Legal News & Views

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8430 OF 2018, VIJAY KUMAR JAIN vs STANDARD CHARTERED BANK & ORS., the appellants had originally approached the NCLT to be provided with all relevant documents by the RP and to attend the COC meeting. The NCLT dismissed the application with liberty to the appellant to attend CoC meetings but not to insist upon being provided information considered confidential either by the resolution professional or the committee of creditors. The Appellate Tribunal while recognising attendance rights, denied the appellant’s prayer to access certain documents, most particularly, the resolution plans. The Supreme Court rejected the contention of the defendants referring to Notes on Clauses to Section 24, and stated that the said clause which holds that members of suspended Board of Directors are permitted to participate in CoC meetings only for the purpose of giving information regarding the financial status of the debtor is misconceived since even assuming that the Notes on...

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1128 OF 2019, M/S TWENTY FIRST CENTURY MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., appeal was filed against the decision of the High Court both single bench as well as the division bench from interfering in the dispute on the ground that it was a contractual issue involving disputed question of facts only. The issue was the decision of the insurance company in deleting the expressions "floods, rains" from the policy issued by it. The insurer had earlier issued issued the policy  covering cricket matches to the appellant with the deleted expressions and the appellant had raised claim on the insurer on the said grounds.after the match at Kochi was abandoned. The insurer after settling the claim, apprehending that similar claims may be made in future qua other matches, unilaterally deleted from the policy, the expression “floods, rains, etc.”  The appellant initially approached the high court stating that the action of the insurance co...

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 884 OF 2019, The State of Bihar & Anr. .vs Dr. Sachindra Narayan & Ors., suit was decreed in favour of the appellants wherein it was contended that as the State Government had provided funds for payment of pension for the last many years, the Anugraha Narayan Sinha Institute of Social Studies, Patna and the employees of the Institute have legitimate expectations to receive the amount of pension. The Supreme Court reversing the decision of the High Court held that the Doctrine of legitimate expectation states that legitimate expectation can be one of the grounds of judicial review but unless a legal obligation exists, there cannot be any legitimate expectation. The legitimate expectation is not a wish or a desire or a hope, therefore, it cannot be claimed or demanded as a right. The bench observed that legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred only if it is founded on the sanction of law or custom or an established procedure followed in regul...

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1291 of 2019, SWARAJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. vs KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD., the Respondent Bank had granted loan to the Applicant which turned NPA and suit was filed before the DRT which was allowed and recovery certificated were issued. However while various attempts were made to auction the secured assets, each of these attempts has yielded no results. In the meanwhile, the respondent issued statutory notices under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956. As no payments were forthcoming, a company petition was filed before the Bombay High Court and the said petition was admitted as the companies in question were said to be commercially insolvent. The borrower appealed before the Division Bench contending that once a secured creditor has obtained an order from the DRT, and a recovery certificate has been issued thereupon, such secured creditor cannot file a winding up petition as the Recovery of Debts Act is a special Act which vests exclusive jurisdiction ...

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4527 OF 2009, POONA RAM vs MOTI RAM (D) TH. LRS. & ORS., Moti Ram filed a suit came to be filed for declaration of title and for possession without any document of title to prove his possession, but claimed possessory title based on prior possession for a number of years. The Trial court decreed the suit. The First Appellate court reversed it holding that the defendants had proved their title and possession over the suit property. The High Court restored the Trial court decree and judgment.  Setting aside the High Court judgment, the Supreme Court referring to previous judgments opined that a person who asserts possessory title over a particular property will have to show that he is under settled or established possession of the said property. But merely stray or intermittent acts of trespass do not give such a right against the true owner. Settled possession means such possession over the property which has existed for a sufficiently long period o...

In Appeal (C) No(s). 31557/2018, BRILLIANT ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED vs MR. S. RAJAGOPAL & ORS., the corporate debtor, financial creditor and the operational creditor entered into a settlement. Based on the settlement, the corporate debtor submitted application for withdrawal. Relying on Regulation 30A of the Insolvency Code (IBC), the Chennai Bench of NCLT refused to permit withdrawal of application on the ground that Resolution Professional has already issued invitation of expression of interest. On appeal, the Supreme Court allowing the settlement decided that Regulation 30A has to be read subject to Section 12A of IBC, which does not impose the condition that withdrawal application has to be filed before the invitation of expression of interest. The Court further held that, this stipulation can only be construed as directory depending on the facts of each case.

In WA.No. 1737 of 2013, M/S LOURDES HOSPITAL vs DR.ABRAHAM MATHEW, the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, held that whether an establishment made profit or not was immaterial. Following the SC precedent Management of Tata Iron and Steeel Co.Ltd vs Chief Inspecting Officer and others, the bench observed that if the activity is frequent, continuous and relating to business, whether it earns profit or not is irrelevant. Since the above ingredients were present in respect of the activities of the hospital, it was held as an establishment under Section 2(6) of the above Act. Going by the scheme of of Gratuity Act, the shops and commercial establishments, which were covered under the Shops Act at the time of introduction of Gratuity Act would continue to be so covered under the said Act, irrespective of any amendment, repeal or exemption brought under the Shops Act. It cannot be said that the amendment of the Shops Act, if not brought into the Gratuity act, would make the Gra...