Vaish Associates Advocates

Legalaxy – Monthly Newsletter Series – Vol XXIX – October, 2025

In the October edition of our monthly newsletter “Legalaxy”, our team analyses some of the key developments in securities market, banking and finance, corporate affairs and labour.

Below are the key highlights of the newsletter:

SEBI UPDATES

SEBI revises framework for social stock exchange
SEBI notifies the SEBI (Alternative Investment Funds) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2025
SEBI introduces amendments to InvIT Regulations, 2014 and REIT Regulations, 2014
SEBI introduces special provisions for delisting of certain public sector undertakings
SEBI relaxes stock options eligibility provisions for employees identified as promoter in the draft prospectus during IPO
SEBI notifies the SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2025
SEBI notifies the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2025
Key highlights of the 211th SEBI board meeting

RBI & IFSC UPDATES

IFSCA extends deadline for appointment of principal officer and compliance officer and compliance with revised net worth requirements
IFSCA notifies fee structure for third-party fund management services
IFSCA amends the regulatory framework for global access in IFSC
IFSCA clarifies on listing of convertible debt securities on recognised stock exchanges in IFSC

CORPORATE UPDATES

MCA notifies the Companies (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Amendment Rules, 2025

LABOUR UPDATES

Government of Telangana eases norms for small shops and establishments
MoSDE notifies the Apprenticeship (Amendment) Rules, 2025
The Apprentices Act, 1961 expanded to cover almost all sectors

We hope you like our publication. We look forward to your suggestions.

Please feel free to contact us at [email protected]

Delhi High Court Upholds Disallowance of Late EPF/ ESI Deposits under Section 143(1)

In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court upheld validity of disallowance of late deposit of employees’ contribution towards EPF and ESI made vide intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Citing judgment of the Supreme Court in the case ofCheckmate Services (P) Ltd deciding allowability of aforesaid deduction in favour of the Revenue, the High Court held that adjustments in relation to incorrect claims can be made under section 143(1)(a)(ii), where incorrectness of the claim is apparent from the return.

For any clarification, please write to:

[email protected]

“London Pride” Not Deceptively Similar to Pernod Ricard’s Whisky Brands – Supreme Court

In Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra (2025 INSC 981), the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s refusal to grant an interim injunction against the use of the mark “London Pride”. The Court held that “Pride” is a generic and laudatory term widely used in the liquor industry, and no standalone registration exists for the word.

The Court emphasized holistic assessment of trademark similarity, rejected dissection of brand elements, and introduced the concept of post-sale confusion, recognizing that consumers of premium whisky are discerning and unlikely to be misled.

This ruling reaffirms that interim relief in trademark disputes requires a strong prima facie case, likelihood of confusion, and balance of convenience.

For any clarification, please write to:

Mr. Vijay Pal Dalmia
Senior Partner
[email protected]

Customs and GST Alert – October 2025

We are delighted to share with you a special edition of our newsletter, which summarizes recommendations made by the 56th GST Council Meeting towards Next Generation GST reforms

We trust that you will find the same useful.

Looking forward to receiving your valuable feedback.

For any clarification, please write to:

Mr. Shammi Kapoor
Senior Partner
[email protected]

Mr. Arnab Roy
Partner
[email protected]

Delhi HC Rules – ‘Yatra’ is a Generic Term, Not Exclusive

The Delhi High Court, in Yatra Online Ltd. v. Mach Conferences & Events Ltd., dismissed a plea to restrain use of “BookMyYatra”, holding that “Yatra”, meaning travel, is generic and not monopolizable under trademark law.

The Court noted that Yatra’s registrations already disclaim exclusivity over the word and that long use since 2006 had not made the mark distinctive. “BookMyYatra” was found sufficiently distinct, with no prima facie infringement or passing off.

This ruling highlights the difficulty of claiming exclusivity over generic terms, even with extensive use.

For any clarification, please write to:

Mr. Vijay Pal Dalmia
Senior Partner
[email protected]

Derailments on the Fast Track: Hits and Misses in the 2025 Amendments to Merger Rules

Section 233 of the Companies Act, 2013 (the “Act”) introduced the concept of fast-track mergers (“FTMs”) to provide a simplified and expedited restructuring framework for certain classes of companies. The mechanism was intended to reduce reliance on the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) by vesting approval powers primarily with the Regional Director (“RD”). This mechanism finds its roots in the J.J. Irani Committee Report of 2005 on Company Law, which suggested a less stringent framework for mergers among associated companies, private companies or companies where no public interest is involved.

The recent Companies (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Amendment Rules, 2025[1] (the “Amended Rules”) have broadened the scope of eligible entities for FTMs and have revamped certain compliances. The following classes of companies have been additionally included in the enhanced scope of eligible entities for FTMs, with certain specific applicable conditions for each of them: (i) holding company and its subsidiary company(ies); (ii) 2 or more unlisted companies; (iii) 2 or more fellow subsidiary companies; and (iv) reverse cross border merger involving a wholly owned subsidiary of a foreign company. The revamped compliances include: (i) requirement of notifying stock exchanges for listed companies and other applicable sectoral regulators for all companies; (ii) mandatory filing of scheme with the RD within 15 days of its passing in the board meeting; (iii) revision of format of forms CAA-9 to CAA 12; and (iv) clarification with regard to the mutatis mutandis applicability of the Amended Rules in cases of schemes of division or transfer of undertakings.

While the Amended Rules are a step in the right direction, they leave certain critical issues unaddressed. This article provides a critique of such issues persisting in the implementation of mergers and demergers under the FTM route.

Click on Download PDF to read the complete article.

Authors of the Article:

Mr. Saheb Singh Chadha
Associate Partner

and

Mr. Akshay Chugh
Associate

The views expressed above are personal and do not represent those of Vaish Associates Advocates. They do not constitute legal advice.

If you have any questions regarding this article or any other aspects of law, please write to [email protected].