Orders and Judgments Duration –May 08-22, 2019

order and judgments

Trials are the most entertaining of all American spectacles, better than the theater, and except for a few special cases, much more thrilling than movies.

JOHN WATERS, AMERICAN FILMMAKER

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

  • Thulasidhara & Another v. Narayanappa & Others
    Unregistered family settlement will operate as a complete estoppel against the parties to it-1 May 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS)
    The Supreme Court (SC) has observed that even if the family settlement was not registered, it would operate as a complete estoppel against the original plaintiff who was party to such settlement.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
    https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2007/32586/32586_2007_Judgement_01-May-2019.pdf
  • Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co Ltd v. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI)
    Supreme Court (SC) says unilateral altercation of contract by Government can’t be foisted upon unwilling party-8 May 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Supreme Court (SC) has held that any unilateral addition or alteration of a contract by the Government can never be foisted upon an unwilling party, nor can a party to the agreement be liable to perform a bargain not entered into with the other party. This conduct, according to the apex court, would be contrary to fundamental principles of justice as followed in India, and this ground would be available only in “very exceptional circumstances.”
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
    https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/19190/19190_2017_Judgement_08-May-2019.pdf
  • Beemaneni Maha Lakshmi v. Gangumalla Appa Rao (Since Dead) By LRS
    Specific Performance: plea of hardship cannot be raised if not pleaded in written statement-9 May 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Supreme Court (SC) has observed that a defendant in a specific performance suit should plead in his written statement the hardship that will be caused if the decree of specific performance of the contract is passed against him. Otherwise, such plea cannot be permitted to be raised in a later stage.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
    https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2008/2981/2981_2008_Judgement_09-May-2019.pdf
  • Mangathai Ammal (expired) through LRs and Others v. Rajeswari & Others
    Payment of part sale consideration or stamp duty cannot be sole criteria to hold transaction as benami-9 May 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Supreme Court (SC) has observed that the payment of part sale consideration or stamp duty by another person cannot be the sole criteria to hold the sale or transaction as benami.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
    https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/23345/23345_2016_Judgement_09-May-2019.pdf
  • Birla Corporation Limited v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Limited & Others (Criminal Appeal No. 875 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9053 of 2016
    Temporary removal of document for replication of content can be the subject of Theft-9 May 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Supreme Court (SC) recently held that information replicated from a document even temporarily removed from its lawful custody, will fall within the purview of “movable property” and thus can be the subject matter of theft under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code. While deciding the point of law, a Bench held, “Information contained in a document, if replicated, can be the subject of theft and can result in wrongful loss, even though the original document was only temporarily removed from its lawful custody for the purpose of extracting the information contained therein.”
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
    https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/16140/16140_2016_Judgement_09-May-2019.pdf
  • Md Allauddin Khan v. The State of Bihar & Ors
    Mere pendency of civil case between complainant and accused not a ground to quash criminal case-15 April 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS)
    The Supreme Court (SC) has observed that mere pendency of a civil case between complainant and accused is not a reason to quash criminal case. In Md. Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar, two accused were summoned by the Magistrate in a complaint alleging offence under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against them on the ground that since there was a dispute pending between the parties in the Civil Court in relation to a shop as being landlord and tenant, it is essentially a civil dispute between the parties. Terming the High Court view 'erroneous', the bench observed: "The High Court failed to see that mere pendency of a civil suit is not an answer to the question as to whether a case under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC is made out against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 or not. …’
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
    https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/39634/39634_2017_Judgement_15-Apr-2019.pdf

CORPORATE

  • ICICI Bank v. Era Infrastructure (India) Limited
    National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) rejects ICICI Bank's insolvency plea against Era Infrastructure-7 May 2019 (NCLT JUDGEMENT)
    The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has rejected the private lender's plea to initiate insolvency proceedings against Era Infrastructure (India), on account of "duplicity" of claims.
    The NCLT observed that the insolvency Petition filed by ICICI Bank against infrastructure company was based on the similar facts and documents which the resolution professional (RP) of Era Infra Engineering had rejected in the past.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:ReadMore
  • Ramco Systems Ltd v. Spicejet Ltd
    National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) dismisses insolvency plea against SpiceJet-8 May 2019 (NCLAT JUDGEMENT)
    The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has dismissed a plea for initiation of insolvency proceedings against Spicejet by Ramco Systems Ltd, an operational creditor of the low-cost carrier. A two-member bench upheld the orders passed by the National Company Law Tribunal in this matter saying that it has rightly rejected Ramco's plea by observing that such Petition requires strict proof of debt and default, which was absent in this case.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
    https://nclat.nic.in/Useradmin/upload/7328538675cd2c522f1561.pdf
  • Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co Ltd Reid and Taylor India Limited & Finquest Financial Solutions Pvt Ltd v. Mr Ravi Shankar Devarakonda
    National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) allows Finquest Financial Solutions to sell Reid & Taylor assets -10 May 2019 (NCLT ORDER)
    Setting a precedent, the NCLT has allowed Finquest Financial Solutions, one of the lenders of defunct the Reid & Taylor India, to take symbolic possession of the properties of the textile maker and proceed with the sale of its assets.
    The Order can be accessed at:ReadMore

COMPETITION

  • Mr Kalyan Chowdhary v. Cipla Limited & Bengal Chemist and Druggists Association
    Competition Commission of India (CCI) dismisses complaint against Cipla, Bengal chemist body-10 May 2019 (CCI ORDER)
    The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has dismissed a complaint against pharmaceutical major Cipla Ltd and the Bengal Chemist and Druggists Association over alleged non-supply of medicines. While dismissing the complaint, the CCI said that the complainant "tried to give a commercial dispute between him and Cipla Ltd a colour of competition issue".
    The Order can be accessed at:
    https://www.cci.gov.in/sites/default/files/43-of-2018.pdf
  • Maruti under Competition Commission lens-21 May 2019 (CCI UPDATE)
    The Competition Commission of India (CCI) is reportedly looking into allegations that Maruti Suzuki, the country’s biggest car maker, resorted to anti-competitive practices by controlling how its dealers discounted cars.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

  • Bata India Limited v. Chawla Boot House & Anr
    Arraying an unknown party as Defendant No. 1 in IPR cases to avoid detection in cause list impermissible in law-16 April 2019 (DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Delhi High Court (HC) has iterated that arraying an unknown person or an employee or Director of an entity as the first defendant in IPR cases to avoid detection in the cause list is impermissible in law. It has thus directed the Registry to seek undertakings of plaintiffs in IPR cases, clarifying that the first defendant is the main contesting defendant in the suit. Pursuant to the Court’s order, an office order has also been issued, directing the plaintiffs in IPR cases to provide an undertaking to this effect at the end of the memo of parties.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
    http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/PMS/judgement/22-04-2019/PMS16042019SC1102019.pdf
  • Ebixcash World Money Ltd & Ors v. Fraser Perring & Ors
    Delhi High Court (HC) directs Google, Twitter to take down article facilitating short selling in stock market-8 May 2019 (DELHI HIGH COURT ORDER)
    In one of the first orders in the country on the practice of “short selling” in the stock market, the Delhi High Court (HC) has directed Google and Twitter to take down a defamatory article on the plaintiff, Ebixcash World Money Ltd. The order was passed by a Single Judge Bench in a suit by Ebixcash against the members of the Viceroy Research Group.
    The Order can be accessed at:
    http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=133028&yr=2019
  • Bharti Airtel Limited & Commodore V B Misra (Rtd) Regional Head and Authorized Signatory of Bharti Telenet Limited v. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Urban Administration Deptt. D K S Bhawan Raipur & Municipal Corporation of Bhilai, Through Its Commissioner, Bhilai, Distt. Durg, Bhilai Chhattisgarh and Property Tax Officer, Municipal Corporation of Bhilai, Bhilai, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh
    Airtel liable to pay Property Tax for Laying of Underground Cable-14 May 2019 (CHHATISGARH HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Chhattisgarh High Court (HC) has held that the Petitioner Bharati Airtel Limited is liable to pay property tax in respect of or otherwise relating to underground cable laid for the purpose of providing telephone services or other telecommunication facilities.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
    http://highcourt.cg.gov.in/Afr/courtJudgementandAFR/2019/may/WP1055_03(14.05.19).pdf

Disclaimer (a) This E-mail message may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
(b) E-mail transmissions cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.

In case you do not wish to receive this newsletter any longer kindly message us at nl@www.alayalegal.com