DOES SPIC TOILET CLEANER BOTTLE RESEMBLES HARPIC TOILET CLEANER BOTTLE- CALCUTTA HIGH COURT’S DIVISION BENCH SET ASIDE THE INTERIM INJUNCTION TO USE SPIC CLEANER BOTTLE

 DOES SPIC TOILET CLEANER BOTTLE

 RESEMBLES HARPIC TOILET CLEANER

 BOTTLE-  CALCUTTA HIGH COURT’S

 DIVISION BENCH SET ASIDE THE

 INTERIM INJUNCTION TO USE SPIC 

CLEANER BOTTLE

RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PVT. LTD VS GODREJ CONSUMER PRODUCTS LTD.

THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

On February 27, 2026, the Calcutta High Court’s Division Bench set aside an ad-interim injunction that had restrained Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. from selling its “Spic” toilet cleaner.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd., the maker of Harpic, filed a suit alleging that Godrej’s Spic toilet cleaner infringed its trademark rights by using a similar bottle shape.

RECKITT ALLEGED THAT THE GODREJ’S ADVERTISEMENT AMOUNTED TO:

·       Disparagement of its product

·       Misleading comparative advertising

·       Trademark infringement / dilution

·       Unfair trade practice

INITIAL INJUNCTION:

 A single judge had granted an ad-interim injunction on February 25, 2026, preventing Godrej from selling Spic in the contested packaging.

DIVISION BENCH RULING:

The Bench lifted the restraint, holding that the injunction was improperly granted at the interim stage. They questioned the urgency and rejected the idea that exclusive trademark rights could be claimed over the bottle shape alone, especially since Reckitt’s design rights had expired.

EARLIER CASE LAWS ON THE SUBJECT

·       Pepsi Co. Inc. vs Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd. (comparative advertising principles)

·       Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. vs Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (toothpaste comparative ads)

OUTCOME:

Godrej is now free to market and sell its Spic toilet cleaner in the disputed packaging.

This ruling highlights the tension between design rights and trademark protection in product packaging disputes.

YOUR COMPLIANCE PARTNER – R V SECKAR , FCS, LLB, 79047 19295

 

SMALLER TRADE UNIONS LOSES ITS BARGAINING POWER UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS CODE- NEW LABOUR CODE

 SMALLER TRADE UNIONS LOSES ITS BARGAINING POWER UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS CODE- NEW LABOUR CODE

KEY CHANGES IN BARGAINING POWER

RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNIONS

•        The Industrial Relations Code introduces the concept of a “negotiating union” or “negotiating council.”

•        A union with 51% membership in an establishment is recognized as the sole negotiating union.

•        If no single union has majority membership, a negotiating council is formed with representatives from unions having at least 20% membership.

•        This centralizes bargaining but may weaken smaller unions’ influence.

MANDATORY 14 DAYS NOTICE FOR STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS

•        Stricter conditions for strikes: workers in all sectors (not just public utility services) must give 14 days’ notice before striking.

•        This reduces the spontaneity of collective action and strengthens employer control.

MANDATORY STANDING ORDERS

•        Mandatory standing orders (rules of conduct for workers) now apply only to establishments with 300 or more workers (earlier 100).

•        This gives employers more flexibility in smaller units, limiting union leverage in such workplaces. 

WEAKENING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING SCOPE

•        While the codes aim to streamline negotiations, critics argue they restrict collective bargaining rights compared to international labour standards.

•        Issues like minimum wages, gender equity, and social security remain inadequately addressed, weakening unions’ ability to push for broader worker protections.

MORE ADVANTAGEOUS TO EMPLOYERS

•        For Large Unions: Stronger bargaining position if they can secure majority membership.

•        For Smaller Unions: Reduced influence, as fragmented representation is less effective under the new rules.

•        For Employers: Greater flexibility and predictability in industrial relations, but potentially at the cost of worker voice.

•        For Workers: More formalized negotiation channels, but limited ability to mobilize quickly or challenge management decisions.

COMPARISON OF OLD LABOUR LAWS WITH NEW LABOUR CODES

SUBJECT	OLD FRAMEWORK	MEW LABOUR CODE
Union Recognition	Multiple unions could bargain	Single majority union or council
Strike Notice	Required mainly in public utilities	Mandatory 14-day notice in all sectors
Standing Orders Threshold	100 workers	300 workers
Bargaining Scope	Broader, though fragmented	Streamlined but narrower

 In short, the new labour codes consolidate bargaining power in majority unions but simultaneously impose restrictions that dilute overall union strength, especially for smaller groups.

YOUR COMPLIANCE PARTNER – R V SECKAR , FCS, LLB, 79047 19295

CAN BALANCE SHEET ENTRIES OF A CLAIM AMOUNT TO ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF LIABILITY WHICH WILL EXTEND LIMITATION OF A CLAIM WHICH IS BEYOND 3 YEARS?

 CAN BALANCE SHEET ENTRIES OF A

 CLAIM AMOUNT TO ACKNOWLEDGMENT

 OF LIABILITY WHICH WILL EXTEND

 LIMITATION OF A CLAIM WHICH IS

 BEYOND 3 YEARS?

THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN SNG DEVELOPERS LIMITED V. LORD VARDHMAN BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED

CORE LEGAL ISSUE

Whether disclosure of a claim or outstanding amount in the balance sheet of a company constitutes an acknowledgment of liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, thereby extending the limitation period beyond three years.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Section 18, Limitation Act, 1963
An acknowledgment of liability:

• Must be in writing
• Signed by the party against whom the right is claimed
• Made before expiry of the limitation period
• Must indicate a conscious admission of subsisting liability

KEY JUDICIAL QUESTION

Does a balance sheet entry:?

• Merely reflect statutory compliance?
• Or amount to a voluntary acknowledgment extending limitation?

THE FACTS

• ₹7.5 Crores paid under an Agreement to Sell.

• Deal did not go through.

• Email in 2013 offering refund.

• Arbitration invoked later.

• Refund claim challenged as time barred.

PETITIONER ARGUED:

⛔ Claim is beyond 3 years.

⛔ Balance sheets cannot extend limitation.

⛔ Agreement was unregistered.

DELHI HIGH COURT’S APPROACH

In SNG Developers Limited v. Lord Vardhman Buildtech Private Limited, the Delhi High Court examined:

✔ WHETHER:

·       The amount was shown as a clear, admitted payable

·       There were qualifications, notes, disputes, or contingent tagging

·       The entry reflected an unqualified admission of debt

✘ NOT AUTOMATICALLY:

·       Every balance sheet entry extends limitation

·       Mere compliance under the Companies Act equals acknowledgment

WHAT THE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD?

 Balance sheet entries CAN amount to acknowledgment of liability.

·       If a company consistently reflects an amount as “Advance against sale”

·       in its financial statements, that is a written acknowledgment.

·       And under Section 18, that gives a fresh period of limitation.

EARLIER PRECEDENT

The Delhi High Court relied on the Supreme Court view in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Bishal Jaiswal.

WHEN LIMITATION EXTENDS

·       Debt shown as “Payable”

·       No dispute mentioned

·       No conditional language

WHEN LIMITATION DOES NOT EXTEND

·       Shown as “Contingent Liability”

·       Marked “Disputed”

·       Qualified in Notes to Accounts

·       Entry after limitation expired

IMPORTANT:

Mere statutory compulsion to prepare balance sheets does NOT dilute acknowledgment.

If it is shown as a liability, it counts.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DURING CROSS EXAMINATION

But during cross examination, the witness admitted:

✔ He signed the financial statements.

✔ They were uploaded with the ROC.

TAKEAWAYS FOR COMPANIES

·       What you show in your balance sheet matters.

·       Accounting entries can legally extend limitation.

·       Evasive denials in arbitration can backfire.

·       Section 34 is not an appeal. Courts will not reappreciate evidence.

THIS RULING REINFORCES THAT:

·       Balance sheet entries can extend limitation only if they amount to conscious admission

·       Courts apply a substance over form test

·       The burden lies on the party invoking Section 18

YOUR COMPLIANCE PARTNER – R V SECKAR , FCS, LLB, 79047 19295

THE SALIENT FEATURES OF THE COMPANIES COMPLIANCE FACILITATION SCHEME, 2026 (CCFS-2026) — THE ONE-TIME COMPLIANCE RELIEF SCHEME NOTIFIED BY THE MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS (MCA) IN INDIA

 THE SALIENT FEATURES OF THE COMPANIES COMPLIANCE FACILITATION SCHEME, 2026 (CCFS-2026) — THE ONE-TIME COMPLIANCE RELIEF SCHEME NOTIFIED BY THE MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS (MCA) IN INDIA

FEATURE	DETAILS
SCHEME NAME	Companies Compliance Facilitation Scheme, 2026 (CCFS-2026)
ISSUING AUTHORITY	Ministry of Corporate Affairs (General Circular No. 01/2026)
EFFECTIVE PERIOD	15 April 2026 to 15 July 2026 (3-month window)
OBJECTIVE	One-time opportunity to regularize pending statutory filings at reduced costs and improve compliance levels.
FORMS COVERED	Annual returns & financials under Companies Act, 2013 (e.g., MGT-7, MGT-7A, AOC-4, AOC-4 CFS, AOC-4 XBRL, ADT-1, FC-3, FC-4) and legacy forms under Companies Act, 1956 (Form 20B, 21A, 23AC, 23ACA, 23B, 66, etc.).
ADDITIONAL FEES RELIEF	Only 10 % of the additional fees normally payable for delayed filings (instead of full 100 %
NORMAL FILING FEE	Normal statutory filing fee remains payable as per rules.
IMMUNITY FROM PENALTIES	Conditional immunity from penalties under: • Section 92 (Annual Return) and Section 137 (Financial Statements) if filed before/within 30 days of adjudication notice. • Other e-forms: immunity if no prosecution/notice has been issued prior to filing under scheme.
DORMANT COMPANY OPTION	Companies can apply for Dormant status (Sec 455) by filing e-Form MSC-1 and paying 50 % of normal filing fee.
STRIKE-OFF (CLOSURE) OPTION	Companies may apply for strike-off via e-Form STK-2 and pay only 25 % of the applicable fee (e.g., ₹2,500 instead of ₹10,000).
ELIGIBILITY – WHO CAN AVAIL	All companies with pending eligible filings, subject to conditions.
EXCLUSIONS – INELIGIBLE CASES	• Companies already issued final notice for strike-off under Sec 248 or that have applied for strike-off; • Companies already applied for dormant status before scheme start; • Companies dissolved via amalgamation; • “Vanishing” companies.
POST-SCHEME ENFORCEMENT	After 15 July 2026, Registrars of Companies (RoCs) will initiate action under the Companies Act against remaining defaulters.

 

ANNEXURE – I

List of Eligible e-Forms Covered under CCFS-2026

A. Forms under the Companies Act, 2013

S.NO	E-FORM	PURPOSE / SECTION
1	MGT-7	Annual Return (Other than OPC & Small Company) – Sec 92
2	MGT-7A	Annual Return (OPC & Small Company)
3	AOC-4	Filing of Financial Statements – Sec 137
4	AOC-4 CFS	Consolidated Financial Statements
5	AOC-4 XBRL	Financial Statements in XBRL format
6	ADT-1	Appointment of Auditor – Sec 139
7	ADT-3	Notice of Auditor Resignation
8	DIR-3 KYC / DIR-3 KYC-WEB	Director KYC Compliance
9	DPT-3	Return of Deposits
10	MSME-1	Half-Yearly Return for MSME payments
11	BEN-2	Return of Significant Beneficial Ownership
12	PAS-3	Return of Allotment
13	INC-22	Notice of Registered Office
14	INC-20A	Declaration for Commencement of Business
15	FC-3	Annual Accounts (Foreign Company)
16	FC-4	Annual Return (Foreign Company)

B. FORMS UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 (LEGACY FILINGS)

S.NO	FORM NO	PURPOSE
1	20B	Annual Return
2	21A	Annual Return (Companies without Share Capital)
3	23AC	Balance Sheet
4	23ACA	Profit & Loss Account
5	23AC-XBRL	Financial Statements in XBRL
6	23B	Appointment of Auditor

 

CATEGORY	ELIGIBILITY STATUS
Companies with pending annual filings	Eligible
Active companies with delayed statutory returns	Eligible
Foreign companies with pending filings	Eligible
Companies intending to become Dormant (Sec 455)	Eligible (via MSC-1)
Companies seeking strike-off (STK-2)	Eligible with concessional fee

 

2.IMMUNITY FROM PENALTY – CONDITIONS

Section / Default Type	Immunity Condition under CCFS-2026
Sec 92 – Annual Return	Filing before or within 30 days of adjudication notice
Sec 137 – Financial Statements	Filing before or within 30 days of adjudication notice
Other eligible e-Forms	Immunity available if no prosecution initiated prior to filing
Pending adjudication proceedings	Relief available if filing done within prescribed window

 

1.          EXCLUSIONS (NOT ELIGIBLE UNDER CCFS-2026)

Category	Reason for Ineligibility
Companies already struck off	Entity ceased to exist
Companies with final notice under Sec 248	Advanced strike-off stage
Companies dissolved via amalgamation	Legal existence terminated
Companies classified as “Vanishing”	Regulatory risk category
Companies already applied for dormant status before scheme	Not covered under fresh relief

ANNEXURE – III

SPECIAL CONCESSIONAL WINDOWS

Option	Concessional Benefit
Dormant Status (MSC-1)	50% of normal filing fee
Strike-off (STK-2)	25% of prescribed fee
Additional Filing Fees	Only 10% of standard additional fee

YOUR COMPLIANCE PARTNER – R V SECKAR FCS ,LLB 79047 19295