Follow us


Orders and Judgments Duration August 23,2019 – September 07, 2019



  • Hari Ram Nagar & Ors v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors
    Infrastructure suit under Section 20A Specific Relief Act22 August 2019 (DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Delhi High Court (HC) has held that for the purpose of Section 20A of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which restrains a Court from granting an injunction in a suit involving an infrastructure project, the existence of a contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is not mandatory. The Court, while dealing with a suit involving one such infrastructure project, also found that the counsel for the Government were not aware of incorporation of Section 20A, 20B and 20C in the Specific Relief Act. It thus asked the Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice to consider familiarizing advocates appearing for Government authorities with the legislative amendment.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • National Aluminium Company Limited v. Subhash Infra Engineers Pvt Ltd & Anr
    Civil Suit Objecting Jurisdiction of Arbitrator Not Maintainable-23 August 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT
    The Supreme Court (SC) has reiterated that a suit for injunction and declaration challenging the jurisdiction of Arbitrator is not maintainable.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • National Highways Authority of India v. Sayedabad Tea Company Ltd and Ors
    NHAI: Application Under Section 11 Arbitration & Conciliation Act to appoint Arbitrator not maintainable-27 August 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Supreme Court (SC) has held that an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for appointment of an Arbitrator in relation to disputes with National Highways Authority Of India is not maintainable in view of Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 which provides for such appointment by the Central Government.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • National Highways Authority of India & Anr v. Subhash Bindlish & Ors
    Outer limit of 120 days to file ‘Section 34’ application to set aside Arbitral Award not diluted by 2015 Amendment-14 August 2019 (SUPREME COURT ORDER)
    The Supreme Court has observed that the mandate under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act providing outer limit of 120 days to file an application to set aside Arbitral Award remains unchanged even after 2015 amendment of the Act. In this case, the application for setting aside the arbitral award was preferred beyond 120 days and the same was dismissed in view of the specific bar under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
    The Order can be accessed at:


  • The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Dhule v. Bhaawani Shankar Ginning Factory
    No deemed dividend if assessee was not a shareholder at the time of advance-1 August 2019 (ITAT ORDER)
    The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that deemed dividend cannot be applied when the assessee was not a shareholder at the time of the advance.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • L&T Infrastructure Finance Company Ltd v. Gwalior Bypass Project Ltd & ICICI Bank Limited
    A Financial Creditor Cannot Challenge the Insolvency Proceedings Initiated by Another Financial Creditor on The Ground of Superior Claim-19 August 2019(NCLAT JUDGEMENT)
    The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) while dismissing an appeal filed by L&T Infrastructure Finance Company Ltd. held that a Financial Creditor cannot challenge the order of admission of Insolvency Petition by another financial creditor merely on the ground that it has a superior claim over the claim of the other Financial Creditors.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • NUI Pulp and Paper Industries Pvt Ltd v. M/s Roxcel Trading GMBH
    National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has inherent power to impose moratorium before initiation of corporate Insolvency Resolution Process-17 July 2019 (NCLAT ORDERS)
    The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in a matter has recently held that once an application for initiating insolvency proceedings is filed, NCLT does not have to await hearing of the parties to impose moratorium.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • Excel Metal Processors Limited v. Benteler Trading International GMBH and Anr
    Exclusive jurisdiction clause does not bar National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) from entertaining IBC proceedings-21 August 2019
    The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has held that an Agreement barring the filing of a suit or case between parties in India while vesting the jurisdiction with a foreign court does not oust the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority i.e National Company Law Tribunal for proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • S A Consultants & Forwarders Private Limited v. Cargo Planners Limited
    National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) cautions RPS to look out for excess claims made by financial creditors against Corporate Debtor-8 August 2019 (NCLT ORDER)
    The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Principal Bench at New Delhi, while admitting an insolvency plea, has cautioned RP’s to carefully settle the claims made by financial creditors, banks and financial institutions, in excess of what’s actually owed to them by the Corporate Debtor.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • Navin Raheja v. Shilpa Jain & Ors
    The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) asks Raheja Developers to settle dispute with financial creditors-27 August 2019 (NCLAT ORDER)
    The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has asked realty firm Raheja Developers to settle its dispute with homebuyers, after the company challenged the NCLT’s order to initiate insolvency proceedings against it.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • ICICI Bank Ltd v. Mr Shailendra Ajmera & Committee of Creditors
    National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) allows Appeal Filed by ICICI against RP of Ruchi Soya Industries; Dismisses Claim of Preferential Transactions-22 August 2019 (NCLAT JUDGEMENT)
    The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has allowed an appeal filed by ICICI Bank against the Resolution Professional of Ruchi Soya Industries, setting aside the NCLT order that had upheld the RP’s claim of preferential treatment of its claims being done by the Corporate Debtor. The Resolution Professional of Ruchi Soya Industries had moved an application at NCLT Mumbai under section 43(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, dealing with ‘preferential transactions and relevant time’, for seeking reversal of the amounts that were debited from the current accounts of Ruchi Soya Industries maintained with ICICI Bank. If the liquidator or resolution professional finds that the corporate debtor (Ruchi Soya Industries in this case) has given preference to a transaction that puts a certain creditor at a beneficial position than it would have been under the mechanism provided for distribution of assets under section 53 of the IBC, then such a transaction is treated as a ‘preferential transaction’.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • Jet Airways (India) Limited (Offshore Regional Hub) v. State Bank of India & Anr
    Insolvency Proceedings Against Jet Airways in India and Netherlands- National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) to Decide The Legality of Dual Proceedings-21 August 2019 (NCLAT ORDER)
    What should the domestic company law tribunals do when a foreign court has already triggered insolvency proceedings against an Indian entity – this question has been raised before the NCLAT in the Jet Airways insolvency proceedings. The NCLAT after hearing the parties, has directed the ‘Committee of Creditors’ to obtain instructions and file affidavit as to whether they will cooperate with Administrator of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ (Offshore Regional Hub) and will intend to give same treatment as given to the similarly situated Foreign Company Creditors, who otherwise, are also eligible to file claim before the ‘Resolution Professional’. It also directed the COC to state as to who will bear the fee and cost of the Administrator of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ (Offshore Regional Hub) as the NCLAT intends to have a joint CIR process against Jet Airways, against which two proceedings have been initiated, one in India and another in Holland. 1 weeks’ time to file the reply affidavit has been given. The matter is now listed for further hearing on 4th September, 2019 at the NCLAT.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • Shweta Vishwanath Shirke & Ors v. The Committee of Creditors & Anr
    National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) allows promoters to regain control of firms at liquidation stage-28 August 2019(NCLAT ORDERS)
    The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has held that shareholders and owners can reach a settlement with the creditors when their entity is under liquidation and an official liquidator has been appointed by the insolvency court. In the liquidation case pertaining to Sterling Biotech, the NCLAT has set aside a bankruptcy court order to liquidate a debt-ridden company while allowing its promoters to take back control of the firm after making full payment to the lenders.
    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. Two tenders were floated by HPCL for supply to depots in 18 states. Suppliers of Gas Cylinders had formed a cartel and participated in the bidding process. The CCI found on comparison of price bids submitted by vendors showed a similarity of pattern. Further many vendors had submitted exactly the same or similar bids in most of the 18 states, which indicated a possible collusion and concerted action amongst the bidding vendors. It was also seen that in one of the tenders, the bidders had submitted their respective bids in a close range in the states where they had participated. The LPG cylinder vendors defended their action stating that there are only three buyers of 14.2 Kg LPG cylinders, i.e. IOCL, BPCL and HPCL which gives the Oil Marketing Companies bargaining power. It was further contended that nature of market is an “Oligopolistic Market” and price parallelism is common in such markets.
    The Commission pointed out that during the course of investigation several OPs had discussions amongst themselves before withdrawing their respective bids.
    The Commission noted that when such trade association transgress its legal contours and facilitate collusive or collective decision making, it violated the provisions of the Act. The conduct of the members showed that the association was used for improper purposes.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • National Consumers Co-operative Federation of India Limited v. New Town Electric Supply Company Limited
    Delay or insufficiency of services are not issues under the Competition Act-5 August 2019 (CCI ORDER)
    The Competition Commission of India (CCI)has held that elements of anti-competitive Agreement and abuse of dominant position stand on a higher platform than deficiency in services, thus such inefficiency in services will not form a competition issue.
    The Order can be accessed at:


  • Bookyourgym Fitness Private Limited v. Curefit Health care Private Limited & Cultfit Healthcare private Limited
    BookYourGame takes Curefit to court, gets an injunction against product -5 August 2019 (BANGALORE CIVIL COURT ORDER)
    BookYourGame, a marketplace to discover and book fitness centres, has been granted a temporary injunction restraining the Mukesh Bansal cofounded Cure.fit from launching its new product ‘Gym.Fit’, according to a court order. The Bangalore City Civil Court issued the restraint order on August 7 against Cure.fit, ordering it to not launch, promote, market or sell any product or service using the ‘Gym.Fit, CultX, and Sports.fit’ names, in any manner. The next court hearing is on September 11, as per the Order.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • Juggernaut Books Pvt Ltd v. Inkmango Inc and Ors
    Delhi High Court (HC) bars New York based Ink Mango from using ‘Juggernaut’, citing trademark violation -9 August 2019 (DELHI HIGH COURT ORDER)
    The Delhi High Court (HC) has refrained a New York-based company Ink Mango Inc from using the word “Juggernaut” including its domain name “www.thejuggernaut.com” from publishing any content, articles as it marks trademark infringement, in its order. The “Juggernaut” word is registered trademark for Delhi-based digital book publishing house, “Juggernaut Books Private Limited”. The court also asked Namecheap Inc, the company which registered the website,
    to block the domain name till further order.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • Zee Entertainment Enterprise Ltd v. Meghbela Cable and Broadband Services Pvt Ltd
    Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) directs Meghbela Cable to supply details to ZEEL for auditing-25 July 2019 (TDSAT ORDER)
    The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has directed multi-system operator Meghbela Cable and Broadband Services Pvt Ltd to file an affidavit in the dispute with ZEEL. TDSAT has noted that the audit is not making progress because historical data for the relevant period, or what the parties understand as baseline data, is not being supplied by the MSO. The tribunal directed the MSO to make adequate arrangements and preparations and extend full cooperation for the required audit. In an earlier hearing, TDSAT directed that the audit should be held by an independent auditor such as KPMG, Ernst and Young where the representatives of both the parties will be entitled to remain present and auditors shall be at liberty to ask for reports from the vendors of the MSO’s systems including SMS and CAS systems. It was also said that the cost of the audit shall be borne by ZEEL. TDSAT also directed to post the matter for reviewing the further progress of audit on 9 August. It also mentioned that the latest order shall also bind the vendors of the MSO.
    The Order can be accessed at: