Legal News & Views

In N. Raghavender vs State of Andhra Pradesh, CBI, appeal was filed against judgment passed by Andhra Pradesh High Court, dismissing his criminal appeal against the judgment of the Special Judge, CBI Cases, Hyderabad whereby he was held guilty of the offences under Sections 409, 420, and 477A of IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to a total of five years of rigorous imprisonment with various fines for each offence. The appellant (N. Raghavender), Accused No.1, was the brother-in-law of Accused No.3 and was the bank's Branch Manager. The appellant and A. Sandhya Rani (Accused No. 2) who worked as a Clerk- cum-Cashier in the same Bank from 1991-1996 allegedly abused their respective position in the Bank from 1991-1996 allegedly abused their respective position in the Bank and conspired with Accused no. 3 by allowing withdrawal of amounts up to Rs. 10,00,000/- from the account of the Academy, notwithstanding the fac

In The Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Bijnor & others v. Meenal Agarwal & others, the bank appealed before the Supreme Court against judgment of the High Court wherein the HC issued a writ of mandamus directing the appellant – Bank to positively consider the original writ petitioners application for One Time Settlement (OTS). The SC dismissing the order of the HC held that as per RBI guidelines, the Bank is required to constitute a Settlement Advisory Committee for the purpose of examining the applications received and thereafter the said Committee has to take a decision after considering whether a defaulter is entitled to the benefit of OTS or not after considering the eligibility as per the OTS Scheme. While making recommendations, the Settlement Advisory Committee has to consider whether efforts have been made to recover the loan amount and the possibility of recovery has been minimized, meaning thereby if there is possibility of recovery of the amount, either by ini

In BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED v. ANIL KUMAR VIRMANI & ORS, appeal was filed before the Supreme Court challenging the order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) allowing 91 purchasers of 51 apartments in the residential complex developed by them, to file a consumer complaint in a representative capacity, on behalf of and for the benefit of more than about 1000 purchasers. allowed the application by relying upon the decision of this Court in the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras vs. T.N. Ganapathy (1990) 1 SCC 608 and the decision of the National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.  The main grievance of the appellant-builder, was that out of total of 1134 apartments constructed and sold by them, the owners of merely 51 apartments have joined together and invoked the jurisdiction of the National Consumer Commission and that such a miniscule percentage of consumers cannot seek to file the complaint in a representative

In Dlf Home Developers Limited v. Rajapura Homes Private Limited & Anr, arbitration petition was filed before the Supreme Court by DLF Home Developers Limited u/s 11(6)  r/w/s 11(12) of the Arbitration Act, for appointment of sole arbitrator to adjudicate the differences between the parties that had arisen out of the two Construction Management Agreements. The Respondents argued that the instant disputes could only be arbitrated as per the dispute resolution mechanism specified under a different agreement and therefore the present application was infructuous.  Referring to judgement in Vidya Drolia and Others v. Durga Trading Corporation (2021) 2 SCC 1, the court held that the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 11 is primarily to find out whether there exists a written agreement between the parties for resolution of disputes through arbitration and whether the aggrieved party has made out a prima facie arbitrable case. The limited jurisdiction, however, does not denude this C

In S. Karthik & Ors v. N. Subhash Chand Jain & Ors, the Supreme Court referring to judgments in Narandas Karsondas v. S.A. Kamtam and another (1977) 3 SCC 247 and Mathew Varghese v. M. Amritha Kumar and others (2014) 5 SCC 610, had reiterated that the equity of redemption is not extinguished by mere contract for sale and that the mortgagors right to redeem will survive until there has been completion of sale by the mortgagee by a registered deed. This Court further observed that applying the principles stated with reference to Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act in respect of a secured interest in a secured asset in favour of the secured creditor under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the relevant Rules applicable, a free hand is given to a secured creditor to resort to a sale without the intervention of the court or tribunal. It has, however, been held that under Section 13(8), it is clearly stipulated that the mortgagor, i.e., the borrower, who is otherwise calle

In Abdul Khuddus v. H.m. Chandiramani (dead) Thr Lrs. & Ors, the appellant herein filed an ejectment petition seeking ejectment of the plaintiff under Section 21(1)(j) of the Rent Act on the ground that the premises were required for bonafide use by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing them and erecting a new building in place of the premises sought to be demolished. The ejection was challenged by the tenant and after various rounds of litigation, the Municipal Corporation demolished the building as they found it to be dilapidated and dangerous and subsequently handed over the vacant land to the owners. The tenant filed appeal before the High Court against the demolition and the High Court allowed the appeal holding that the building in question was demolished in haste and the plaintiff was thus entitled to possession of the building as he was unlawfully dispossessed of the same. The Corporation and the appellant were therefore directed to restore the possession wi

In Uflex Ltd v. Government Of Tamil Nadu & Ors, while stating that mindless appeals should not be the rule, the Supreme Court has held that costs must follow the cause in commercial matters. A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Hrishikesh Roy observed that tender jurisdiction was created for scrutiny of commercial matters and, thus, where continuously parties seek to challenge award of tenders, the succeeding party must get costs and the party which loses must pay costs. The costs following cause is a principle which is followed in most countries. There seems to be often a hesitancy in our judicial system to impose costs, presuming as if it is a reflection on the counsel. This is not the correct approach. In a tussle for enforcement of rights against a State different principle apply but in commercial matters costs must follow the cause. There is appreciation of the principles that in carrying on commercial litigation, parties must weigh the commercial interes

In Mayank Dua v. Haryana Shehari Vikas Pradhikaran and others, writ petition was filed before the High Court Of Punjab And Haryana by the Applicant in pursuance to an auction process that had been initiated by the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran, wherein the Applicant was adjudged to the be the highest bidder. Among the objections raised by the Applicant was that in the auction only base price for the commercial sites had been indicated whereas reserve price had been kept confidential. The Applicant claimed that non-disclosing of the reserve price, is against public interest and public policy amounting to lack of transparency in the auction process. It is contended that non-disclosure of the reserve price would also amount to an unfair practice. The court observed that apparently the bid of the petitioner having been evaluated by the Committee that was constituted for the purpose has not accepted the same keeping in view the reserve price that may have been determined. Resultantly the

In National Spot Exchange Limited v. Mr. Anil Kohli, Resolution Professional for Dunar Foods Limited, appeal was filed before the Supreme Court against the order of the NCLAT refusing to condone the delay of 44 days in preferring the appeal against the order passed by the NCLT, rejecting the claim of the appellant herein. The appellant submitted that though the learned Appellate Tribunal may be justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation by holding that the Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond 15 days, it is prayed to exercise the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Heavy reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in the cases of Chitra Sharma v. Union of India, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 575 ; Jaiprakash Associates Limited v. IDBI Bank Limited, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 328 ; and Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mampee Timbers and Hardwares Pvt. Ltd., re

In PUSHPA BUILDERS LTD vs THE VAISH COOPERATIVE ADARSH BANK LTD., appeal was filed before the Delhi High Court by the  Judgement Debtor for quashing/setting aside of the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge/Executing Court. The Decree-Holder had sought the execution of the Final Decree. The primary objection of the appellant was that the secured asset is being sold by the bank at a alarmingly reduced price whereas the Bank replied that due to COVID pandemic, the property prices had fallen drastically. The court observed that when the respondent had come into the possession of the mortgaged property on 13th April, 2018, and as on 18th May, 2018, the property was worth more than Rs.24 crores, while it remained in the hands of the respondent, the value of the same property had plummeted by about half. It may be that in the Covid-19 pandemic period, the Real Estate sector has seen some diminished activities, but it cannot be overlooked, that it was in the year 2019 itself,