Madras

LSI City/Bench

Madhampatty_Thangavelu_Hospitality_Private_Limited.pdf

LSI: Act/Rules/Regulations/Code

LSI: Applicant/Petitioner/Appellant Name

Marico Ltd.

HC: Posts hashtagging Company’s name don’t disparage brand; Denies injunction citing insufficient evidence

swati.durkar@taxsutra.com — Mon, 01 Dec 2025 09:58:24 +0000

HC: Posts hashtagging Company’s name don’t disparage brand; Denies injunction citing insufficient evidence swati.durkar@t… Mon, 01/12/2025 - 15:28

Conclusion

Madras HC dismisses Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.’s (Plaintiff, operating a catering business under the brand “Madhampatty Pakashala”) application seeking interim injunction against the Defendant in a suit alleging disparagement of Plaintiff’s trademark and damage to goodwill by the Defendant via social-media posts; Plaintiff contended that Defendant’s interviews, videos and posts where she hashtagged the name “Madhampatty Pakashala” while speaking about her personal relationship with one of the company’s directors had caused severe reputational harm and cancellation of catering orders, however, the Defendant argued that her statements concerned only the individual director, not the Plaintiff-company, and that the Plaintiff was misusing the company to shield the said director; W.r.t. the issue as to whether the Defendant’s relationship-related posts tagging Plaintiff’s company could cause irreparable harm, observing that disparagement involves portraying something as of little worth and that hashtags merely identify or group online content by topic, Court inter alia explains that “Hashtag is added to a digital content to identify it as concerning a specific topic…The meaning and usage of # given in various search engine and dictionaries would only show that # is used with a word only to identify the contents on the same topic and to get similar contents.”; On facts, finding that the Plaintiff has failed to establish that disparaging statements made by the Defendant against the said Madhampatty Rangaraj before various social media platforms has caused revenue loss to them, and further noting that the Plaintiff provided a typed list or cancelled events but there is no pleading and detail as to who had booked, why it was cancelled, etc., Court remarks that “In the absence of any vital details and particulars, the relief sought by the plaintiff cannot be granted. Assuming for a moment that these allegations are true, the same are not supported by any document.”; Thus, referring to batch of judgments on disparagement and holding that Plaintiff has not prima facie established that the Defendant has given statements and uploaded videos by hashtagging Plaintiff’s name with a view to cause injury to Plaintiff’s business and that the Plaintiff sustained revenue loss, as a result of the statements given against one of the directors, HC concludes that “When the plaintiff has not established a case for temporary injunction, the same cannot be entertained.”

Cases Reference

2025-11-25

Attachments

Rate:

Weekly Digest

Off

Exclude from search

Off

The judgment was delivered by Justice N. Senthilkumar.

Senior Advocate P.S. Raman appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff, whereas the Defendant was represented by Senior Advocate S. Prabhakaran.

Acts/Rules and Section No./Clauses

News Flash

Off

Litigation Tracker

Off

Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs. Joy Crizildaa & Ors.

Alert or Update

Alert

Case Reference

Judge Designation Store

{"156585":{"site":"89520","paragraph_target_id":"225844"}}

Publish without analysis

Off

EY LEGISLATION,SECTION AND SUBSECTION

Add Taxsutra Logo

Off

LSI Judge Name

Justice N. Senthilkumar.

Add Lsi logo

Senior Advocate P.S. Raman

Joy Crizildaa & Ors.

Senior Advocate S. Prabhakaran.

LSI Citation

LSI-1735-HC-2025-(MAD)

LSI Judiciary Level

LSI City/Bench

Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Pvt. Ltd

LSI: Act/Rules/Regulations/Code

LSI: Applicant/Petitioner/Appellant Name

HC: Arbitrator not empowered to pierce corporate veil to bind ‘non-party’; Partly quashes award

swati.durkar@taxsutra.com — Fri, 28 Nov 2025 11:36:30 +0000

HC: Arbitrator not empowered to pierce corporate veil to bind ‘non-party’; Partly quashes award swati.durkar@t… Fri, 28/11/2025 - 17:06

Conclusion

Madras HC holds that an Arbitrator will not have the power to extend the scope of arbitral proceedings and include persons, who have not consented to arbitrate, and remarks that, "Ex consequenti, an Arbitrator will not have the power to pierce the corporate veil so as to bind another entity, which was not a party to the agreement"; Specifying that the Arbitral Tribunal’s jurisdiction is confined by the arbitration agreement, HC remarks that, “Even in a case of determining as to whether one entity is the alter ego of the other, this is conceptually the same like lifting the corporate veil. This exercise can never be done by the Arbitral Tribunal, which is a creature under an agreement with a limited jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties to the agreement as per the terms and conditions of the agreement.”; Court further opines that the Arbitral Tribunal can't award an amount, which it may think just to a party in the interest of justice, and underscores that there must be a basis for fixing the quantum of damages subject to the party properly pleading and proving the claim; Moreover, HC reiterates that a mere breach of the contract will not automatically result in payment of damages unless a party is able to show that such loss or damage had arisen naturally in the usual course of things from such breach and that the breach must necessarily be coupled with some loss or damage, which resulted in an actionable claim for damages, thus, a breach without injury or loss is, therefore, not actionable per se; In conclusion, HC partly sets aside the award passed by the Arbitrator, and directs Respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 2.50 cr. along with interest

Cases Reference

2025-11-26

Attachments

Sugesan_Transport_Pvt_Ltd_.pdf

Rate:

Weekly Digest

Off

Exclude from search

Off

The order was passed by Justice N. Anand Venkatesh.

Advocate Nithyaesh Natraj appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, whereas the Respondent was represented by Advocate J. Ravikumar.

Acts/Rules and Section No./Clauses

News Flash

Off

Litigation Tracker

Off

Sugesan Transport Pvt. Ltd. vs. E.C. Bose & Company Pvt. Ltd.

Alert or Update

Alert

Case Reference

Judge Designation Store

{"125888":{"site":"89518","paragraph_target_id":"143041"}}

Publish without analysis

Off

EY LEGISLATION,SECTION AND SUBSECTION

Add Taxsutra Logo

Off

Sub Module

LSI Judge Name

Add Lsi logo

Advocate Nithyaesh Natraj

E.C. Bose & Company Pvt. Ltd.

Advocate J. Ravikumar.

LSI Citation

LSI-1731-HC-2025-(MAD)

LSI Judiciary Level

LSI City/Bench

Sugesan Transport Pvt. Ltd

LSI: Act/Rules/Regulations/Code

LSI: Applicant/Petitioner/Appellant Name

HC: Affirming narrow scope of Sec. 34, dismisses plea for quashing arbitral award; Upholds Single Judge order

swati.durkar@taxsutra.com — Tue, 18 Nov 2025 08:44:43 +0000

HC: Affirming narrow scope of Sec. 34, dismisses plea for quashing arbitral award; Upholds Single Judge order swati.durkar@t… Tue, 18/11/2025 - 14:14

Conclusion

Madras HC Division Bench dismisses appeal challenging a Single Judge order rejecting the Appellants' (being Sri Lakshmi Hotel Pvt. Ltd. and its MD) application u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act, against an award passed in favour of Sriram City Union Finance Ltd. (Respondent 1), thereby affirming the narrow and limited scope of Sec. 34; Notes that - (i) the appellants availed a loan facility from the Sriram City Union Finance Ltd. (Respondent 1) under two agreements and subsequently committed default in payment of installments, owing to which he first Respondent 1 invoked arbitration proceedings, (ii) the Arbitrator passed an award, partly allowing the claim, and (iii) Single Judge confirmed the award; As to Appellants' submission that the agreement was fabricated and though the Appellants signed the same, it was done when the columns/blanks in the agreement were unfilled and were subsequently filled behind their back, without their knowledge to suit Respondent 1's requirement, Court observes that all the issues were also framed by the learned Arbitrator and were dealt with elaborately and that is the reason why, the learned Single Judge also dismissed the Original Petition rightly holding that Sec. 34(2) of the Arbitration Act is narrow in scope and doesn't permit a re-appreciation of evidence; Remarking that it is not the Appellants' case that the issues raised by them were not considered and were not properly appreciated, HC underscores the limited power conferred u/s 34, and opines opines that "Therefore...the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the Original Petition, and we are not inclined to interfere with the same.", as the Appellants failed to establish that the award and the order are against the public policy or shocks the conscience of the Court

Cases Reference

2020-01-07

Attachments

Sri_Lakshmi_Hotel_Pvt__Ltd____1_.pdf

Rate:

Weekly Digest

Off

Exclude from search

Off

The order was passed by a Division Bench of Justice M.M.Sundresh and Justice Krishnan Ramasamy.

Acts/Rules and Section No./Clauses

News Flash

Off

Litigation Tracker

Off

Sri Lakshmi Hotel Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Sriram City Union Finance Ltd. & Ors.

Alert or Update

Alert

Case Reference

Judge Designation Store

{"125602":{"site":"89518","paragraph_target_id":"142755"},"126365":{"site":"89518","paragraph_target_id":"143518"}}

Publish without analysis

Off

EY LEGISLATION,SECTION AND SUBSECTION

Add Taxsutra Logo

Off

Sub Module

Companies Act

LSI Judge Name

Justice M.M.Sundresh

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy

Add Lsi logo

Sriram City Union Finance Ltd. & Ors.

LSI Citation

LSI-951-HC-2020-(MAD)

LSI Judiciary Level

LSI City/Bench

Sri Lakshmi Hotel Pvt. Ltd.

LSI: Act/Rules/Regulations/Code

LSI: Applicant/Petitioner/Appellant Name

HC: Sets aside arbitral awards re-writing contract, misapplying ‘change in law’ clause

swati.durkar@taxsutra.com — Wed, 12 Nov 2025 13:08:30 +0000

HC: Sets aside arbitral awards re-writing contract, misapplying ‘change in law’ clause swati.durkar@t… Wed, 12/11/2025 - 18:38

Conclusion

Madras HC allows petitions filed by Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. (Petitioner) u/s 34 of Arbitration Act, and sets aside two arbitral awards in disputes with contractor Transtonnelstroy - Afcons JV, holding that the awards are in conflict with the express terms of the contract and suffer from patent illegality; HC finds that the Arbitral Tribunal’s interpretation of CPA-32 (price variation formula) and CPA-37 (reimbursement for cost variations arising from changes in law) was not in consonance with Sec 28(3) of the Arbitration Act and that the Tribunal has “...virtually re-written the contracts.”; HC holds that a “harmonious reading of Sub-Clauses 13.16.1 to 13.16.5” is mandatory, while underscoring that CPA-32 and CPA-37 operate in different fields and that once the contractor adopted CPA-32 and received substantial amounts (approx. Rs. 130 cr. and Rs. 166 cr.) towards price variation for labour, steel, cement and fuel, any additional cost due to change in law could only be claimed under Sub-clause 13.16.5 and is strictly limited to changes in customs duty, excise duty and output TNVAT to the extent not covered by the price variation formula; Crucially, observing that the amended Rule 7 of the TNMMC Rules (imposing cost of minerals) does not fall within Sub-clause 13.16.5 and that the contractor neither pleaded nor proved that the new levy impacted performance with increased cost as required under Sub-clause 13.16.2, Court finds the Tribunal’s view that denying adjustment would make Sub-Clause 13.16.2 "redundant" as neither “possible nor plausible”; In conclusion, applying the SC ratio in Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd, HC holds that the interpretation "...is not even a possible view and that the awards must be held to be perverse.”

Cases Reference

2025-11-07

Attachments

Chennai_Metro_Rail_Ltd__1_.pdf

Rate:

Weekly Digest

Off

Exclude from search

Off

The judgment was delivered by Justice N. Anand Venkatesh.

Advocate Arjun Suresh and Special Counsel Yashodh Vardhan appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, whereas the Respondent was represented by Special Counsel P.V. Balasubramaniam.

Acts/Rules and Section No./Clauses

News Flash

Off

Litigation Tracker

Off

Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. vs. Transtonnelstroy - Afcons JV.

Alert or Update

Alert

Case Reference

Judge Designation Store

{"125888":{"site":"89518","paragraph_target_id":"143041"}}

Publish without analysis

Off

EY LEGISLATION,SECTION AND SUBSECTION

Add Taxsutra Logo

Off

Sub Module

LSI Judge Name

Add Lsi logo

Advocate Arjun Suresh

Advocate Yashodh Vardhan

Transtonnelstroy - Afcons JV.

Senior Advocate P.V. Balasubramaniam

LSI Citation

LSI-1647-HC-2025-(MAD)

LSI Judiciary Level

LSI City/Bench

Veeyar_Engineers_and_Contractors__1_.pdf

LSI: Act/Rules/Regulations/Code

LSI: Applicant/Petitioner/Appellant Name

Chennai Metro Rail Ltd.

HC: Quashes "slipshod" arbitral award having 'unintelligible' findings, no reasons, in Contractor-Railway dispute

swati.durkar@taxsutra.com — Wed, 12 Nov 2025 10:29:52 +0000

HC: Quashes "slipshod" arbitral award having 'unintelligible' findings, no reasons, in Contractor-Railway dispute swati.durkar@t… Wed, 12/11/2025 - 15:59

Conclusion

Madras HC allows Sec. 34 petition filed by a Civil Engineering Contractor (Petitioner) against a common award passed by the Sole Arbitrator entitling Petitioner for Rs. 17.28 lakh as against the claimed amount of Rs. 79.05 lakh, remarks that, “…it is quite unfortunate that the Sole Arbitrator has passed a slipshod Award...the present Award has been passed by an Arbitrator who is legally trained and therefore, this Court will expect the Award to meet legal standards. The same is thoroughly missing…”; HC notes that – (i) documents pertaining to only one claim petition had been considered and documents that were marked in two other claim petitions were not even relied upon and listed as documents in the Award, (ii) findings also lacked reasons and whatever stand was taken by the Southern Railway (Respondent) was merely reiterated by the Arbitrator, (iii) the Arbitrator had not even rendered a finding as to who was responsible for delay that had occasioned in the contract and who committed the breach of contract, (iv) a general finding had been given towards all the claims which, were unintelligible; W.r.t. the Arbitrator’s finding that there was no malice on the part of the Petitioner and at the best, it was only a misrepresentation and therefore, the contract had become voidable and the Respondent had chosen to avoid the contract by terminating it, HC opines that, “This finding is too far fetched and in the absence of the Southern Railway proving the ground of the contract being vitiated by fraud or misrepresentation, it cannot be a matter of assumption and the said ground cannot be put against the petitioner.”; Moreover, Court asserts that, “When a party takes the ground of fraud, it must not only be specifically pleaded but it must also be proved if not to the extent of beyond reasonable doubts, but atleast something more than preponderance of probabilities. This is in view of the fact that fraud involves moral turpitude and it has a direct bearing on the character of the person.”; In conclusion, HC states that it is now too well settled that fraud vitiates the most solemn of proceedings, and once fraud is played by a party, the entire process gets vitiated and it becomes non est in the eye of law

Cases Reference

2025-11-03

Attachments

Rate:

Weekly Digest

Off

Exclude from search

Off

The order was passed by Justice N. Anand Venkatesh.

Senior Counsel Chithra Sampath along with Advocate G. Viswanathan appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, whereas the Respondents were represented by Senior Counsel V. Radhakrishnan and Standing Counsel M. Vijay Anand.

Acts/Rules and Section No./Clauses

News Flash

Off

Litigation Tracker

Off

Veeyar Engineers and Contractors vs. The General Manager & Ors.

Alert or Update

Alert

Case Reference

Judge Designation Store

{"125888":{"site":"89518","paragraph_target_id":"143041"}}

Publish without analysis

Off

EY LEGISLATION,SECTION AND SUBSECTION

Add Taxsutra Logo

Off

Sub Module

LSI Judge Name

Add Lsi logo

Senior Counsel Chithra Sampath

Advocate G. Viswanathan

General Manager

Senior Counsel V. Radhakrishnan

Standing Counsel M. Vijay Anand.

LSI Citation

LSI-1643-HC-2025-(MAD)

LSI Judiciary Level

LSI City/Bench

Veeyar Engineers and Contractors

LSI: Act/Rules/Regulations/Code

LSI: Applicant/Petitioner/Appellant Name

HC: Directs rectification of “ORIGINAL CHOICE” mark citing deceptive similarity with ABD’s TM “OFFICER’S CHOICE”

swati.durkar@taxsutra.com — Tue, 11 Nov 2025 11:37:40 +0000

HC: Directs rectification of “ORIGINAL CHOICE” mark citing deceptive similarity with ABD’s TM “OFFICER’S CHOICE” swati.durkar@t… Tue, 11/11/2025 - 17:07

Conclusion

Madras HC allows Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt Ltd.’s (Petitioner/ ABD) rectification petition assailing John Distillers Ltd.’s (Respondent/ JDL) mark “ORIGINAL CHOICE”, on finding it deceptively similar to Petitioner’s TM “OFFICER'S CHOICE”; Court inter alia rules that “…JDL's use of 'ORIGINAL CHOICE' is not a bona fide and honest, the mark is liable to be rectified. It cannot coexist to the detrimental of the lawful proprietor of 'OFFICER'S CHOICE'.”; Observing that “The existence of the mark 'ORIGINAL CHOICE' in the midst of opposition and objections/rectification cannot be termed as peaceful coexistence”, HC asserts that the adoption of the composite mark “ORIGINAL CHOICE”, presented in italics with the letters ‘O’ and ‘C’ prominently styled and combined as ‘OC’ in the label, was an intentional attempt to mislead customers of average intelligence and ordinary memory; Further, Court notes that IPAB’s findings in the rectification petition filed by the Petitioner were unsustainable as it failed to compare the rival marks in their entirety and it selectively examined only the two words and consciously omitted applying the dominant feature test; Lastly, applying the anti-dissection rule and the dominant feature test, HC holds that “…the two competing marks have some degree of similarity. Even the similarities between these two marks are faint, judicial pronouncement of Courts abroad and approved by the…Supreme Court…emphasize that the similarities to be viewed from the eyes of average consumer, who normally perceives a mark as a whole and does not proceed to analyse its various details.”, thereby setting aside the IPAB order

Cases Reference

2025-11-07

Attachments

Allied_Blenders_and_Distillers_Pvt_Ltd___1__0.pdf

Rate:

Weekly Digest

Off

Exclude from search

Off

The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar.

Senior Advocate P.S. Raman appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, whereas the Respondent was represented by Senior Advocate Sanjay Jain along with other Advocates and SPC T.V. Krishnamachari appeared on behalf of the IPAB and Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks.

Acts/Rules and Section No./Clauses

News Flash

Off

Litigation Tracker

Off

Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt Ltd. vs. Intellectual Property Appellate Board & Ors.

Alert or Update

Alert

Case Reference

Judge Designation Store

{"125867":{"site":"89520","paragraph_target_id":"143020"},"155760":{"site":"89520","paragraph_target_id":"223103"}}

Publish without analysis

Off

EY LEGISLATION,SECTION AND SUBSECTION

Add Taxsutra Logo

Off

LSI Judge Name

Justice G. Jayachandran

Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar.

Add Lsi logo

Senior Advocate P.S. Raman

The Intellectual Property Appellate Board & Ors.

ASG Sanjay Jain.

Advocate T.V. Krishnamachari

LSI Citation

LSI-1631-HC-2025-(MAD)

LSI Judiciary Level

LSI City/Bench

Allied Blenders and Distillers Ltd

LSI: Act/Rules/Regulations/Code

LSI: Applicant/Petitioner/Appellant Name

HC: Upholds RBI’s rejection of FEMA compounding-application basis ED's suspicion of serious money laundering

swati.durkar@taxsutra.com — Fri, 31 Oct 2025 12:07:49 +0000

HC: Upholds RBI’s rejection of FEMA compounding-application basis ED's suspicion of serious money laundering swati.durkar@t… Fri, 31/10/2025 - 17:37

Conclusion

Madras HC dismisses writ appeals filed by Advantage Strategic Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant), challenging an order that dismissed its writ petitions, which had contested RBI's decision to return the Appellant's applications for compounding alleged contraventions under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA); Notes that - (i) the alleged contravention involved Appellant's purchase and subsequent sale of shares in Vasan Health Care Pvt. Ltd., (ii) a key violation was the delayed filing of the mandatory Form FC-TRS (Foreign Currency Transfer of Shares) with the the authorised dealer bank for the Appellant, (iii) however, RBI returned the Appellant’s compounding application, citing advice from ED not to proceed with compounding and to send the case for adjudication; Rejecting Appellant’s argument that the RBI, as the Compounding Authority, should independently decide on the seriousness of the contravention and not merely act on the ED's advice, HC holds that the proviso to Rule 8(2) of the Foreign Exchange (Compounding Proceedings) Rules, 2000, clearly stipulates that where the ED is of the view that the proceedings relate to a serious contravention involving suspected money laundering, the Compounding Authority shall not proceed with the application and shall remit the case to the Adjudicating Authority for adjudication u/s 13 of FEMA; Thus, Court concludes that, “...it is not incumbent upon the Compounding Authority to form an independent opinion on the seriousness of the contravention when such a view has already been expressed by the Enforcement Directorate...the compounding authority was justified in returning the application for compounding when the Enforcement Directorate had informed that the proceedings initiated under Rule 4 of the Foreign Exchange (Compounding Proceedings) Rules, 2000, related to a serious contravention suspected of money laundering.”

Cases Reference

2025-10-15

Attachments

Advantage_Strategic_Consulting__P__Ltd___1_.pdf

Rate:

Weekly Digest

Off

Exclude from search

Off

The judgment was delivered by a Division bench of Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar.

Advocate N.R.R. Arun Natarajan appeared on behalf of the Appellant, whereas the Respondents were represented by Special PP N. Ramesh along with Advocates C.Mohan and A. Rexy Josephine Mary.

Acts/Rules and Section No./Clauses

News Flash

Off

Litigation Tracker

Off

Advantage Strategic Consulting Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant General Manager, RBI & Ors.

Alert or Update

Alert

Case Reference

Judge Designation Store

{"125950":{"site":"89518","paragraph_target_id":"143103"},"126209":{"site":"89518","paragraph_target_id":"143362"}}

Publish without analysis

Off

EY LEGISLATION,SECTION AND SUBSECTION

Add Taxsutra Logo

Off

Sub Module

Foreign Exchange Laws

LSI Judge Name

R. Suresh Kumar

Hemant Chandangoudarh.

Add Lsi logo

Advocate N.R.R. Arun Natarajan

Assistant General Manager, RBI & Ors.

Advocate N. Ramesh.

Advocate C. Mohan

Advocate A. Rexy Josephine Mary

LSI Citation

LSI-1588-HC-2025-(MAD)

LSI Judiciary Level

LSI City/Bench

Advantage Strategic Consulting Pvt. Ltd

LSI: Act/Rules/Regulations/Code

LSI: Applicant/Petitioner/Appellant Name

HC: Corporate Debtor's criminal liability can't be transferred to new management; Quashes proceedings against Directors

swati.durkar@taxsutra.com — Fri, 31 Oct 2025 10:36:39 +0000

HC: Corporate Debtor's criminal liability can't be transferred to new management; Quashes proceedings against Directors swati.durkar@t… Fri, 31/10/2025 - 16:06

Conclusion

Madras HC allows criminal petitions filed by the Directors (Petitioners) of Dhanalakshmi Paper Mills and Srinivasa Garments (sister concerns of KG Group), challenging the chargesheet wherein the prosecution alleged offences under IPC against the accused directors concerning non-payment for coal supplied to companies under the KG Group; Prosecution argued that the Petitioners had allegedly suppressed the ongoing CIRP proceedings against Dhanalakshmi Paper Mills before the NCLT and later started Srinivasa Garments using the same GST number, per contra, the Petitioners submitted that they had no connection with the day-to-day affairs of the firm or the original coal transactions since they were not involved in the old management, hence they claimed that the threat allegation was vague and unsupported by evidence since they only participated in the CIRP and were not involved in any coal purchases; Court emphasizes that Sec. 32A of the IBC extinguishes the criminal liability of a Corporate Debtor once a resolution plan is approved by the NCLT and management changes, unless the new management includes the old promoters or persons involved in the offence, and adds that, “...once the resolution plan is accepted by the NCLT and orders are passed and the Corporate Debtor gets into hands of the new management, all the past liabilities including the criminal liability of the Corporate Debtor gets wiped off and the new Management takes over the company with clean slate.”; Further, relying on SC’s ruling in Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka vs. Tourism Finance Corporation of India, HC rules that, “The criminal liability of a company cannot be transferred to another company or the new management…when Dhanalakshmi Paper Mills have been put into insolvency process before the NCLT, merely because A4 and A5 participated in the resolution process, it cannot be construed that the criminal liability is transferred to the new Management...Therefore, these Petitioners cannot be implicated for the liability due to the purchase of coal or default of payment made by...Dhanalakshmi Paper Mills.”; Lastly, highlighting that to constitute an offence of criminal intimidation, there must be real threat to life and merely uttering some words in financial transactions, may not amount to threat to life, HC holds that continuing the prosecution against the Petitioners is a sheer abuse of process of law, and therefore, quashes the criminal proceedings against Petitioners

Cases Reference

2025-10-14

Attachments

Valluvanur_Subramaniya_Pattabiraman__1_.pdf

Rate:

Weekly Digest

Off

Exclude from search

Off

The order was passed by Justice N. Sathish Kumar.

Senior Advocates V. Karthik and Jayesh B. Dolia appeared on behalf of the Petitioners, whereas the Respondent was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor K.M.D. Muhilan.

Acts/Rules and Section No./Clauses

News Flash

Off

Litigation Tracker

Off

Valluvanur Subramaniya Pattabiraman & Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu.

Alert or Update

Alert

Case Reference

Judge Designation Store

{"125782":{"site":"89518","paragraph_target_id":"142935"}}

Publish without analysis

Off

EY LEGISLATION,SECTION AND SUBSECTION

Add Taxsutra Logo

Off

Sub Module

IBC

LSI Judge Name

Justice N. Sathish Kumar

Add Lsi logo

Senior Advocates V. Karthik

Advocate Jayesh B. Dolia

The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Additional Public Prosecutor K.M.D. Muhilan.

LSI Citation

LSI-1576-HC-2025-(MAD)

LSI Judiciary Level

LSI City/Bench

Valluvanur Subramaniya Pattabiraman & Ors

LSI: Act/Rules/Regulations/Code

LSI: Applicant/Petitioner/Appellant Name

HC: Deliberate non-participation constitutes waiver of right; Enforces foreign arbitral-award against 'recalcitrant' party

swati.durkar@taxsutra.com — Wed, 29 Oct 2025 05:42:27 +0000

HC: Deliberate non-participation constitutes waiver of right; Enforces foreign arbitral-award against 'recalcitrant' party swati.durkar@t… Wed, 29/10/2025 - 11:12

Conclusion

Madras HC allows petition filed by Viterra B.V. (Petitioner) u/s 47 to 49 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, seeking enforcement of a foreign arbitral award against S.K.T. Textile Mills (Respondent) to have the award executed as a court decree, rules that, “The written communication made by a party refusing to participate in the proceedings constitutes a waiver of their own right to present their case and to receive further notices regarding the procedural steps taken in the arbitration.”; Notes that - (i) the foreign arbitral award was passed by a 3-member Arbitral Tribunal under the English Arbitration Act, 1996 by International Cotton Association Ltd. (ICA), UK as per the cotton transshipment contract signed by the parties, which was governed by the laws of England and stated that the seat of arbitration was at Liverpool, and (ii) the Respondent refused to participate in the Arbitration proceedings, arguing that no signed contract or arbitration agreement existed between the parties; Rejecting the Respondent’s contention as a ‘hyper-technical plea’, HC highlights that the issuance of a No Objection Certificate, which explicitly referred to the contract number, clearly reflected a valid contract and arbitration agreement, and moreover, since the Respondent consciously chose not to participate in the ICA arbitration despite due notice, such conduct cannot be construed as an inability to present the case u/s 48(1)(b); Further, drawing strength from SC rulings like Cox & Kings Ltd., Court remarks that, “The ground u/s 48(1)(b) of the Act will not be available to a party, which makes a conscious and deliberate decision not to participate in the arbitral proceedings after receiving due notice of their commencement…To hold otherwise would allow a recalcitrant party to strategically boycott foreign arbitrations and thereafter prevent an award holder at the enforcement stage, which will undermine the efficacy of international commercial arbitration and India’s treaty obligation under the New York Convention.”; Lastly, holding the foreign award enforceable as a decree of the Court, HC directs the Respondent to pay the awarded amount with interest and costs of Rs. 2.5 lakh to the Petitioner and clarifies that the burden is on the resisting party to prove a fundamental procedural defect, which was not met in this case

Cases Reference

2025-10-17

Attachments

Viterra_B_V___1_.pdf

Rate:

Weekly Digest

Off

Exclude from search

Off

The order was passed by Justice N. Anand Venkatesh.

Advocate Rahul Balaji appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, whereas the Respondent was represented by Advocates C. Manishankar and B.A. Sujay Prasanna.

Acts/Rules and Section No./Clauses

News Flash

Off

Litigation Tracker

Off

Viterra B.V. vs. S.K.T. Textile Mills.

Alert or Update

Alert

Case Reference

Judge Designation Store

{"125888":{"site":"89518","paragraph_target_id":"143041"}}

Publish without analysis

Off

EY LEGISLATION,SECTION AND SUBSECTION

Add Taxsutra Logo

Off

Sub Module

LSI Judge Name

Add Lsi logo

Advocate Rahul Balaji.

S.K.T. Textile Mills.

Advocate C. Manishankar

Advocate B.A. Sujay Prasanna

LSI Citation

LSI-1561-HC-2025-(MAD)

LSI Judiciary Level

LSI City/Bench