Legal News & Views

Cause Title :  Mr. Shahi Md. Karim vs M/s. Kabamy India LLP, Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 16 of 2023, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal At Chennai Date of Judgment/Order : 25/01/2023 Corum : Justice M. Venugopal, Member (Judicial) & Ms. Shreesha Merla, Member (Technical) Citied:  Background An appeal against order of the NCLT, Hyderabad admitting an application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, was filed by the Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant, has challenged the Admission Order on the ground that there was an Arbitration Clause in the C & F Agreement and that the Respondent ought to have invoked this Clause. Judgment The NCLAT dismissing the appeal decided that there is no embargo on the Operational Creditor, to file a Section 9 Petition, under I & B Code, 2016, even if there is an Arbitration Clause, in the Agreement. The scope and objective of the Code is Resolution, and not a Recovery Mode / Forum. I

Cause Title :  Mrs. Sasikala Menon vs State Of Kerala, CRL.MC NO. 6415 OF 2022, Kerala High Court Date of Judgment/Order : 25.01.2023 Corum : Honourable Mr. Justice A. Badharudeen Citied:  2017 (5) KHC 177 : (2018) 1 SCC 560 : 2017 (4) KLT 444 : AIR 2017 SC 4594], Meters and Instruments (P) Ltd. v. Kanchan Mehta 2021 KHC 6120 : (2021) 6 SCC 258 : 2021 KHC OnLine 6120 : 2021 (2) KLT SN 35 : AIR 2021 SC 1308], P.Mohanraj & Ors. v. Shah Brothers Ispat Private Limited P.Reghuthaman v. State of Kerala & Ors. Background This petition was filed to quash the complaints filed    before the Magistrate court  by the Respondent No. 2 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Petitioner had raised issue of the alleged mental disorder of the Respondent in order to have the  complainant dismissed while the Respondent argued that the issue of the disorder has been raised earlier by the Petitioner and has been dismissed therefore res judicator should apply. The question before th

Cause Title :  Rourkela Steel Syndicate vs Metistech Fabricators Pvt. Ltd., Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 924 of 2022, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi Date of Judgment/Order :  06.02.2023 Corum : [Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson, [Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Citied:  Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave Vs. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited and Anr. B.K. Educational Services (P) Ltd. v. Parag Gupta and Associates, (2019) 11 SCC 633 Background Section 69(2) in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 states that only a registered firm can file a suit against any third person to  enforce  a right.  The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Cuttack) rejecting the application filed under Section 9 of IBC on the ground that the application is barred by Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act. The Adjudicating Authority took the view that Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act bars a suit by an unregistered partn

Cause Title :  Flowmore Limited vs M/s Skipper Limited, O.M.P. (COMM) 391/2022, Delhi High Court Date of Judgment/Order : 2nd February, 2023 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh Citied:  PSA Sical Terminals Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Board of Trustees of V. O. Chidambranar Port Trust, Tuticorin and Ors. AIR 2021 SC 4661 Patel Engg. Ltd. v. North Eastern Electric Power Corpn. Ltd., (2020) 7 SCC 167 Nabha Power Ltd. Vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (2018) 11 SCC 508 Associate Builders vs. Delhi Development Authority, (2015) 3 SCC 49 R vs. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal. Ex Parte Shaw, 1952 1 All ER 122 ChampseyBhara Company vs. The Jivraj Balloo Spinning and Weaving Company Ltd., AIR 1923 PC 66 Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (2022) 1 SCC 131 Background The main ground taken by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner while assailing the Arbitral Award is that the impugned Arbitral Award is ex-facie erroneous and suffers fro

Cause Title :  Sunil Kumar Agrawal vs New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 622 of 2022, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench Date of Judgment/Order : 12.01.2023 Corum : Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain Citied:  Background NOIDA entered into a lease deed dated 19.08.2011 with M/s GSS Procon Pvt. Ltd. (CD) for the purpose of constructing residential flats on some land. The  lease deed was executed for a period of 90 years and the  lessee was to pay the lease premium as well as  lease rent according to a schedule mentioned therein. The premium was to be paid from 26.02.2014 to 27.07.2021. However, as the Lessee failed in its  commitment, an application under Section 7 of the  Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was filed. The RP being appointed, NOIDA  submitted a letter dated 04.06.2021 to the RP highlighting its dues towards lease premium calculated from 11.10.2019 to 30.06.2021 of a sum of Rs. 15,54,52,427/- and lease rent of the year

Cause Title : Credence Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai East, Service Tax Appeal No. 85780 of 2020, CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI Date of Judgment/Order : 05.01.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial) Citied:  Background The Appellant is a builder providing Construction of Residential Complex Service. Two flats in Project Central Park which were booked through/from them by a buyer, but were later cancelled by the said buyer. Upon cancellation, the appellant refunded advance amount paid by the buyer along with Service Tax amount collected by them. The Appellant subsequently filed two refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act read with Section 83, Finance Act, 1994 amounting to Rs.1,09,367/- and Rs.55,123/- respectively seeking refund of Service Tax paid but Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that the question of refund of service tax does not arise

Cause Title : Credberg Advisors India Private Limited vs Platinum Holdings Private Limited, CP(IB)/46 (CHE) /2022, National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench Date of Judgment/Order : 01.02.2023 Corum : Dr. Deepti Mukesh, Member (Judicial) & Sameer Kakar, Member (Technical) Citied:  Ramesh Kymal Vs. M/s. Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Pt Ltd [ (2021) 3 SCC 224] Rajendra Bhai Panchal Vs. Jay Manak Steels and Ors [MANU/NL/0387/2020] Background An application under Section 9 of the the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was filed by the Applicant / Operational Creditor. The sole objection of the Respondent / Corporate Debtor was with respect to the maintainability of the present Application. It argued that case of the Operational Creditor with respect to the date of default as per the statutory notice in 'Form 3' read with the present Application in 'Form 5' is 27.11.2020, thus is clearly hit by the period covered under Section 10A of the Code and in support they re

Cause Title :  Priyal Kantilal Patel vs IREP Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1423 of 2022, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi Date of Judgment/Order : 01.02.2023 Corum : Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) & Barun Mitra, Member (Technical) Citied:  Amrit Kumar Agrawal Vs. Tempo Appliances Pvt. Ltd. [2020 SCC OnLine NCLAT 1202]  Dr. Gopal Krishnan MS & Anr. Vs. Mr. Ravindra Beleyur & Anr. [CA(AT)(CH)(INS) No. 316 of 2022] Background An application under Section 7 was filed by the Financial Creditor- Debenture Holder. Subsequently,  a consent terms was entered between the parties with other stakeholders. According to the  consent terms, the Financial Creditor-Respondent herein agreed to withdraw the Company Petition.  When the consent terms was defaulted, the cheques which were issued by the Corporate Debtor were dishonored. The Financial Creditor instead of reviving earlier company petition, filed a fr

Cause Title : Nitin Jain vs Lucky Holdings Pvt. Ltd., National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi,  Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 1390 of 2022 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.01.2023 Corum : Justice Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson & Mr. Barun Mitra, Member (Technical) Citied:  Background Chronology of event:- 1) The Appellant as the Liquidator of a company published sale notice for selling the corporate debtor as a going concern.  2) The Liquidator received a summon from the Directorate of the Enforcement, PMLA (ED) seeking certain documents from the Appellant in reference to investigation under PMLA Act, 2002 regarding the payment of Rs. 300 Crores sanctioned by Bank of Baroda to M/s. PSL Limited.  3) Liquidator received an email from the ED asking the liquidator not to proceed with the sale of the assets of the Corporate Debtor.  On the Liquidator approaching the High Court against the email, the court directed the Appellant to proceed for the sale of the corp

Cause Title :  M/s Suryapushpa Distributors vs Rail Land Development Authority, Delhi High Court, O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 213/2022 and I.A. No. 14394/2022 Date of Judgment/Order : 13.01.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh Citied:  M/S Inter Ads Exhibition Pvt Ltd vs. Busworld International Cooperatieve Vennotschap Met Beperkte Anasprakelijkheid, 2020 SCC Online Del 2485 Firm Ashok Traders vs. Gurumukh Das Saluja, (2004) 3 SCC 155 Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India, (2020) 17 SCC 324 Adhunik Steels Ltd. vs. Orissa Manganese and Minerals (P) Ltd., (2007) 7 SCC 125 Arcelormittal Nippon Steel (India) Ltd. vs. Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd., (2022) 1 SCC 712 Background The respondent, being a statutory authority under the Ministry of Railways, is responsible for creating assets for the Indian Railways by developing vacant railway land for commercial use. For the said purpose, the respondent issued a Request for Proposal Notice for grant of lease for the purposes of comm

Cause Title :  M/s Suryapushpa Distributors vs Rail Land Development Authority, Delhi High Court, O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 213/2022 and I.A. No. 14394/2022 Date of Judgment/Order : 13.01.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh Citied: M/S Inter Ads Exhibition Pvt Ltd vs. Busworld International Cooperatieve Vennotschap Met Beperkte Anasprakelijkheid, 2020 SCC Online Del 2485 Background An application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed by the Petitioner in view of threats issued by respondent vide letter dated 1st July 2022 to terminate the Letter of Acceptance (“LoA”) dated 9th February 2022 executed by Petitioner and the Respondent.  The Petitioner alleged that the instant matter was listed on 11th July 2022 where the counsel for the respondent sought time to file a reply to the petition but in utter malice instead of filing the said reply the respondent terminated the LoA vide communication dated 19th July 2022. Consequently, through this Int

Cause Title : M/s Raj Chawla And Co. Stock And Share Brokers vs M/s Nine Media And Information Services Ltd. & Anr., Delhi High Court, O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 93/2022 Date of Judgment/Order : 30/1/2023 Corum : Yashwant Varma, J. Citied:  Yashwith Constructions (P) Ltd. vs. Simplex Concrete Piles India Ltd. ONGC Petro Additions Limited vs. Ferns Construction Co. Inc. Background Due a dispute between the parties, an arbitration proceeding was commenced consequent to the issuance of a notice dated 04 March 2018 referable to Section 21 of the Arbitration Act. Based on the MOU between the parties, the Delhi High Court by an order dated 03.08.2018, constituted an Arbitral Tribunal by appointing a sole arbitrator which was to take effect after 01.09.2018 to give opportunity to the parties to arrive at a settlement. By an e mail of 25 .09.2021, the sole arbitrator taking cognizance of a statement of claim submitted by the petitioner, called upon parties to appear before it on 04.10.2021 for a p

Cause Title : Mrs. Vatsala Jagannathan vs K. Jagannathan, Arb. O. P. (Comm. Div.) No.163 of 2022, Madras High Court Date of Judgment/Order :  Corum : Mr. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy Citied:  Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation (Vidya Drolia), 2021 2 SCC 1 Chloro Controls India Pvt Ltd v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc.(Chloro Controls), (2013) 1 SCC 641. Purple Medical Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Miv Therapeutics Inc. and Others (Purple Medical Solutions), Manu/SC/0139/2015 Andal Dorairaj v. Hanudev Infopark (Andal Dorairaj), 2016-2-L.W.9. Cheran Properties Limited v. Kasturi And Sons Limited(Cheran Properties), (2018) 16 SCC 413. Dr.Papiya Mukherjee v. Aruna Banerjea & another (Papiya Mukherjee), 2022 SCC Online Cal 595. Background The petitioners state that they entered into a memorandum of agreement (MoA) with the first respondent in relation to the development of land owned by the first petitioner into a multi-storied residential or commercial building. For that, two

Cause Title :  Muhammed Rashid @ Rashid vs Girivasan E. K., MACA NO. 616 OF 2018, Kerala High Court Date of Judgment/Order : 24.01.2023 Corum : The Honourable Mrs. Justice Sophy Thomas Citied:  Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited [AIR 2011 SC 2951] New India Assurance Co. v. Kamala & Others [(2001) 4 SCC 342] Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Nanjappan [(2004) 13 SCC 224] Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd., rep by its Deputy Manager (Legal) vs. Manju Devi and Others [2014 SCC OnLine AP 232] Background The appellant, while travelling in an autorickshaw. A car driven by the 1st respondent, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the autorickshaw and he was thrown out to the road, and he sustained serious injuries. Though he approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.2,40,000/-, against which he has preferred this appeal. In this matter, the insurance company (3rd Respondent) whi