Follow us


Orders and Judgments Duration January 8 – 22, 2019

Clarence Darrow, American Lawyer and Writer


  • Jharkhand v. Surendra Kumar Srivastava
    Writ Petition under Article 227 challenging judicial orders are maintainable, but not under Article 226-3 January 2019 [Supreme Court]
    The Supreme Court has reiterated that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of certiorari against judicial orders passed by civil courts is not maintainable.Writ petition under Article 227 challenging the orders passed by Civil Courts refusing to grant interim injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, will be maintainable.
    The court was considering an appeal filed by the state against one such Jharkhand High Court order which had entertained a writ petition under Article 226.
    The court refused to set aside the high court order on this sole ground, because its maintainability was not challenged by the state before the high court.
    “Had the Appellants raised the above objection regarding maintainability of the Writ Petition, the course open for Plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 was to amend the cause title of the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, and such a Writ Petition under Article 227 would have been clearly maintainable,” the court said while referring to judgment by three-judge bench in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath & Ors.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • The Government of Haryana PWD Haryana (B and R) Branch v. G.F. Toll Road Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
    Former employee not disqualified from acting as an Arbitrator, even after 2015 Amendment-3 January 2019 [Supreme Court]
    The Supreme Court has held that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not disqualify a former employee from acting as an arbitrator, provided that there are no justifiable doubts as to his independence and impartiality.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • Kamal Kumar v. Premlata Joshi & Ors
    Supreme Court (SC) explains five material questions to be answered in specific performance suit -7 January 2019 [Supreme Court]
    While affirming concurrent judgments dismissing a suit for specific performance, the Supreme Court briefly explained the questions which are to be considered in such a suit.
    The court added that issue of readiness and willingness is the most important issue for considering the grant of specific performance of the contract.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • Sneh Lata Goel v. Pushplata
    Executing Court has no jurisdiction to decide whether the court which decreed the suit had territorial jurisdiction-7 January 2019 [Supreme Court]
    The Supreme Court has held that an executing court has no jurisdiction to decide whether the court which passed the decree had territorial jurisdiction.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:


  • Jai Rajkumar & Mr.V.R.Heamntraj v. Stanbic Bank Ghana Limited & Rajkumar Impex Private Ltd
    Validity of Foreign Decrees Under Insolvency of Bankruptcy Code (IBC)-4 December 2018 [MADRAS High Court]
    In line with a recent NCLAT ruling which held that a Civil Court would be the appropriate authority to determine the legality of a foreign decree, two directors of Rajkumar Impex Private Limited filed a petition before the Madras High Court seeking to challenge the legality of the foreign decree, the basis on which RIPL was admitted into CIRP.
    RIPL was admitted into the CIRP as the guarantor that defaulted for its subsidiary based in Ghana. Stanbic Bank, the creditor that triggered the CIRP, did so on the basis of a decree obtained in a UK Court.
    The High Court observed that when the NCLAT ruled against NCLT’s power to regulate the legality of a foreign decree, and when the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the NCLAT order, both the orders were merged and the Supreme Court’s order on the subject would be binding.
    In accordance with the above observations, the Court held that a Civil Court would be the appropriate forum for determining the legality of a foreign decree.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • Union of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Through Regional Director (Western Region) v. Mr. Mukesh Maneklal Choksi
    National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) removes Auditor for drawing a blank on suspected shell Firm-3 January 2019 [NCLAT Order]
    The National Company Law Tribunal has removed the statutory auditor of Zen Shaving and allowed the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to appoint an independent director in his place. This is the first time the NCLT has passed such an order against an auditor under the Companies Act, 2013.
    The Order can be accessed at:ReadMore
  • Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd v. Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd
    Not necessary to start Insolvency against principal borrower first-8 January 2019 [NCLAT Judgment]
    A financial creditor can seek to first initiate insolvency proceedings against a corporate guarantor of a company, instead of the company itself, in case the guarantee fails, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has held.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • Shashi Prakash Khemka v. NEPC Micon
    Civil Court has no jurisdiction in matters in respect of which power has been conferred on National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)-8 January 2019 [Supreme Court Order]
    The Supreme Court has observed that the jurisdiction of the civil court is completely barred in matters in respect of which power has been conferred on the National Company Law Tribunal.
    The Order can be accessed at:


  • Vedanta Bio Sciences, Vadodara v. Chemists and Druggists Association of Baroda
    Competition Commission of India (CCI) fines Gujarat-based chemist association for restrictive trade practices-15 January 2019
    Fair trade regulator CCI has imposed a penalty on Gujarat-based Chemists and Druggists Association of Baroda for indulging in restrictive trade practices.
    The Competition Commission has directed the association to cease and desist from indulging in such activities in future.
    The regulator found the association in contravention of Section 3 of Competition Act which pertains to anti-abusive agreements.
    The ruling came on a complaint filed by Vadodara-based Vedanta Bio Sciences which alleged that association was insisting on NOC (No Objection Certificate) from it before any pharmaceutical company could appoint a stockist and was also engaged in fixation of trade margins.
    After finding “prima-facie” violations of the Act, the regulator had directed its investigation arm, director general to conduct a probe.Based on the reports, CCI found that association was mandating imposition of NOC prior to appointment of stockists.The commission observed that the practices carried out by the association has resulted in limiting and controlling the supply of drugs in the market in the Baroda district which is in contravention of Section 3.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • Chirag S Shartri v. Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd
    Competition Commission of India (CCI) rejects complaint against Indiabulls Housing Finance-2 January 2019
    Fair trade regulator CCI on January 2 dismissed a complaint alleging unfair and discriminatory trade practices by Indiabulls Housing Finance regarding loan agreement.
    Disposing of the complaint, the regulator said prima facie the case does not contravene the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • Jasper lnfotech Private Limited v. KAFF Appliances (India) Pvt. Ltd
    Competition Commission of India (CCI) dismisses Snapdeal’s complaint against KAFF on minimum resale price-15 January 2019
    The Competition Commission of India has dismissed e-commerce platform Snapdeal’s complaint alleging unfair business practices against KAFF Appliances with regard to the imposition of minimum resale price maintenance.
    The fair-trade regulator dismissed the complaint by Jasper Infotech Pvt Ltd, which owns and operates e-commerce platform Snapdeal, as the “conduct of KAFF did not demonstrate any adverse effect on the competition”.
    Further, the Competition Commission of India noted that presence of a large number of dealers who were competing with each other suggests a fair degree of intra-brand competition.
    The Order can be accessed at:


  • Digi Cable Network (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors
    ‘Security Clearance’ By MHA Mandatory: Supreme Court (SC) upholds cancellation of Licenses of cable TV Service Providers-7 January 2019 [Supreme Court]
    The Supreme Court recently upheld cancellation of licenses granted to Digi Cable Network and SCOD 18 Networking, for operating as Multi System Operators in the Digital Addressable System notified areas.
    The licenses, which were issued to these cable TV service providers, were cancelled by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting on the ground that the Ministry of Home Affairs denied issuance of “security clearance” to them.
    The companies had approached the apex court after the Bombay High Court dismissed their pleas challenging the cancellation order.
    Dismissing their appeals, the bench said: “We are of the view that the principles of natural justice were not violated in this case in the light of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ex-Armymen’s Protection Services Private Limited (supra) inasmuch as the appellant was not entitled to claim any prior notice before cancellation of permission.”
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India
    Supreme Court (SC) seeks Government reply on surveillance order-14 January 2019 [Supreme Court Order]
    The Supreme Court on Monday entertained PILs challenging the Centre’s December 20 notification authorising 10 agencies, including the CBI, Enforcement Directorate, IB and NIA, to intercept, monitor and decrypt any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource.
    The petitioners alleged that the notification issued under Section 69 of the Information Technology Act was a tool for the Government to snoop on the privacy of citizens and hence violated the right to privacy, which has been declared by the Supreme Court as part of the right to life.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • Centre for Accountability and Systemic Change (CASC) v. Union of India & Ors
    Supreme Court (SC) allows NGO to make Reserve Bank of India (RBI) party in WhatsApp payment service matter-14 January 2019 [Supreme Court]
    WhatsApp’s legal troubles continued with the Supreme Court ordering that the RBI be made party to a petition which has made several complaints against it.
    The complaints included non-payment of taxes locally and a proposal to introduce a payments service in India without a data localisation plan mandated by the central bank. Centre for Accountability and Systemic Change, a non-government organisation, had challenged the company’s failure to have a grievance officer.
    At the last hearing, WhatsApp had urged the court to dismiss the Petition, but the Court did not heed amid opposition from the petitioner.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • Bennett, Coleman & Company Ltd. & Anr. v. Mr Ajay Kumar & Ors
    Delhi High Court restrains site from using copies of TOI, ET-16 January 2019 [Delhi High Court Order]
    Delhi high court has restrained a website from putting on its platform copies of The Times of India and The Economic Times newspapers and the logo of the Times Group. In an interim direction, Justice Manmohan barred the website and asked its registrar, Go Daddy, to lock the ownership of the domain name www.sscias.com, giving it a week to comply.
    In the January 16 order, the court said that in view of the suit for infringement filed by BCCL, owner and publisher of the two newspapers, it was of the opinion that “a prima facie case of infringement and passing off is made out in favour of the plaintiffs and balance of convenience is also in its favour. Further, irreparable harm or injury would be caused to the plaintiffs if an interim injunction order is not passed”.
    The Order can be accessed at: