Legal News & Views

Cause Title : State Bank of India Vs Shri Ghanshyam Surajbali Kurmi, CP(IB) 297/95/HBD/2021, National Company Law Tribunal Bench-1, Hyderabad Date of Judgment/Order : 07.07.2022 Corum : Dr. N. Venkata Ramakrishna Badarinath, Hon‟ble Member (Judicial), Shri Veera Brahma Rao Arekapudi, Hon‟ble Member (Technical) Citied: Lalit Kumar Jain vs Union of India, Supreme Court                Lalit Mishra & Ors. v. Sharon Bio Medicine Ltd, NCLAT Background The Financial Creditor/Applicant filed a Company petition before this Adjudicating Authority under Section 9 of the Code to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor vide CP (IB) No. 269/9/HDB/2018. The petition was admitted by this Adjudicating Authority on 06.09.2018. With the framing of I & B (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtor) Rules, 2019 which came into effect from 01.12.2019,  permitting the Financial Credit

Citation : Bank of Baroda vs Rajiv Rai, CP/89/IB/2021 Date of Judgment/Order : 20/6/2022 Court/Tribunal : National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Corum : Justice (Retd.) S. Ramathilagam, Member (Judicial), Anil Kumar B, Member (Technical) Background These applications have been filed under Section 95 (1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the personal guarantors of SBQ Steels Limited, the Corporate Debtor. The present application is filed by the Financial Creditor viz. Bank of Baroda against the personal guarantors of the Corporate Debtor. It is stated in Part III of the Application that the date on which the debt fell due was 31.03.2012 and the date of default is also on 31.03.2012. It is seen that the present Application has been filed before this Tribunal on 10.04.2021. The Respondent has raised a plea of limitation as to the present Application.  Judgment The NCLT observed that the Respondent has entered into a Deed of personal guarantee as early as on 27.03.2012. T

Citation : Vidarbha Industries Power Limited vs Axis Bank Limited, Civil Appeal No. 4633 Of 2021 Date of Judgment/Order : 12/7/2022 Court/Tribunal : Supreme Court Of India Corum : Indira Banerjee; J., J. K. Maheshwari, J. Background The Appellant is a Power Generating Company in the Nagpur District in Maharashtra. On 1st April 2014, the Appellant commenced supply of power  pursuant to the Power Purchase Agreement approved by MERC. In January 2016, the Appellant filed an application before the MERC for the purpose of truing up the Aggregate Revenue Requirement and for determination of tariff in terms of MERC (Multi Year Tariff) Regulation 2011, in view of, inter alia, the increase in fuel costs, consequential to the rise in the cost of procuring coal for the purpose of running the power plant. The MERC disallowed a substantial portion of the actual fuel costs as claimed by the Appellant for the Financial Years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 and also capped the tariff for the Financial Years 20

Citation : Jagjeet Singh & Ors vs Ashish Mishra @ Monu & Anr, Criminal Appeal No.632 Of 2022 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.04.2022 Court/Tribunal : Supreme Court Of India Corum : CJI. N.v. Ramana J., Surya Kant J. &  Hima Kohli J. Background The main area of contention was the bail granted by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench to the Accused/Respondents who have been accused of plowing their vehicle into a crowd of agitating farmers and also firing their weapons. Several people died. The relief was primarily granted on four counts. Firstly, the Court held that the primary allegation against the Respondent­Accused was of firing his weapon and causing gunshot injuries, but neither the inquest reports nor the injury reports revealed any firearm injury, therefore, the High Court opined that the present case was one of “accident by hitting with the vehicle”. Secondly, the allegation that he provoked the driver of the car could not be sustained since the drive

Cause Title : Haris Marine Products vs Export Credit Guarantee Corporation Limited (ECGC), Civil Appeal No. 4139/2020, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : April 25, 2022 Corum : Uday Umesh Lalit, J., S. Ravindra Bhat, J. & Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. Background The appellant had a Policy with ECGC, which covered foreign buyer’s failure to pay for goods exported. The vessel with the goods set sail on 15.12.2012. The Bill of Lading was prepared on 19.12.2012, with a line specifying the date of ‘onboard’ (i.e., date on which vessel commenced loading the goods in question on board) as 13.12.2012. The vessel delivered the goods on 22.01.2013. The overseas buyer defaulted on payment. The appellant then lodged a claim with ECGC on 14.02.2013. Among the grounds raised by ECGC for rejecting the claim was the view that the date of ‘despatch / shipment’ (provided in the Policy) was not clearly defined, and it placed reliance on the definition contained in the DGFT Guidelin

Cause Title : Balkrishna Spintex Private Limited Vs The New India Assurance Company Limited, R/petn. Under Arbitration Act No. 66 Of 2020, The Supreme Court of India Date of Judgment/Order : 10/06/2022 Corum : Honourable The Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar Citied: United India Insurance Company versus Antique Art Exports Private Limited reported in (2019) 5 SCC 362, Supreme Court Background A claim was raised against by the Petitioner on account of a fire accident which broke out on at the go-down of petitioner factory premises which was insured with respondent, resulting in stock of cotton and the building being gutted in fire and same got destroyed. A sum of Rs. 6,02,74,557/- was paid to petitioner by respondent against the claim. After having received said amount, it was made known to respondent by petitioner that it had received under protest or in other words it is contended that on account of the financial circumstances in which the petitioner was placed, he was perforced