Follow us


Orders and Judgments Duration August 08-22, 2019



  • Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors v. Manjit Kaur & Ors, Radhakrishna Reddy (D) Through Lrs v. G Ayyavoo & Ors
    Does Adverse Possession also give right to sue for title? Supreme Court (SC) says yes-7 August 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS)
    A person who has “perfected title” over an immovable property through adverse possession can maintain a suit under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for declaration of title and for the restoration of his possession in the event of dispossession. The question under scrutiny was, “whether Article 65 of the (Limitation) Act only enables a person to set up a plea of adverse possession as a shield as a defendant and such a plea cannot be used as a sword by a plaintiff to protect the possession of immovable property or to recover it in case of dispossession. Whether he is remediless in such a case?” Answering this in the negative, the Court held that Article 65 of the Limitation Act will be no bar for maintainability of a suit by the plaintiff against illegal dispossession and infringement of his right by the owner of the property whose title stands extinguished on account of plaintiff’s adverse possession.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • Amir Hamza Shaikh & Ors v. State of Maharashtra & Anr
    Victim has right to assist the Court in a trial before the Magistrate-7 August 2019
    The Supreme Court (SC) has observed that, though the Magistrate is not bound to grant permission to a victim to conduct prosecution at the mere asking but the victim has a right to assist the Court in a trial before the Magistrate.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • The Commissioner of Police & Ors v. Devender Anand & Ors
    Filing Criminal complaint for settling Civil Dispute is abuse of process of law -8 August 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS)
    Initiating criminal proceedings and filing a criminal complaint for settling a civil dispute is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, the Supreme Court held today.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd v. Canara Bank & Ors
    A non-signatory can be bound by Arbitration Agreement on the basis of “Group of Companies” doctrine -8 August 2019
    The Supreme court (SC), in a judgment delivered on Thursday, explained the circumstances in which the ‘Group of Companies’ Doctrine could be invoked to bind the non-signatory affiliate of a parent company to an arbitration. The bench observed that the ‘Group of Companies’ Doctrine could be invoked to bind the non-signatory affiliate of a parent company, or inclusion of a third party to an arbitration, if there is a direct relationship between the party which is a signatory to the arbitration Agreement; direct commonality of the subject matter; the composite nature of the transaction between the parties. The court also added that a ‘composite transaction’ refers to a transaction which is inter-linked in nature; or, where the performance of the Agreement may not be feasible without the aid, execution, and
    performance of the supplementary or the ancillary Agreement, for achieving the common object, and collectively having a bearing on the dispute. It added: “The Group of Companies Doctrine has also been invoked in cases where there is a tight group structure with strong organizational and financial links, so as to constitute a single economic unit, or a single economic reality. In such a situation, signatory and nonsignatories have been bound together under the arbitration Agreement. This will apply in particular when the funds of one company are used to financially support or re-structure other members of the group”.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors v. B Ranga Reddy (D) By Lrs & Ors
    Filing of cross objections by defendants not necessary to dispute adverse findings in the dismissed suit-9 August 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Supreme Court (SC) has observed that it is not necessary that defendants should file cross objections to the appeal against dismissal of a suit to dispute certain findings adverse to them in the judgment appealed against.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • Joginder Singh & Anr v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company
    Deceased Bachelor’s age is the basis for computing Multiplier in Motor Accident Claims-14 August 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The ‘Multiplier’ to be applied in the case of a deceased bachelor, should be computed on the basis of the age of the deceased, not the age of the parents, the Supreme court has reiterated.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:


  • Union of India, MCA v. Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd & Ors
    Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) asks National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to freeze assets of IL&FS unit auditors-25 July 2019 (NCLT ORDER)
    The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has moved the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai Bench for freezing assets of Deloitte Haskins & Sells and BSR & Associates, auditors of IL&FS Financial Services, following their impleadment in NCLT proceedings in the IL&FS fraud case.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • New Delhi Television Limited v. Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Bhavan
    Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) upholds penalty on NDTV for disclosure lapses; firm to appeal in SC-7 August 2019 (SAT ORDER)
    The Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) has upheld the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) decision to impose ₹ 2 crore penalty on media group NDTV in a case of disclosure lapses regarding tax demand of ₹ 450 crore. The tribunal also upheld ₹ 19 lakh penalty imposed by SEBI on the company as well as three officials, including promoters Pranoy Roy and Radhika Roy. The SAT ruled that ₹ 2 lakh fine imposed on the firm’s compliance officer, Anoop Singh Juneja, for violating listing Agreement was unjustified. Juneja was liable to pay a fine of ₹ 1 lakh for violating norms pertaining to code of corporate disclosures practices under the Insider Trading norms, according to the SAT order.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited & Anr v. Union of India & Ors
    Supreme Court (SC) upholds homebuyers’ rights as financial creditors under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code IBC-9 August 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Supreme Court (SC) on August 9 upheld the amendment in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) that confers them the status of financial creditors.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • Ved Prakash Abbot v. Kishore K Avarsekar & Ors
    A Creditor can’t be given preferential treatment towards satisfaction of a compromise decree, pending moratorium in IBC Proceedings-9 August 2019 (DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT)
    Dismissing a contempt Petition, the Delhi High Court (HC) has held that contempt proceedings could not be used to execute an order of payment, whose execution was otherwise prevented by law on account of ongoing insolvency proceedings.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • State Bank of India v. Moser Baer Karamchari Union & Anr
    Workmen dues of Pension, Gratuity, PF not included in Liquidation Assets-19 August 2019 (NCLAT JUDGEMENT)
    The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), while dismissing an appeal filed by SBI, one of the financial creditors of Moser Baer India Ltd, against the Workmen’s Trade Union of Moser Baer India Ltd., has upheld the view taken by the NCLT Principal Bench that provident fund, pension fund and gratuity fund dues are not treated as a part of ‘liquidation estate’.
    The Appellate Tribunal confirmed that the dues should be paid to the workers directly, and would not fall under the waterfall mechanism of distribution of assets under section 53 of the IBC.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:


  • Competition Commission of India (CCI) imposes ₹ 17-crore penalty on JTEKT Corp, Indian subsidiary-9 August 2019 (CCI ORDERS)
    Competition Commission has imposed more than ₹ 17 crore fine on Japan’s JTEKT Corp and its Indian subsidiary for cartelisation with NSK Ltd in supply of electric power steering systems to automotive manufacturers. The regulator decided not to impose any penalty on NSK and its Indian subsidiary as the company had submitted the evidence about the cartel.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • Matrix Info Systems Private Limited v. Intel Corporation & Intel Technology India Private Limited
    Intel’s India warranty policy faces Competition Commission of India (CCI) probe-9 August 2019
    Competition Commission of India (CCI) has reportedly ordered a probe into its new warranty policy. According to the CCI’s order dated August 9, the commission has found prima facie that Intel’s India specific warranty policy for its micro-processor chips (Boxed Micro-Processors or BMP) is “unfair and discriminatory, especially when seen in the light of the fact that such differential treatment is not meted out by Intel in other jurisdictions”. “… (This) also prima facie results in limiting or restricting the market for Boxed Micro-processors for Desktop and Laptop PCs in the territory of India… as well as results in denial of market access to parallel
    importers…. Consequently, the Commission directs the Director General to cause an investigation into the matter and submit an investigation report within a period of 150 days of receipt of this order,” CCI said.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • Competition Commission of India (CCI) imposes penalty on LPG Gas Vendors for cartelization in bidding process-9 August 2019
    The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has imposed penalty on 51 vendors for cartelization in the bidding process in supplying LPG Gas Cylinders to HPCL. A further penalty was imposed on 48 vendors for contravention of Section 48(1) of the Competition Act, 2002. The Commission took suo motu cognizance of the case upon receiving an anonymous letter dated 25.04.2013 alleging that a cartel was operating in tenders floated by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
    in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002.
    The Order can be accessed at:


  • Prevent websites from uploading pirated version of ‘Nerkonda Paarvai’-6 August 2019 (MADRAS HIGH COURT ORDER)
    The Madras High Court (HC) has directed 37 internet service providers in the country to prohibit 1,129 websites from uploading pirated or unauthorised versions of Tamil movie, Nerkonda Paarvai, starring Ajith. The film is a remake of 2016 Amitabh Bachchan-starrer courtroom drama, Pink, and scheduled to release on August 8.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • Tata SIA Airlines Limited v. M/S Pilot18 Aviation Book Store & Anr
    Delhi High Court (HC) restrains portal from using ‘Vistara’ on products; says it poses security threat-5 August 2019 (DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT)
    An aviation studies portal has been restrained from offering counterfeit ‘Vistara’ branded products by the Delhi High Court (HC), which said that it posed security risks at airports as it is a distinctive Tata-SIA airline trademark in the airline industry.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • Warner Bros Entertainment Inc v. Https://Skymovies.Live & Ors
    Block TamilRockers and piracy websites: Delhi High Court (HC) to Internet Service Providers-5 August 2019 (DELHI HIGH COURT ORDER)
    The Delhi High Court (HC) has directed Internet Service Providers to block access to websites like Tamilrockers, EZTV, Katmovies and Limetorrents which are allegedly engaged in unauthorised streaming and distribution of movies and television series of production houses like Warner Bros, Universal and Netflix. After hearing Warner Bros, the court said a prima facie case was made out that if an interim order was not passed, irreparable harm or injury would be caused to the company.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • Spectranet Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax
    Sale of Domain Name amount to Sale of Goods, No Service Tax Leviable-5 August 2019 (CESTAT ORDER)
    The Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that no service tax can be levied on the sale of the domain name as it amounts to the sale of goods.
    The Order can be accessed at: