appeal allowed - SC
In a commercial suit alleging continuing infringement of patent and design rights, the issue was whether the plaint "contemplates any urgent interim relief" under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act so as to dispense with pre-institution mediation despite delay in filing. The Court held that continuing manufacture, sale, or offer for sale constitutes a recurring cause of action, and mere delay does not legalise infringement or bar injunctive relief; urgency must be assessed from the plaint and annexed material showing ongoing injury, irreparable harm, and public interest in preventing deception, not by deciding merits. The High Court's approach treating delay as negating urgency was set aside; the impugned orders were quashed and the appeal allowed - SC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
