Legal News & Views

Citation : Indian Overseas Bank Versus M/s Rcm Infrastructure Ltd. And Another, Civil Appeal No. 4750 Of 2021 Date of Judgment/Order : May 18, 2022 Court/Tribunal : The Supreme Court Of India Corum : L. Nageswara Rao; B.R. Gavai, JJ. Background The appellant Bank had extended certain credit facilities to the Corporate Debtor. However, the Corporate Debtor failed to repay the dues and the loan account of the Corporate Debtor became irregular. As such, on 13th June 2016 , the loan account of the Corporate Debtor came to be classified as NPA. The appellant Bank took symbolic possession of two secured assets mortgaged exclusively with it. An E-auction notice was issued on 27th September 2018 by the appellant Bank. In the meantime, on 22nd October 2018, the Corporate Debtor filed a petition under Section 10 of the Insolvency Code, 2016. In the first E-auction held on 6th November 2018, no bids were received. As such, the second E-auction notice came to be issued on 27th November 2018, which

Citation : Reserve Bank of India vs SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited, CP (IB) No.295/KB/2022 and Hemant Kanoria vs Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited, Through its Administrator, Mr Rajneesh Sharma, IA (IB) No.75/KB/2022 Date of Judgment/Order : 17 May 2022 Court/Tribunal : The National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Corum : Rajasekhar V.K. Member (Judicial) and Balraj Joshi Member (Technical) Background SIFL and SEFL are under Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) from 08 October 2021, and Mr Rajneesh Sharma was appointed as the Administrator of SIFL and SEFL. Axis Bank Limited and UCO Bank appointed KPMG as auditor for SIFL on 23 March 2021. As per the RBI Circular, KPMG was required to complete the audit and give a report within a period of three months from the date of the Joint Lenders Forum (“JLF”) meeting authorising the same. In the present case, the Core Committee Meeting was held on 24 March 2021. Thus, KPMG was required to complete the audit within 24 June 2021.

Citation : Ayan Mallick vs Pratim Bayal, Liquidator & Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 456 of 2022 Date of Judgment/Order : 13.05.2022 Court/Tribunal : National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi Corum : Justice Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson & Shreesha Merla, Member (Technical) Background Appeal was filed against the order of the NCLT Kolkata in Dewesh Auto Creative Services Private Limited vs A.K.Power Industries Private Limited, C.P. (IB)No.1376/KB/2018 dated 01/02/2022, wherein the Hon'ble Judge had allowed the joint auction of the assets of the Corporate Debtor and the Guarantor as the same would maximise the value. Part of land /factory of Corporate Debtor was owned by the Guarantor to the Bank. The banks have taken symbolic possession under SARFAESI Actof these assets, which were integral part of the plant of the Corporate Debtor. The stakeholders banks had proceeded for sale under SARFAESI Act, 2002 by assessing the reserved price of sai

Citation : Kei Industries Limited vs Mr. Raman Kwatra & Anr., CS(COMM) 9/2021 Date of Judgment/Order : 17.05.2022 Court/Tribunal : High Court Of Delhi Corum : Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar Background KEI Industries Ltd, the plaintiff, alleges infringement, by the defendants, of its registered trademark “KEI”, of which it has registration both as a word mark and as the   device mark. Accordingly, the plaint seeks a decree of permanent injunction. The Respondent sought protection among other issues under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, pleading honest and concurrent user of the impugned Mark, as his father OPK had been using the impugned Mark since 1966, and he was using the mark independently since 2008. Judgment After finding prima facie case of infringement by the Respondents, the HC looking into issue of the Doctrine of honest and concurrent usage. Section 12 is essentially a provision which enables the Registrar to permit registration of a mark which is identical or

Citation : United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Levis Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 2955 Of 2022 Date of Judgment/Order : May 02, 2022 Court/Tribunal : The Supreme Court Of India Corum : Uday Umesh Lalit; J., S. Ravindra Bhat; J., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha; J. Background The Respondents had an Standard Fire & Special Perils (SFSP) Policy with the Insurer covering stocks while in storage while the parent company of Levi had obtained a global (STP) policy from Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty covering stocks of all its subsidiaries, including Levi. When a fire broke out in one of the warehouses containing Levi’s stocks, the claim of the Respondent was repudiated on the ground that as per policy terms the affected stocks in the present claim, at the hands of the logistics provider would squarely fall within the scope of the aforesaid Marine cover, being in storage in the course of movement to retail locations and the insured would have to have to recover the loss

Citation : Ibrat Faizan Versus Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited, Civil Appeal No. 3072 Of 2022 Date of Judgment/Order : May 13, 2022 Court/Tribunal : The Supreme Court Of India Corum : M.R. Shah; B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. Background The Appellant/original complainant here had filed a consumer forum application against the Respondents before the State Consumer Forum. With the forum ordering in favour of the Appellant, the Respondents appealed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The NCDRC by its final order confirmed the State forum order. The Respondents appealed against the NCDRC order before High Court, whence HC stayed the final order of NCDRC. In appeal before the Supreme Court against the order of the HC, one of the primary objections raised by the Appellant was the issue jurisdiction of the HC  against the order of the NCDRC. Judgment The Supreme Court however opined that the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution has jurisdiction over order pas

Citation : Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Versus M/s Discovery Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., CA 2042 of 2022 Date of Judgment/Order : April 25, 2022 Court/Tribunal : The Supreme Court Of India Corum : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud; J., Surya Kant; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background The appeal arose from a judgment dated 27 June 2012 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay by which an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961 has been dismissed. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited instituted an appeal against an interim award dated 27 October 2010 of the Arbitral Tribunal holding that the second respondent – Jindal Drilling and Industries Limited4 was not a party to the arbitration agreement and must be deleted from the array of parties. The interim award was challenged in an appeal which was dismissed by the impugned judgment. Judgment Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court went into a detailed explanation of the Group of companies doctrine as

Citation : Talema Electronic India Private Limited Vs. Regional Director, Esi Corporation & Anr., Civil Appeal No.3175 Of 2022 Date of Judgment/Order : April 25, 2022 Court/Tribunal : The Supreme Court Of India Corum : M.R. Shah; B.v.nagarathna, JJ. Background The employer (appellant) had claimed that "conveyance allowance" paid to the employees are not part of the wages which was accepted by the ESI but was rejected by the Madras High Court. Hence this appeal. Judgment Quashing the order of the High Court, the Supreme Court referred to the recent decision of this Court in the case of Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Texmo Industries, 2021 (7) SCALE 438, by which on interpretation of Section 2(22)(d) of the ESI Act, it is observed and held that the "conveyance allowance" is equivalent to the traveling allowance and therefore any conveyance allowance/traveling allowance is excluded from the definition of "wages" in the above clause, the impugned

Citation : Wipro Finance Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Civil Appeal No. 6677 Of 2008 Date of Judgment/Order : April 12, 2022 Court/Tribunal : The Supreme Court Of India Corum : A.M. Khanwilkar; J., Abhay S. Oka; J., C.T. Ravikumar; J. Background The appellant company submitted returns of income on for the assessment year 1997-1998 , mentioning loss of income, amongst others, owing to exchange fluctuation of Rs.1,10,53,909/-. After processing the return under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessment was completed on 16.3.2000. As against the loss declared by the appellant due to exchange fluctuation, the assessment was concluded by positive taxable income. Against that decision, the matter was carried in appeal by the appellant before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and eventually, by way of appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The ITAT decided in favour of the appellant but the decision was overturned by the High Court and the matter came