Legal News & Views

In NKGSB Cooperative Bank Limited vs Subir Chakravarty & Ors., the seminal question involved in these cases is: whether it is open to the District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to appoint an advocate and authorise him/her to take possession of the secured assets and documents relating thereto and to forward the same to the secured creditor within the meaning of Section 14(1A) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ? This issue arises because of the expression used in the said provision, “may authorise any officer subordinate to him”. The Supreme Court observed that various courts have expressed conflicting views on this issue. The SC said that the expression “any officer subordinate to him” has been used in several legislations enacted by Parliament/State Legislature. Somewhat similar expression has been used in Articles 53, 154 and 311 of the Constitution of India and in other legislations enact

In Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd. vs Ajay Kumar Agarwal, appeal was filed before the Supreme Court against judgment of the NCDRC confirming the jurisdiction of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums to hear consumer complaints against Telecom companies. Background   The Respondent had filed complaint before the District Forum against a bill raised by the Appellant. The appellant raised an objection to the maintainability of the complaint based on a judgment of a two-Judge Bench of this Court in General Manager, Telecom v. M Krishnan and Another and in view of the Section 7B of the Indian Telegraphic Act 1885. However, the District, State as well as the National Forum where the Appellant had taken the matter opined that the said Section 7B would not apply to the Appellants being Private Parties and therefore the matter is squarely within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forums. The State Forum had also referred to judgment in Bharthi Hexacom Ltd. v. Komal Prakash. Finally the Appellant reached

In State Bank of India, Stressed Asset Management Branch Vs. Mahendra Kumar Jajodia, Personal Guarantor to Corporate Debtor, appeal was filed against the order of the NCLT, Kolkata rejecting the CIRP application filed by the Appellant under Section u/s. 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking initiation of Insolvency Resolution Process against the guarantor as premature since no CIRP or Liquidation Process is pending against the principal borrower/Corporate Debtor. Background The Appellants argument was that the application was fully maintainable under Section 60(1) of the Code despite there being no pendency of any Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT in short). Section 60 of the Code has 2 parts. Subsection 1 states that the Adjudicating Authority or Tribunal in question for insolvency resolution and liquidation for corporate persons including corporate debtors and personal guarantors thereof shall be the NCLT having territo

In M/s Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited v. M/s Hitro Energy Solutions Private Limited, the Supreme Court decided on a very interesting point of law apropos the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC). The appeal was filed by the Operational Creditor against the judgment of the NCLAT. One of the questions before the Supreme Court was whether the appellant is an operational creditor under the IBC even though it was a purchaser. Background   The Appellants had entered into a contract with the Hitro Energy Solutions (HES) a Proprietary Concern, for supply of light fittings for a project they were executing with Chennai Metro Rail Limited (CMRL). For this upon request of HES and the Appellants,  CMRL paid Rs. 50 lakhs as advance to  HES who encashed it. Meanwhile, the Respondent company was incorporated on the basis of an MOA. Under the MOA, one of the four main objects of the respondent was to take over the Proprietary Concern. Subsequently, the project being cancelled, CMRL

In PRADEEP KUMAR AND ANOTHER vs POST MASTER GENERAL AND OTHERS, appeal was filed before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the NCDRC dismissing their complaint registered as Consumer Case No. 148 of 2001 against the Post Master General & Senior Superintendent of Posts  of UP, Post Master and M.K. Singh, Sub-Post Master, Post Office, Yahiyaganj, Lucknow. Background The appellants during the years 1995 and 1996 had purchased Kisan Vikas Patras of  Rs.32.60 lacs; however, the KVPs were encashable at the post offices before the maturity date at a lower value after the stipulated/lock-in period of holding. Intending to transfer the KVPs to Chowk Post Office, Lucknow, the appellants used the service of an agent named Ruksana and signed the original KVPs on the backside and handed them over to her. Subsequently, the appellants learnt that Rukhsana had cheated several investors and had been arrested by the police. Thereupon, the appellants made enquiries and discovered that the KVPs

In K. ARUMUGA VELAIAH v. P.R. RAMASAMY AND ANR, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court against the order of the Madras High Court dismissing the suit filed by the Appellant seeking share in a joint ancestral property. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the so-called partition which took place in the year 1964 was by virtue of an award passed by the panchayatdars (arbitrators) and the same, not having been registered, was not made a rule of the court and hence had no validity in the eye of law. The counter to the aforesaid argument by learned counsel for the respondent is that the said award did not require registration at all.  Analysis The Supreme Court while approving the order of the High Court referred extensively to various judgments and observed that in Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Ramaswamy Ayyar and Anr. v. Tirpathi Naik, ILR 27 Mad 43 , wherein it was observed that it is necessary to read a document in order to ascertain

In NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOIDA) v. YUNUS & ORS, the question before the Supreme Court was whether the Award passed by a Lok Adalat under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 can form the basis for redetermination of compensation as contemplated under Section 28A of the the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Background Noida had issued a notification in March 1983 for acquisition of lands in villages situated in Tehsil Dadri for planned industrial development. Land owners were given compensation at the rate of Rs 20 per square yard in November 1984. None of the land owners questioned the rate of compensation and all accepted the amounts due to them. One Fateh Mohammed filed an application seeking reference against the Award of November 28, 1984 and it was made over to a Lok Adalat, where NOIDA settled with Fateh Mohammed in 2016 and agreed to pay Rs 297 per square yard, almost 15 times more than the original compensation more than 30 years later. The