Important Intellectual Property, Arbitration and Corporate Law Judgments from Last Week
As the first week of 2022 draws in, we are again confronting the havoc of Covid-19. Early news reports indicate that the new virus strain may be relatively less fatal, but what happens finally, only time will tell.
Despite all this, the High Courts and the Apex Court resumed work in full swing, handing down many interesting judgments in the field of intellectual property, arbitration, competition law and other branches of commercial law. The most discussed judgment this week was the decision of the Delhi High Court in the Future Group case. I intend to track the genesis of the matter and an order-by-order chronology of this later next week. You can read the history of this case till Jan. 2021 here. ?
This article covers judgments predominantly from the Delhi, Madras High Courts and the Apex Court in form of short summaries with citations. Obviously, there is a selection bias in this for two reasons.
One, the probability of getting relevant judgments at these High Courts is greater. Second, the volume of commercial and corporate law decisions here is relatively higher. As a close observer, it is sad for me to see the decline in the number of such final decisions at the Bombay High Court in recent years. There are few recent judgments on this front but they couldn’t make it here because they were not handed down/ pronounced during the “last week”.
If you track international developments in corporate law, you must read about this “mini-landmark” judgment of the Delaware Court of Chancery on SPACs and the fiduciary duty of directors here.
Here are few important judgments from this week.
ARBITRATION
(i)?????????????????Supreme Court
Another indication why even arbitrable matters keep languishing for multiple years. A three judge bench of the Apex Court dealt with an appeal against an order of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner assailed the High Court’s disallowance of pre-claim interest on a compounded basis. The HP High Court cited that an Arbitrator cannot grant compound interest in absence of any contractual provision. Apex Court set aside the finding citing its judgment in the Hyder Consulting UK Ltd., matter.
(ii)???????????????Supreme Court
Yet another indication why even arbitrable matters keep languishing in Indian courts for multiple years. This genesis of this dispute is in the year 1993-94 (before the passage of A&C Act), the petition being filed in the year 2000. The main issue in this dispute was the validity of arbitral tribunal, which comprised of certain officers of the “Stationery Purchase Committee” of the government of MP, in light of the amendment in the A&C Act in 2015. Considering the delay, the Apex Court appointed the Arbitrator itself rather than remitting the matter back to the High Court. Phew!
(iii)??????????????Delhi High Court ?
In yet another judgment in this mega corporate battle, a single bench of the Delhi High Court examined when and to what extent can a court can declare continuation of arbitration proceedings as invalid. While dismissing the petitioner’s plea for interim relief, the High Court examined the jurisprudence around exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution as relates to proceedings under the A&C Act.
领英推荐
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS
(iv)?????????????Delhi High Court
The case involves a dispute relating to FRAND patents in the telecom sector. Petitioner, a tech company claims infringement of certain patents relating to telephony and filed an application seeking discovery of interrogatories and production of documents by a technology company. The application was allowed. Some observations on the CCA are of reference for IP lawyers.
(v)???????????????Delhi High Court
This case involves a dispute regarding trademark of a popular soft drink. Petitioner, a manufacturer of Ayurvedic and Unani medicines, sought a permanent injunction to prevent the defendant from infringing its trademark and passing off its products. The High Court noticed that products of both the parties had peaceful existence since more than two decades indicating that a simultaneous use would not prejudice the plaintiff. An interim relief was thus denied.
COMPETITION LAW
(vi)?????????????Madras High Court
A Company challenged reference of a matter by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to the Competition Commission of India in 2013. A single judge bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the matter, hence this Letter Patents Appeal. It was alleged that the reference was completely contrary to major procedural safeguards prescribed under the Competition Act. Further, it was argued that if an underlying reference is itself illegal, the order by the Regulator itself lacks any legal sanctity. Examining all the facets, the Madras HC allowed the CCI to proceed with the matter.
As the investigation was completed and an order finalized by the CCI, a single judge bench of the High Court had directed the regulator to keep the order under a sealed cover. The Division Bench has now allowed the CCI to proceed, and the other parties to exercise their rights in accordance with law. This judgment does a good analysis of jurisprudence around the powers of a High Court in such matter on the basis of past precedents.
Thanks for reading. Stay safe during the pandemic. ?
Views personal. For academic purposes only.
?