Delhi High Court Upholds Rejection Of Patent For Amylin and AstraZeneca's Sustained-Release Diabetes Injection

The Delhi High Court has upheld the Patent Office's refusal to grant Amylin Pharmaceuticals and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals a patent for their sustained-release exenatide injection for diabetes, ruling that the formulation was 'obvious' from existing science and lacked the inventive step required for protection. A single bench of Justice Tejas Karia in an order dated November 24 said that...

Delhi High Court Pulls Up GST Authority For Issuing Personal Hearing Notice Saying Assessee's Attendance Not Needed

The Delhi High Court recently criticised the GST Authorities for issuing a “strange” personal hearing notice to an assessee, which said that the assessee need not attend the hearing as the notice is issued only for the purpose of uploading final order.“The personal hearing notice is also quite strange to say the least that no personal hearing was granted before the Commissioner Appeals...

No Double Pre-Deposit For Same Tax Demand; Second Appeal Cannot Be Conditioned On Fresh Payment: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that when a taxpayer has already deposited the mandatory 10% pre-deposit for the same disputed tax amount before the State GST Appellate Authority, the Central GST authorities cannot insist on another separate pre-deposit for the same amount while filing a second appeal. The Bench stated that the law does not permit duplication of pre-deposit for the same...

Income Tax Act | Payment For IPLC Services Not 'Royalty' U/S 9; Assessee Entitled To Deduction U/S 40(a)(i): Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has held that payment for IPLC (International Private Leased Circuits) Services does not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9 of the Income Tax Act, and that the assessee is entitled to a deduction under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan examined whether the payment made by the assessee for...

Delhi High Court Allows Consolidated Appeal Against Single GST Demand Order Covering Multiple Financial Years

The Delhi High Court has allowed the filing of a consolidated appeal in a matter where a 'common and single' order was issued, although the demand pertained to multiple financial years. In an order dated November 18, 2025, the Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain allowed the Petitioner to take recourse to a single consolidated appeal...

Kerala High Court Grants Interim Protection To 'Bokashi Bucket' Mark, Bars Sale Of Identical Compost Bins

The Kerala High Court has put a temporary restraint on a Kozhikode-based business from making or selling compost bins using the name “Bokashi Bucket,” after finding that the term is a registered trademark owned by Global Pharmaceuticals. A single bench of Justice S Manu passed the order on November 18, 2025, overturning a Additional District Court order refusing to grant protection to...

Income Tax Act | Refund Can't Be Withheld U/S 245 Unless Department Establishes Tax Liability: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court stated that the Income Tax Department cannot withhold a refund under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, unless it establishes tax liability. The Bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury observed that it is true that Section 245 of the said Act authorises the Income Tax Department to set off a refund against remaining tax payable. Unfortunately, in this...

IGST ITC Declared In GSTR-9 Can Be Set Off Against Tax Demand If Missed In Monthly GSTR-3B: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has stated that IGST (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) ITC (Input Tax Credit) declared in GSTR-9 can be set off against tax demand if missed in the monthly GSTR-3B. Justice Om Narayan Rai bench observed that the appellate authority did not justify why the IGST ITC declared in GSTR-9 could not be set off against the tax demand. In this case,...

“Shall Endeavour” Clause In Construction/Commercial Contracts Can Create Enforceable Obligations: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has observed that the “shall endeavour” clause can amount to an enforceable obligation in the context of construction contracts. While mere failure to achieve revenue projections does not constitute a breach of the “shall endeavour” clause but not making best efforts to achieve projections in the business plan amounts to a breach of the clause. Facts...

Single Partner In A Firm Cannot Invoke Arbitration Without Explicit Authority From Other Partners: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that one partner of a partnership firm cannot, without explicit authorisation from the other partners, invoke an arbitration clause or seek appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.Justice S. Manu, delivered the judgment in an arbitration request.The arbitration request was filed by a partner of M/s P...

Arbitration | No Review Or Appeal Lies Against Order Appointing Arbitrator : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a review or appeal from an order of appointment of an arbitrator is impermissible.“Once an arbitrator is appointed, the arbitral process must proceed unhindered. There is no statutory provision for review or appeal from an order under Section 11, which reflects a conscious legislative choice.”, the Court held, while setting aside the Patna High Court's...

GST Authorities Cannot Act Against Transporter Of Goods When Genuine E-Way Bill Present: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that under GST Act, the department cannot proceed against an assessee for transport of goods, if a genuine e-way bill is present along with the consignment. Justice Piyush Agarwal held that this would be especially impermissible if the validity of the e-way bill was not disputed by the authorities. “Once the goods in question is duly accompanying...