April 2026

The Bombay High Court held that although an amalgamation order may be treated as a conveyance under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, stamp duty must be computed strictly in the manner prescribed under Article 25(da).

The Court clarified that where no shares are issued or allotted and no monetary consideration is paid, internal accounting entries such as goodwill, share premium, reduction of share capital, or profit and loss adjustments cannot be treated as transaction value or consideration for stamp duty.

The Court rejected the State's attempt to rely on accounting entries as a basis for duty computation and held that such figures do not represent real payment or consideration.

The NCLT Ahmedabad held that where a statutory authority directs a bank to place lien on or freeze the bank accounts of a corporate debtor during moratorium, and the bank acts upon such direction, the action amounts to enforcement against the corporate debtor and is barred under Section 14(1)(a) of the IBC.

The Tribunal observed that statutory authorities may determine dues, but they cannot enforce recovery outside the IBC mechanism once CIRP has commenced. Section 238 of the IBC gives overriding effect to the Code over inconsistent recovery powers under other laws.

The Tribunal directed the bank to defreeze the accounts and allow the funds to be used for running the corporate debtor as a going concern.

The NCLT Mumbai held that a liquidator cannot proceed to auction property unless there is cogent evidence that documents relied upon by a third party, such as an MOU, allotment letter, and possession letter, are false, ingenuine, or created to defeat the corporate debtor's ownership.

The Tribunal clarified that the powers of the resolution professional and liquidator extend only to assets owned by the corporate debtor. The IBC does not authorise the RP or liquidator to take control of third-party assets merely because some records show the corporate debtor's name.

The Tribunal found that society maintenance records were not conclusive proof of ownership. It also noted that the liquidator had not properly inquired into the validity of the third-party documents. The Tribunal protected the applicant's possession and restrained auction of the property as part of the liquidation estate, subject to final adjudication by a competent forum.

The NCLAT held that a purchaser of shares in a court-monitored liquidation process steps into the shoes of the transferring shareholder and may be bound by the rights, obligations, and liabilities attached to the shares, including non-compete obligations under a joint venture/share purchase agreement.

The Tribunal interpreted the Articles of Association and held that where share transfer conditions require the transferee to accept obligations of the transferor, the transferee cannot later deny such obligations. The NCLAT further observed that shareholder agreements may remain binding if they are not inconsistent with the Articles.

The Tribunal placed emphasis on protecting the interest of the company under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, particularly where a competitor seeks to acquire shares and act contrary to existing non-compete obligations.

The Delhi High Court held that unauthorised use of copyrighted software can be proved through built-in technological detection mechanisms, such as systems that record infringement hits, licence keys, and MAC addresses.

The defendant failed to file a written statement despite service. The Court relied on Order VIII Rule 10 CPC and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules to treat the plaintiff's pleadings and evidence as admitted.

The Court accepted the plaintiff's technical evidence showing unauthorised use of SOLIDWORKS software on multiple computer systems. It held that continued silence to legal notices and failure to obtain genuine licences supported the finding of infringement.

The Telangana High Court held that a shareholder of a corporate debtor cannot assert independent proprietary or contractual rights over project assets or leasehold rights held by the company.

The Court observed that once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31 of the IBC, it becomes binding on all stakeholders, including shareholders and the State. The transfer of control pursuant to an approved resolution plan is not a fresh distribution of State largesse but implementation of the statutory insolvency process.

The Court further held that dilution or extinguishment of shareholder interest through insolvency resolution is a consequence of law and does not amount to unconstitutional deprivation of property under Article 300A.

The Delhi High Court held that the bar of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 does not apply where urgent interim relief is sought in a trademark infringement and passing off action.

The Court considered the plaintiff's registered rights, goodwill, reputation, and allegations that the defendants were using deceptively similar marks/logos/trade dress in relation to allied commercial services. The Court held that where urgent injunctive relief is necessary to prevent confusion, dilution, or irreparable harm, the plaintiff may directly approach the Commercial Court.

The Court granted ex parte ad interim relief after finding a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable injury.

The Delhi High Court held that where the plaintiff is a prior user and prior registered proprietor of an inherently distinctive mark, and the defendant subsequently adopts a phonetically, visually, and structurally similar mark for allied goods sold through identical trade channels, a prima facie case of infringement and passing off is made out.

The Court found the marks "MARC" and "MARQ" to be deceptively similar. It held that the use of a house mark such as "Flipkart" does not automatically eliminate likelihood of confusion, especially where the impugned mark remains prominent.

The Court also reaffirmed that an appellate court should not interfere with a trial court's interim injunction unless the exercise of discretion is perverse or legally unsustainable.

The Supreme Court held that a foreign judgment sought to be enforced in India under Section 44A read with Section 13 CPC is not conclusive or enforceable where it was rendered by summary judgment despite the existence of bona fide triable issues.

The Court examined whether the English judgment was a judgment on merits and whether the procedure adopted complied with natural justice. It found that the judgment debtor had raised triable issues supported by contemporaneous documents such as balance sheets and board minutes.

The Court held that summary disposal was inappropriate where fuller investigation could affect the outcome. Denial of leave to defend, despite genuine factual disputes, meant the judgment failed the tests under Section 13 CPC, particularly judgment on merits and natural justice.