MAM
Calcutta High Court rules in favour of MRUC
MUMBAI: The Calcutta High Court has ruled in favour of the Media Research Users Council, dismissing the petition filed by ABP Pvt Ltd challenging the findings of the Indian Readership Survey in 2008 conducted by MRUC.
According to a statement released by the MRUC “The Calcutta High Court has in a significant judgment delivered on 25 September 2012 held that the arbitration clause embedded in software of the Indian Readership Survey, which is part of the terms and conditions a user must accept before accessing data, is binding. Disposing of a petition filed by ABP Private Limited and vacating an injunction earlier granted by the Court, the Hon. Justice Nadira Patherya referred the dispute relating to IRS 2008 to arbitration.”
Responding to ABP‘s petition challenging IRS findings, MRUC had contended that the dispute had to be referred to arbitration, as this clause was a part of the terms accepted by users. This was contested by ABP.
The Hon. High Court held, “The issue sought to be raised by the plaintiff in C.S. No.242 of 2008 is covered by the arbitration agreement as the same has been couched in the widest term and encompasses the issue raised, and the same be referred to arbitration.”
MRUC is a body constituted of media research users by media research users for media research users. “MRUC recognises that there will be situations in which users may disagree with some aspect of the conduct of various researches that it conducts. It is precisely to handle such disputes in a spirit of collaborative resolution that MRUC places so much emphasis on Arbitration,” the body informed in its statement.
The clause in question is as follows:
- All differences and disputes of whatsoever nature, arising between the parties including those that are in connection with, concerned with or relative to any aspect of the IRS Report inclusive of this Agreement between the parties and also any dispute or difference in regard to the interpretation of any provision or term or the meaning thereof, whether during the currency/sustenance of this Agreement or after the determination thereof, including any dispute, difference or controversy in regard to the interpretation / meaning / application of this clause, shall be referred to arbitration by sole arbitrator to be nominated by the MRUC Board of Governors and the said arbitration shall be governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The place of arbitration shall be Mumbai only.
- In all cases where “Court” has jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of matters governed by and/arising under or taken under any provision of the said Act, the party/ies (MRUC, Hansa Research and/or the user/s concerned) shall take such proceedings in an appropriate Court in Mumbai alone to the exclusion of all other Courts in the rest of India.
- All disputes, differences and controversies between the parties, if any, not covered under Clauses XII.1 & XII.2 hereinabove shall be filed in and settled exclusively by the Courts in Mumbai alone.
Brands
Jubilant FoodWorks faces Rs 47.5 crore GST demand, plans appeal
Tax authorities flag alleged misclassification of restaurant services
MUMBAI:Â Jubilant FoodWorks Limited has landed in a tax tussle after receiving a GST demand of Rs 47.5 crore from the office of the additional commissioner of CGST and central excise in Thane, Maharashtra.
The order, issued under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, relates to an alleged incorrect classification of certain services under the category of restaurant services. According to the tax authorities, this classification resulted in a short payment of goods and services tax for the period between the financial years 2019-20 and 2021-22.
The demand includes Rs 47.5 crore in GST along with an equal amount as penalty, in addition to applicable interest. The order was received by the company on March 13, 2026.
In a regulatory filing to the BSE Limited and the National Stock Exchange of India Limited, the company said it disagrees with the order and believes its arguments were not adequately considered.
The company is preparing to challenge the decision and plans to file an appeal. It added that once the redressal process is complete, the demand is likely to be dropped.
Despite the sizeable figure attached to the notice, the company said it does not expect any material impact on its financials, operations or other activities.
The disclosure was signed by Suman Hegde, EVP and chief financial officer, who confirmed that the company received the order at 19:06 IST on March 13 and has already initiated steps to contest it.
The development places the quick service restaurant major in the middle of a tax debate that could hinge on how certain restaurant-linked services are classified under GST rules. For now, the company appears ready to take the matter from the tax office to the appeals desk.
