Legal News & Views

Cause Title :  Union Bank Of India vs Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.1861-1871/2022, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14-02-2022 Corum : M.R. Shah; B.V. Nagarathna, Jj. Citied: Bikram Chatterji and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2019 19 SCC 161 Background Appeal was filed against judgment of the Rajasthan High Court declaring the RERA Act to prevail over SARFAESI act. Judgment The Supreme Court observed that on the question of applicability of RERA while SARFAESI Act is also activated, Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act provides that the provisions under the said Act shall have the effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law. Similarly worded provision giving overriding effect to RERA Act is contained in Section 89. This Section as noted, provides that provisions of the said Act (i.e. RERA Act),

Cause Title :  Nirej Vadakkedathu Paul vs Sunstar Hotels and Estates Private Limited, Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 142 of 2022, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Chennai Bench Date of Judgment/Order : 27.02.2023 Corum : Justice M. Venugopal, Member (Judicial) & Naresh Salecha, Member (Technical) Citied:  P. Naveen Chakravarthy vs. Punjab National Bank, (W.P No. 27780 of 2019) Innoventive Industries Limited Vs. ICICI Bank, ((2018) 1 SCC 407) Periasamy Palani Gounder Vs. Radhakrishnan Dharmarajan, (2022 SCC OnLine NCLAT 86) Vidharbha Industries Power Limited Vs. Axis Bank Limited, Civil Appeal No. 4633 of 2021 Axis Bank Vs. Lotus Three Developments & Ors., ((2018) SCC OnLine NCLAT 914) Naveen Chakravarthy Vs. Punjab National Bank, MANU/ TN/ 0376/ 2021 ICP Investments v. Uppal Housing, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 12371 Punit Garg . Vs. Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 255-256 Satish Seth Vs. Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Compan

Cause Title :  Yassh Deep Builders Llp vs Sushil Kumar Singh & Anr., Delhi High Court,  Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh Citied: Saradamani Kandappan vs S. Rajalakshmi & Ors ; (2011) 12 SCC 18 Background On 15th May, 2018, the petitioner entered into a Collaboration Agreement with the respondent no. 1 for the development of some land belonging to the respondent at its own costs and expenses. Under the terms of the Collaboration Agreement, the petitioner was, inter alia, obliged to apply for licence/ approvals/ permits/ certification etc. for the development of the property in a timely and orderly manner. The Collaboration Agreement stood terminated by the respondent No.1 by way of a letter dated 29th September, 2021 which apparently was never received by the petitioner.  It is the petitioner's case that on 14.12.2022 on receipt of a phone call regarding the said property for being put for sale, the petitioner made enquiry on

Cause Title :  State Bank of India & Ors vs  Rajesh Agarwal & Ors,  Civil Appeal No. 7300 of 2022, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 27/3/2023 Corum : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI & Hima Kohli, J Citied:  State Bank of India v. Jah Developers, (2019) 6 SCC 787 Union of India v. W N Chadha, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 260 Anju Chaudhary v. State of UP, (2013) 6 SCC 384 State of Orissa v. Dr (Miss) Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 27  Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, (1978) 1 SCC 405 28 D K Yadav v. J M A Industries,  (1993) 3 SCC 259 Canara Bank v. V K Awasthy, (2005) 6 SCC 321 Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 1 SCC 70 Joseph Vilangandan v. Executive Engineer, (1978) 3 SCC 36 Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar, (1989) 1 SCC 229 Gorkha Security Services v. Govt (NCT of Delhi), (2014) 9 SCC 105 State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern for Governance Trust, (

Cause Title :  Wam India Private Limited vs SN Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., CP (IB) No.1152/MB-IV/2020, National Company Law Tribunal Mumbai Date of Judgment/Order : 17.03.2023 Corum : Mr. Prabhat Kumar (Technical) &  Mr. Kishore Vemulapalli  (Judicial) Citied:  M/s. A2 Interiors Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd. (2021) SCC online NCLT 438 Background The Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor had a long-standing business relationship with each other. Corporate Debtor used to issue purchase orders to the Operational Creditor for materials/goods/items whenever required for its business purpose and Operational Creditor based on the purchase orders prepared and dispatched the goods along with the invoices for the goods. However, the CD started delaying payment and eventually a demand notice was issued by the OC. The CD did not raise any dispute. Rather the CD assured payment but failed  to clear the outstanding debt. Judgment The NCLT observed that

Cause Title :  M/s S.S. Engineers & Ors. vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 4583 Of 2022,  Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 15/7/2022 Corum : Indira Banerjee; J., V. Ramasubramanian; J. Citied:  Mobilox Innovations Private Limited v. Kirusa Software Private Limited, (2018) 1 SCC 353 K Kishan vs. Vijay Nirman Co. (P) Ltd., (2018) 17 SCC 662 Background This appeal was against a judgment passed by the NCLAT setting aside the order passed by the NCLT, Kolkata, admitting an application filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) as Operational Creditor, for initiation of CIRP against HPCL Biofuels Ltd. (HBL), a wholly owned subsidiary of HPCL. Disputes arose between the Appellant and the Respondent against some work orders issued by the Respondent. On one side the Appellant demanded payment for work done while the Respondent objected to the quality of work and goods supplied. The matter finally reached the NCLT

Cause Title :  Income Tax Officer vs Sohrab Fali Mehta, ITA No.55/Mum/2023, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Date of Judgment/Order : 15/03/2023 Corum : Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Judicial Member Citied: CIT us. Manjula J Shah (355 ITR 474), Bombay High Court Background This appeal was filed by the Dept. against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rejecting the assessment order of the Income Tax Officer. The matter relates to indexation on capital application against sale of a property. The assessee claimed the benefit from the date of acquisition of the property by the previous owner (his mother) which was in 01/04/1981.  The main plea of the ld. AO is that the mother of the assessee died on 09/03/2008 and therefore, the assessee became entitled to share in the property through the will of the mother and hence, the assessee can be allowed indexation only from F.Y.2007-08 and not from F.Y.1981-82. The ld. AO relied on

Cause Title :  Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company Ltd. Vs Amrapali Enterprises And Anr, EC 122 of 2022, Calcutta High Court Date of Judgment/Order : 14/03/2023 Corum : Shekhar B. Saraf, J Citied:  HRD Corporation vs GAIL 12 SCC 471, 2018 TRF Limited vs Energo Engineering Projects Limited, 7 S.C.R. 409, 2017 Perkins Eastman Architects DPC vs HSCC (India) Ltd.,17 S.C.R. 275, 2019 Bharat Broadband Network Limited vs United Telecoms Limited reported 6 S.C.R. 97, 2019 Yashovardhan Sinha and Ors. vs Satyatej Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd.  CHN (CAL) 305,  2022(3) B.K. Consortium Engineers Private Limited vs Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta, (2023 SCC OnLine Cal 124) Ram Kumar and Ors. vs Shriram Transport Finance Co. Limited, MANU/DE/4941/2022 JV Engineering Associate, Civil Engineering Contractors vs General Manager, CORE, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 4829 Naresh Kanyalal Rajwani vs Kotak Mahindra Bank,2022 SCC OnLine Bom 6204 Sunder Dass vs Ram Prakash, 1977 AIR 1201 Hiralal Moolchand Doshi vs

Cause Title :  M/s. Primee Silicones (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s. UCAL Fuel Systems Ltd., Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins.) No. 299 of 2021, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal At Chennai Date of Judgment/Order : 17/02/2023 Corum : Justice M. Venugopal, Member (Judicial) & Ms. Shreesha Merla, Member (Technical) Citied:  Karamadai Naicken Vs. R. Raju Pillai & Anr., AIR 1949 Mad 401 Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited Vs. Bishal Jaiswal and Anr., (2020) 16 SCC 366 Bharat Skins Corporation Vs. Taneja Skins Corporation Private Limited, (2012) 186 DLT 290 Wilsons Jacobs Vs. Lucid Prints & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine BOM 1998 Background Appeal was filed against the order of the NCLT dismissing an application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as barred by Limitation. The Appellant had argued that the Corporate Debtor has not disputed the receipt of goods or raised any disputes prior to the receipt of  Statutory Notice dated 07.02.2020, but their

Cause Title :  Pranesh Dealmark Pvt. Ltd. Vs.  Union of India & ors,  WPA 2476 of 2023, Calcutta High Court Date of Judgment/Order : 10.02.2023 Corum : Md. Nizamuddin, J. Citied:  Takshashila Realties Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, SCC OnLine Guj 6462, 2016 Background The petitioner challenged the impugned notice dated June 23, 2021 relating to assessment year 2014-15 under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is a transferor company on the grounds that the impugned notice has been issued in the name of the company which has already been amalgamated in.2020 and that the department has been intimated about this amalgamation which is matters of record and such notice in the name of a non-existing company is not tenable in the eye of law. Judgment The High Court observed that the impugned notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act have been issued against the original assessee on 21.01.2011 to reopen the assessment for the Assessment year 2009-10. The pe

Cause Title :  Union Of India vs M/s. Magnum Steel Ltd., Civil Appeal Nos. 9597-9599 Of 2011, Supreme Court Date of Judgment/Order : 02.03.2023 Corum : S. Ravindra Bhat & Dipankar Datta,  JJ Citied:  State of Rajasthan vs. Rehman, AIR 1960 (SC) 210 Durga Prasad Etc. vs. H.R. Gomes, AIR 1966 (SC) 1209 Background The respondent’s premises were subject to search and seizure proceedings conducted by the Revenue dept. which had drawn up a Panchnama listing out materials and documents seized in the course of the proceedings. The said s & s were appeal against by the respondent and the High Court had quashed the initiation of search and seizure proceedings and all consequential proceedings, launched against the respondent/assessee. Hence this appeal. Judgment The Supreme Court observed that when the High Court had called for the original record, the revenue had produced the warrant of seizure which had mentioned about some information, placed before the concerned officer leading the o

Cause Title :  Lt Overseas North America Inc & Anr. vs Krbl Limited, CS(COMM) 347/2022, Delhi High Court Date of Judgment/Order : 24.02.2023 Corum : Justice Navin Chawla Citied:  Bata India Limited v. Chawla Boot House & Ors., MANU/DE/1368/2019 Procter & Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 3374 Teleecare Network India Pvt. Ltd. v. Asus Technology Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8739 Adani Wilmar Ltd. v. Baljit Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr  Marico Limited v. Agro Tech Foods Limited, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 3806; Soothe Healthcare Private Limited v. Dabur India Limited, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2006; Red Bull AG v. Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 969; Ultratech Cement Limited and Another v. Dalmia Cement Bharat Limited, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 3574 Rhizome Distilleries P. Ltd. and Others v. Pernod Ricard S.A. France and Others, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3346;  Sime Darby E

Cause Title :  Jushya Realty Private Limited vs Ninety Properties Private Limited, CP (IB) No.949/MB-IV/2021, National Company Law Tribunal (Mumbai) Date of Judgment/Order : 03.02.2023 Corum : Mr. Prabhat Kumar (Technical) & Mr. Kishore Vemulapalli (Judicial) Citied:  Background The Financial Creditor agreed to purchase 100% of share capital of the Corporate Debtor held by its Shareholders/promoters for a lumpsum consideration of Rs.4,50,00,000/- and paid an advance payment of Rs. 1,25,00,000 to the Corporate Debtor towards this transaction on 17.12.2014 which was stated as as “advance from debtors” under the head “other current liabilities” by the Corporate Debtor. When the CD failed to provide documents to complete due diligence, the FC asked the CD for refund but the CD denied all existence of any advance. Thereafter FC filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 claiming this advanced payment is in nature of financial debt. Judgment From p

Cause Title :  Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata Iv, Kolkata Vs. M/s. Machino Techno Sales Ltd., ITA/160/2011, Calcutta High Court Date of Judgment/Order : 20/02/2023 Corum : The Hon’ble Justices T.s. Sivagnanam And Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Citied:  Background Some lands were purchased by the assessee during 1985/1990 and the said land and factory shed was used by the assessee as its workshop and was shown as capital asset in its balance-sheet. The purchase prices were debited by the assessee under the head ‘land account’. On 13th November, 1994 the assessee entered into a development agreement with the developer under which the assessee in exchange of the land in question was entitled to get 45% of the constructed area and the remaining portion of the land and shed continued to be used by the assessee for its own workshop purchase.  The Revenue Dept. treated income of the owner/assesee from the Development Agreement as of income from business which was rejected by the Income Tax Appel

Cause Title : ACIT vs  Sh. Sanjay Choudhary, ITA No.1274/Del/2020, A.Y. 2013-14, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Date of Judgment/Order : 23/01/2023 Corum : Sh. N.K.Billaiya, Accountant Member And Sh. Anubha V Sharma, Judicial Member Citied: ACIT V. Om Prakash Gyal [2012] (JP) Background The Assessee had claimed benefit under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act for having constructed residential house out of the capital gains from sale of some properties. However the tax dept. rejected the claim arguing that the Assessee has not held the properties for at least 36 months and further the purchases made by the Assessee were not through registered sale deed. The Appellate Authority however took a contrary view and gave benefit of Section 54F of the Act to the assessee which lead to the present appeal filed by the Dept. The question before the Appellate Tribunal was whether exemption under Section 54F of the IT Act would be available for the properties purchased by the Respondent who does not

Cause Title :  Indian Overseas Bank vs M/s RA Pure Life Science Limited, Writ Petition No. 2109 Of 2020, Telangana High Court Date of Judgment/Order : 10/02/2023 Corum : The Hon'ble Sri Justices P. Naveen Rao And  J. Sreenivas Rao Citied:  Mathew Varghese Vs M.Amritha Kumar, 2014), (2014) 5 SCC 610 Concern Readymix v. Corporation Bank, Telangana Division Bench, 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 783 Canara Bank Vs. M.Amarender Reddy, (2017) 4 SCC 735 M/s. Aruna Web Offset Printers Vs. Andra Bank, WP 16870 of 2019 dt 21.4.2020 (TSHC-DB) Amme Srisailam vs, Unlon Bank of India and others (W.P.No.11435 of 202l , dated 17.08.2021) M/s Aditya Industries Vs Vijaya Bank, WP Nos. 25174 and 34129 of 2018 dt 8.1.2020 Srl Sai Annadhatha Polyrmers and another Vs The Canara Bank, 2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 178 Background Petitioner bank extended loan facilities to a tune of Rs/ 30.93 crores to respondent no.1 represented by respondent nos. 2 and 3 which became NPA. On 27.5.2016, possession notice was issued by the Ba