Follow us


Orders and Judgments Duration December 08-22, 2019



  • M/s Singal Udyog v. National Insurance Company Ltd & Ors
    Consumer Forums/Commissions cannot consider Complaint/Appeal on Merits after finding that it is time barred-2 December 2019 (SUPREME COURT ORDER)
    The Supreme Court (SC) has observed that a Consumer Forum/Commission after having come to the conclusion that the complaint/appeal was barred by limitation, could not consider the merits of the matter.
    The Order can be accessed at:ReadMore
  • Manik Lal Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
    In domestic enquiries, strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed-6 December 2019 (CALCUTTA HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Calcutta High Court (HC), while dismissing a writ Petition, said that it is settled law that in domestic enquiries strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed. The charge is decided upon the preponderance of probabilities. The court added, as long as there is some evidence in support of the charges, the disciplinary authority can act on the basis of the same.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • Pawan Kumar Yadav v. The State of Bihar
    Environmental Laws are required to be strictly implemented in today’s World-5 December 2019 (PATNA HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The High Court (HC) of Patna, while delivering an oral judgement said the environmental laws besides being substantive law, are required to be strictly implemented in today’s world and non-confirming to these laws is leading to irreversibly drastic and grave evil consequences on nature and that no slackness can be afforded or permitted on this front.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • Dyna Technologies Pvt Ltd v. Crompton Greaves Ltd
    Inadequate reasoning in Arbitral award: Ground for setting aside, the Supreme Court (SC) held-18 December 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Supreme Court (SC) has set aside an Arbitral award on the grounds of insufficiency and inadequacy of reasoning. The Court noted that an Arbitral award passed without adequate reasons is ‘unintelligible’, and therefore, unsustainable. While doing so, the Court delved into the jurisprudence of Section 31(3) of the Arbitration Act, which provides that Arbitral awards shall state the reasons on which they are based.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:


  • T R Ravichandran, RP v. The Asst. Commissioner (ST)
    Company under Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) obliged to Pay Taxes from the Date of Initiation If the Corporate Debtor is a Going Concern-5 December 2019 (NCLT ORDER)
    The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has ruled that any company that has initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) can be obligated to pay the taxes from the date of initiation of CIRP, if the Corporate Debtor is to be run as a going concern.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd v. Tata Sons Ltd & Ors
    National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) restores Cyrus Mistry as Tata Group Executive Chairman – 18 December 2019 (NCLAT ORDER)
    The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) restored Cyrus Mistry as the Executive Chairman of Tata Group. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the judgment of National Company Law Tribunal Mumbai Bench that upheld the appointment of N Chandrasekharan as Chairman in his place. A two-member bench granted four week time to Tata Sons to file an appeal against the said judgment. Mistry had challenged the decision of the Mumbai Bench of NCLT wherein petitions filed by the two investment firms Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd. and Sterling Investment Corp challenging Mistry’s removal were dismissed. The NCLT, Mumbai Bench had also noted that Mistry was ousted as chairman because the Board and its majority shareholders had ‘lost confidence in him’. NCLT, Mumbai had held that the board of directors of Tata Sons were competent to remove Cyrus as the executive chairman.
    The Judgment can be accessed at:


  • Competition Commission of India (CCI) approves subscription of compulsorily convertible debentures of Piramal Enterprises Limited (Piramal Enterprises) by Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec-10 December 2019 (CCI UPDATE)
    The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has approved subscription of compulsorily convertible debentures of Piramal Enterprises Limited (Piramal Enterprises) by Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ), under Section 31(1) of the Competition Act, 2002. Upon conversion, equity shareholding of CDPQ in Piramal Enterprises will increase from 3.68 % to 8.99%. The proposed combination entails subscription of CCDs of Piramal Enterprises by CDPQ, which upon conversion would result in increase in equity shareholding of CDPQ in Piramal Enterprises from 3.68% to 8.99% (‘Proposed Combination’). CDPQ, an institutional investor, is a Canadian institutional fund that manages and serves more than 40 depositors, which comprises public and private pension and insurance funds in Quebec, Canada.
    The Release can be accessed at:


  • ORRA Fine Jewellery Private Limited v. TomTop Merchandise Private Limited & Ors
    Chinese firm can’t sell products under Indian Jewelry brand name-14 November 2019 (BOMBAY HIGH COURT ORDER)
    In a relief to famous jewelry brand ORRA, the Bombay High Court (HC) through a temporary injunction, restrained a Chinese company and its agent in India from selling jewelry under the litigant’s brand name. The order was passed last month, after ORRA Fine jewelry Private Limited filed a suit against the owners of a website – orra-jewels.com – as the latter was using the registered trademark ‘ORRA’ to sell its jewelry, which the Petitioner said was an act of infringement and constituted passing off its goods as those of the established brand.
    The Order can be accessed at:ReadMore
  • Google India Private Limited v. M/s Visakha Industries and Another
    In pre-2009 cases, intermediaries like Google India can’t claim protection-10 December 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that internet intermediaries like Google India could not avail protection from trial if they published defamatory content prior to the 2009 Amendment to Section 79 of the Information Technology Act. A two-judge Bench held that Google India must also face trial for publishing such defamatory content against companies or complainants.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • Tanul Thakur v. Union of India & Ors
    Plea challenging the blocking of Website: Delhi High Court (HC) Issues Notice to Centre – 10 December 2019 (DELHI HIGH COURT ORDER)
    The Delhi High Court (HC) had issued notice to the Central Government in a plea challenging the blocking of the website called “Dowry Calculator” by the Ministry of Information Technology and Electronics. The present Petition has asked the court to quash all actions taken by the Government under section 69A of the Information Technology Act, with respect to a website called “Dowry Calculator”. It is complained by the Petitioner that the said website was launched as a satirical comment on the existing state of dowry demands in India. Therefore, blocking of the same without even giving a notice to the Petitioner cannot be legally sustained. In September 2018, the website was blocked by the Department of Telecommunications, on the recommendation of the Minister of Women and Child Development. The said Ministry had said in its complaint that the content hosted by the website is illegal and portrays country in bad light. Therefore, the Petition claims that the action taken by the Ministry of Information Technology and Electronics against the said website is arbitrary and unconstitutional, as it violates the public’s right to know, under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner claimed that the website had been blocked in contravention of the procedure laid down under IT (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. The Petitioner also claimed the violation of his right to natural justice, as the Ministry failed to inform him, or issue a notice to him about the proposed blocking, as required under Rule 8 of the Blocking Rules.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • Muncherji Nusserwanji Cama, Managing Director of Company “Bombay Samachar Pvt Ltd” & Bombay Samachar Pvt Ltd v. The State of Maharashtra Through Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bombay & Yazdi Hosi Desai
    When can Person other than Reporter, Editor, Publisher be tried for Defamation Proceedings? What Bombay High Court (HC) held– 18 November 2019 (BOMBAY HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Bombay High Court (HC) has held that in defamation cases, persons other than the reporter, editor, printer and publisher can also be tried or prosecuted, if the defamation complaint contains specific and clear allegations against such persons. As observed in the judgment passed by the Court, “As far as liability is concerned, primarily a reporter is responsible for his act of defamation and vicarious responsibility is fastened only on the printer, publisher and editor of the newspaper, unless the contrary is proved. …, it can safely be said that besides persons declared as editor, printer and publisher of a newspaper, only such persons could be prosecuted for an action of defamation against whom specific and clear allegations have been made in the complaint that either he was responsible for selection of the defamatory matter or had personal knowledge about the contents of the defamatory matter. In addition, it must also be averred in the complaint that such person had the intention to harm or had knowledge or reason to believe that the imputation will harm the reputation of the complainant.” The High Court made the said observation in an application filed by the Managing Director of a newspaper ‘Bombay Samachar’ seeking to quash defamation proceedings against him.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:ReadMore