Introduction A recurring question under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) framework is — when does the limitation period for filing an appeal actually start? Is it from the date the order is uploaded on the GST portal, or from the date the order is communicated to the assessee? Courts across India have now clarified this position, holding that the period of limitation for filing an appeal begins only from the date the order is communicated to the assessee, and not from the date of uploading on the portal. How Courts Interpret the Start of Limitation Under GST High Courts Continue Reading
Background of the case The case involved a cheque issued by the accused, Mahdoom Bawa Bahrudeen Noorul, in favour of Kaveri Plastics for ₹1 crore. Upon presentation, the cheque was dishonoured. As required under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), the complainant issued a statutory demand notice. However, the notice mistakenly demanded ₹2 crores instead of the actual cheque amount of ₹1 crore. This discrepancy became the focal point of the dispute. Issue Involved The key issue before the Supreme Court was: - Whether a demand notice under Section 138 NI Act is valid if the Continue Reading
Delhi High Court Restrains Rupa Publications: Trade Dress Protection for EBC’s Coat-Pocket Constitution Edition INTRODUCTION The Delhi High Court recently delivered an important ruling in EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Rupa Publications India Pvt. Ltd., where it restrained Rupa Publications from publishing and selling its red-and-black coat-pocket edition of the Constitution. This case highlights the growing importance of trade dress protection and the application of passing off principles in the Indian publishing industry. BACKGROUND EBC (Eastern Book Company) is a reputed legal publisher known for its distinctive coat-pocket edition of the Constitution of India. Its edition features a recognizable Continue Reading
What principle did the Supreme Court affirm in Pernod Ricard v. Chhabra? The Court reaffirmed the anti-dissection rule in trademark law—marks must be compared in their entirety. Common or descriptive words like “Pride” cannot be monopolised unless they acquire distinctiveness. The Supreme Court of India, in its recent judgment dated 14 August 2025, delivered an important ruling in the matter of Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra (Civil Appeal No. 10638 of 2025). The case sheds light on how courts view common words in composite trademarks and the standards for granting interim injunctions in trademark disputes. Background Continue Reading
Introduction In a landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court has stepped in to protect the personality rights of Aishwarya Rai Bachchan. The Court issued an interim injunction preventing the unauthorized use of her name, image, voice, initials (ARB), and likeness—especially in the wake of AI-generated deepfakes and online impersonation. This case highlights how Indian courts are adapting to the challenges posed by technology, AI, and digital exploitation of celebrity identities. Background of the Case Aishwarya Rai Bachchan filed a suit after discovering her identity was being misused online. Offending activities included: Fake endorsements using her name and photos Sale of Continue Reading