Posts

Whether mobile service providers who pay excise duties on various items for setting up their business infrastructure can claim the benefit of CENVAT Credit?

By Jasmin Sokhi
Image
M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune (2024 INSC 880) Core Legal Issue that arose before the Supreme Court  The fundamental question arose before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether mobile service providers (MSPs), who pay excise duties on various items for setting up their business infrastructure — particularly for erection of mobile towers and peripherals like prefabricated buildings — can claim the benefit of CENVAT Credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (" CENVAT Rules "), for the purpose of payment of service tax on the output services rendered by them. Background and Conflicting High Court Decisions This case arose due to conflicting views taken by two High Courts: Bombay High Court Position The Bombay High Court in   Bharti Airtel Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise , Pune  (decided on August 26, 2014) held against the MSPs, ruling that mobile towers and other components do not fall within the definition of "capital goods...
Post a Comment
Read more

SC: IBC: Whether holders of Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares (CRPS) can initiate insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016

By Jasmin Sokhi
Image
  EPC Constructions India Limited v. M/s Matix Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited (Supreme Court, 28 October 2025) I. Brief Background:  In a recent significant judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court related to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of  EPC Constructions India Limited v. M/s Matix Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited  (judgment delivered 28 October 2025), the Court categorically held that holders of Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shares (CRPS) cannot initiate insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (" IBC ") as preference shareholders are investors, and not financial creditors.  In this case the Appellant (EPCC) had entered into an engineering and construction contract with the Respondent. The contract was for establishment of a fertiliser complex of ammonia and urea production. Two different off-shore supply contracts were also executed between the parties. In view thereof, a sum of 572 crore became due ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr. v. Amazon Technologies Inc: Granting unconditional stay of execution of the money decree under Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC?

By Jasmin Sokhi
Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr. v. Amazon Technologies Inc. Citation:   2025 INSC 1190 Petition:  Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19767 of 2025 Date of Judgment:  7 October 2025 Bench:  Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan  Note on Subject Matter:   it is a highly significant civil procedure judgment that addresses the scope of   unconditional stay of execution of money decrees   under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. The judgment extensively discusses Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for comparative purposes, making it relevant for arbitration practitioners as well.   Background Facts The plaintiffs (Lifestyle Equities C.V. and another), proprietors of the Beverly Hills Polo Club (BHPC) trademark, filed a trademark infringement suit against Amazon Technologies Inc. (the defendant) in the Delhi High Court. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant had been unlawfully using a mark identical...
Post a Comment
Read more