Follow us


Orders and Judgments Duration December 23, 2019 -January 07, 2020



  • P Singaravelan & Ors Etc Etc v. The District Collector, Tiruppur and DT & Ors Etc Etc
    Non-Speaking Order dismissing Special Leave Petition (SLP) does not attract doctrine of Merger, reiterates Supreme Court (SC) -18 December 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Supreme Court (SC) has reiterated that a non-speaking order dismissing a Special Leave Petition (SPL), does not constitute a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution, nor attracts the doctrine of merger.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • Shiur Sakhar Karkhana Pvt Ltd v. State Bank of India
    Ex-Parte Order of State Consumer Commission can be challenged before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) – 4 December 2019 (SUPREME COURT ORDER)
    The Supreme Court (SC) has held that an ex-parte order passed by State Consumer Commission can be challenged before the National Commission.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • Jindal Stainless Limited v. Moorgate Industries India Pvt Ltd
    Does failure to disclose sanction of scheme by High Court (HC) result in termination of the Arbitration proceedings? – Delhi HC answers– 23 December 2019 (DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Delhi High Court (HC) has held that failure of a party to an Arbitration proceeding to disclose the factum of sanction of a scheme under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 would not result in termination of the proceedings.
    The Judgment can be accessed at:


  • Dalmia Power Limited & Anr v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1, Trichy
    Revised Return can be Filed Belatedly by the Companies Incorporated under Schemes of Arrangement and Amalgamation – 18 December 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Supreme Court (SC) held that the companies incorporated under Schemes of Arrangement and Amalgamation can file revised return after the due date because delay occurred on account of the time taken to obtain the sanction of the Schemes of Arrangement and Amalgamation from the NCLT.
    The Judgment can be accessed at:
  • Manish Kumar v. Union of India
    Plea in Supreme Court (SC) challenges provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC)Ordinance 2019 imposing conditions on Homebuyers’ Right– 6 January 2020 (SUPREME COURT PETITION)
    A writ Petition has been filed in Supreme Court (SC) challenging Section 3 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) (IBC) Ordinance, 2019 (Ordinance). The said provision, which adds certain provisos to Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and purports to set out new conditions for real estate allottees to approach the NCLT, is alleged to be ultra vires the Constitution of India and in violation of Articles 14 and 21. As per the Ordinance, there should be at least one hundred real estate allottees or ten percentage of the total number of allottees, which ever is lesser, to maintain an insolvency petition in respect of a real estate project.
    The Petition can be accessed at:


  • Competition Commission of India (CCI) nod for acquisition of stake in My Home Industries by group cos, promoter-27 December 2019 (CCI UPDATE)
    The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has approved the acquisition of shares in My Home Industries Private Ltd (My Home Industries) by My Home Constructions Private Ltd (MHCPL) and its affiliates. The proposed combination envisages acquisition of 50 per cent of shareholding of My Home Industries by MHCPL, Jupally Real Estate Developers Private Ltd (JREDPL) and Rameswar Rao Jupally. MHCPL and JREDPL are part of My Home Group based out of Hyderabad. Rameswar Rao Jupally is the promoter of My Home Group, which has interests in construction and real estate development, manufacturing and supply of grey cement, power consultancy, power generation, power trading, transportation and logistics, media and broadcasting, pharmaceutical and education.
    The full text of the article can be accessed at:


  • Ferid Allani v. Union of India & Ors
    A computer program which makes ‘technical contribution’ patentable, not hit by Sec 3(k) of Patents Act-16 December 2019 (DELHI HIGH COURT ORDER)
    The Delhi High Court (HC) has iterated that not all computer programs are hit by the bar under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act as when such programs demonstrate a ‘technical effect’ or a ‘technical contribution’, they are patentable. The averment was made by a Single Judge Bench while dealing with a challenge against an order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The Petitioner, who was a citizen of Tunisia, had filed a patent application seeking grant of patent for a “method and device for accessing information sources and services on the web”. The claims in the patent consisted of both method claims and device claims. The application was rejected by the Patent Office on the ground that while eight claims were hit by Section 3(k) of the Patent Act, the other claims lacked novelty. The Petitioner’s appeal before the IPAB was also dismissed. IPAB opined that the patent application did not disclose any ‘technical effect’ or ‘technical advancement’. Aggrieved by the rejection, the Petitioner moved the High Court. The Petitioner argued that the rejection of the patent application was incorrect as the patent being sought was not for a mere software which was to be simply loaded on to a computer. It was argued that his patent application disclosed an invention which afforded more efficient database search strategies, more economical use of memory or higher speed, etc. This, it was argued, constituted “technical effect” which made the rejection of the patent in contravention to the law and the relevant guidelines. As far as Section 3(k) was concerned, the Court stated that the bar on patenting was in respect of `computer programs per se….’ and not on all inventions which were based on computer programs. Remarking that it was the effect of the computer programs which constituted the test of patentability, the Court observed, “In today’s digital world, when most inventions are based on computer programs, it would be retrograde to argue that all such inventions would not be patentable. Innovation in the field of artificial intelligence, blockchain technologies and other digital products would be based on computer programs, however the same would not become nonpatentable inventions – simply for that reason. It is rare to see a product which is not based on a computer program. Whether they are cars and other automobiles, microwave ovens, washing machines, refrigerators, they all have some sort of computer programs in-built in them. Thus, the effect that such programs produce including in digital and electronic products is crucial in determining the test of patentability.” Patent applications in these fields would have to be examined to see if they result in a “technical contribution”, it added. Further elaborating on the usage of the term ‘per se’ in Section 3(k), the Court said, “The words ‘per se’ were incorporated so as to ensure that genuine inventions which are developed, based on computer programs are not refused patents.” The Court further stated that the meaning of ‘technical effect’ was no longer in dispute owing to the development of judicial precedents and patent office practices internationally and in India. The Court, therefore, deemed it appropriate to direct the Patent Office to re-examine the Petitioner’s application in the light of the observations made in the present order, the judicial precedents, settled practices of patent offices as well as the Guidelines on Computer Related Inventions.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • Shyam Steel Industries Limited v. Shyam Sel and Power Limited & Anr
    No infallible principle that god’s name is not registrable as Trademark-24 December 2019 (CALCUTTA HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Calcutta High Court (HC) has observed that there is no ‘infallible’ principle that God’s name is not registrable as a trademark.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • Tetra Pak India Pvt Ltd v. The Dy. Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) II
    No Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on Purchase of Copyrighted Software Licenses-9 September 2019 (ITAT ORDER)
    The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Pune held that No Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) is required on purchases of copyrighted software licenses.
    The Order can be accessed at: