Follow us


Orders and Judgments Duration June 23, 2020-July 07, 2020

  • Mohan Lal Jain v. Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India
    Delhi High Court (HC) stays imposition of Penalty on Insolvency Professional who allegedly violated the terms of moratorium, going against the Provisions if Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC)
    Delhi High Court (HC) has stayed the penalty imposed on an Insolvency Professional (IP) who allegedly violated the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code by going against the terms of the moratorium.
  • Kejriwal Mining Pvt Ltd and others v. Allahabad Bank and another
    Writ jurisdiction against ‘Wilful Defaulter’ declaration by identification committee attracted only in case of patent/gross illegality: Calcutta High Court (HC)
    The Calcutta High Court (HC) has ruled that Courts, in exercise of their writ jurisdiction, can intervene on a declaration of Wilful Defaulter in the first instance only where the limited grounds of patent malafide, arbitrariness, bias or abuse of the process of law by the Identification Committee are established. “The fast-track scheme of the relevant legislation and RBI guidelines operating in the field would be frustrated if the courts interfere at the drop of a hat in every case of probable mistake, even if the same requires a thread-bare scrutiny to establish”, the court explained. Noting that the grounds for declaration of wilful defaulter relied on by the Identification Committee were legally tenable, being in consonance with the RBI Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters of July 1, 2015, the bench held that “a threadbare analysis thereof, on a reconsideration of documents or consideration of fresh documents at this stage, requiring a detailed enquiry dependent on re-appreciation of evidence, is entirely beyond the scope of the writ court and could at best be addressed by the review committee”.
  • United India Insurance Co Ltd v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur
    Awarding compensation towards ‘Loss of Love & affection’ as a separate head in addition to ‘Loss of Consortium’ not justified: Supreme Court (SC)
    The Supreme Court (SC) has observed that there is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head, in addition to awarding compensation for loss of consortium.