Legal News & Views

Citation : Mr.AmarVora vs CityUnionBankLtd., Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 130 of 2022 Date of Judgment/Order :  11/05/2022 Court/Tribunal : National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench Corum : Justice M. Venugopal] Member (Judicial), Kanthi Narahari, Member (Technical) Background Appeal was filed against the order of the NCLT, Chennai admitting a application under Section 7 of the Insolvency Code. Among the various objections raised by the Appellant was that earlier issued a demand notice to the Appellant under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI ACT, 2002 followed by paper publication dated 27.09.2018. The authorised officer took symbolic possession of the property mortgaged as per Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI ACT, 2002. Thereafter, the subject property was attached with DRT Madurai Bench. Also the Appellants have asked the court to keep the attachment and operation of DRT in abeyance till decision is reached in a matter pending under Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988. Jud

Citation : M/S SJS Gold Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of UP Date of Judgment/Order : 2022.06.04 Court/Tribunal : High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Corum : Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. & Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J. Background Bank account of the petitioners was frozen on the instructions of the Investigating Officer by the Axis Bank as a sequel to the F.I.R. lodged by the Chief Manager of the Management of Monuments, Museum, Parks, Garden etc. for offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. The Petitioner argued through their writ petition that the Investigating Officer has not reported the seizure/debit freezing of the petitioners' account to the Magistrate concerned having jurisdiction as mandated under Section 102 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and therefore the freezing is illegal. The Govt. Advocate referring to the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 11201 of 2021

Citation : Baidyanath Mondal vs Kanahaya Lal Rathi, Revision Petition No. 3286 Of 2016 Date of Judgment/Order : 29 Apr 2022 Court/Tribunal : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Corum : Hon'ble Mr. C. Viswanath, Presiding Member Background The Complainant/Petitioner had purchased 2000 equity shares of Aravinda Remedies and 200 equity shares of Reliance Power Ltd. by making payment of Rs.13,700/- and Rs.49,400/- respectively. The Opposite Party delivered 1000 shares of Aravinda Remedies instead of 2000 shares amounting to Rs.6,850/- leaving a refundable amount of Rs.6,850/-. Further, the Opposite Party delivered 200 shares of Reliance Power Ltd. amounting to Rs.47,440/- leaving a refundable amount of Rs.1,960/-. When the Complainant enquired about his Demat Account, he came to know that 200 shares of Reliance Power Ltd. were transferred to the account of Ureka Stock & Share Broking Services without intimation to the Complainant. The Opposite Party also did not make pa

Citation : Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Versus A. Balakrishnan & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 689 Of 2021 Date of Judgment/Order : May 30, 2022 Court/Tribunal : Supreme Court Of India Corum : L. Nageswara Rao; J., B.R. Gavai; J., A.S. Bopanna; J. Background The Appellant had filed applications before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for issuance of Debt Recovery Certificates in terms of the said compromise entered into between the parties. The said applications were allowed by the DRT and Recovery Certificates were issued against the borrower entities and the Corporate Debtor. On the basis of the aforementioned Recovery Certificates, KMBL, claiming to be a financial creditor, filed an application under Section 7 of IBC, before the learned NCLT and sought initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor. The said application came to be admitted by the learned NCLT. The respondent no. 1 , Director of the Corporate Debtor filed an appeal against the said order of

Citation : Bbr (India) Private Limited vs S.P. Singla Constructions Private Limited, Civil Appeal Nos. 4130-4131 Of 2022 Date of Judgment/Order : May 18, 2022 Court/Tribunal : Supreme Court Of India Corum : Sanjiv Khanna, J. Background The litigants had entered into a contract where arbitration clause was present but no seat or venue was mentioned. When disputes arose, the matter was referred to arbitration, the sole arbitrator held that the venue of the proceedings would be Panchkula, Haryana. Neither party had objected to the place of arbitration proceedings as fixed by the arbitral tribunal. Subsequently, this arbitrator recused and the entire matter was handed over to a new arbitrator who recorded his consent and also declared that the venue of the proceedings would be Delhi. Since then, the proceedings continue at Delhi and order was passed in favor of the Respondent. The respondent filed an application for interim orders under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19

Citation : M/s Knit Pro International Versus The State of NCT of Delhi, Criminal Appeal No. 807 Of 2022;  Date of Judgment/Order : May 20, 2022 Court/Tribunal : The Supreme Court Of India Corum : M.R. Shah; B.V. Nagarathna, Jj. Background The Appellant had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and sought directions from the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for the registration of FIR against the respondent No.2 herein for the offences under Sections 51, 63 & 64 of the Copyright Act read with Section 420 of the IPC. The said application was allowed and an FIR was registered against the Respondent. The Respondent in turn prayed before the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings on the sole ground that the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is not a cognizable and a non-bailable offence which was allowed. This appeal is against the order of the High Court. Judgment The Supreme Court observed that the short question which is posed for consideration befo

Citation : M/s. ICICIBankLimited vs OPTO Circuits (India) Limited, Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Insolvency) No. 146 of 2021 Date of Judgment/Order : 28th April,2022 Court/Tribunal : National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench Corum : Justice M. Venugopal, Member (Judicial) & Kanthi Narahari, Member (Technical) Background The Petitioner had filed a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Respondent before NCLT, Bengaluru. Subsequently, they agreed to a One time settlement offer. However, the Petitioner prayed before the NCLT permission to resume/revive the CIRP in the event of failure of the OTS. However, the NCLT refused and observed that the Appellant Bank is only entitled to file fresh Company Petition. This appeal was filed against said order. Judgment The NCLAT referred to its earlier judgment in Vivek Bansal vs. Burda Druck India Pvt. Ltd., CA (AT) (Ins) No. 552 of 2020, wherein it has been specifically held as under: “We make it clear that in the ev

Citation : Vipan Aggarwal & Anr. vs Raman Gandotra & Ors., Civil Appeal  No.3492 Of 2022 (@ SLP(C) No.20075/2021) Date of Judgment/Order : 29th April, 2022 Court/Tribunal : The Supreme Court Of India Corum : Hemant Gupta & V. Ramasubramanian, JJ Background A compromise decree is said to have been passed on 13.09.2008. The appellants filed an application for recall of the said compromise decree for the reasons that such decree suffers from fraud and collusion. Such application was filed before the Court which granted the decree. The trial Court returned a finding that such application is not maintainable and such view was affirmed by the High Court. Judgment Referring  to judgment in Banwari Lal V. Chando Devi (Smt.) (Through LRS.) & Anr.’ (1993) 1 SCC 581 while setting aside the order passed by the High Court, the SC observed that on the question as to whether an aggrieved person against the compromise decree has a right to file an application before the Court which gra