Follow us


Orders and Judgments Duration March 08-22, 2020



  • Punjab and Sind Bank and Others v. Mrs Durgesh Kuwar
    Supreme Court (SC) on Sexual Harassment
    The Supreme Court (SC) has held that “Sexual harassment at the workplace is an affront to the fundamental rights of a woman to equality under Articles 14 and 15 and her right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution as well as her right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.” https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l_0BrxWLDW8kiofH_9XSeInkKStrsjzo/view


  • Mallika v. Union of India and The State of Tamil Nadu
    High Court (HC) clarifies: Usage of words ‘Eminent Senior Advocate’ in SC /ST Rules means one with ample experience, not a designated Sr. Advocate
    The Madras High Court in response to a writ Petition has clarified that the word ‘Eminent Senior Advocate‘ in SC /ST Rules is not a synonym to ‘Designated Senior Advocate’ mentioned in the Advocates Act. The Court in the judgement, the Court stressed that the use of word ’eminent’ in the SC/ST Rules emphasizes on the skills of the Lawyer, that whether designated or not designated but have expertise in a particular field and thus may be considered to be “eminent” for the purposes of legal assistance in Special Courts.


  • Union of India v. P.D. Sunny & Ors
    Supreme Court (SC) stays Kerala & Allahabad High Court (HC) Orders which stopped recovery measures by Tax Authorities, Banks Citing COVID19
    The Supreme Court (SC) on Friday has reportedly stayed a Kerala High Court (HC) order asking authorities not to levy taxes and recover bank dues from people till April 6 in view of the coronavirus pandemic.
  • Angul Energy Limited v. Union of India and Ors
    A Corporate Debtor would not be liable for any offence committed prior to commencement of CIRP and would not be prosecuted, if a resolution plan has been approved by Adjudicating Authority (MANU/DE/0815/2020)
    The Petitioner has filed the present Petition impugning an order, whereby the Trial Court had taken cognizance of the offences punishable under the Companies Act, 2013; offences punishable under the Companies Act, 1956 and certain offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Petitioner also impugns the summons issued by the learned ASJ to the Petitioner. The Petitioner also prays that the compliant filed by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office, be quashed. It is stated in terms of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’), a financial creditor of the Petitioner (then known as ‘Bhushan Energy Limited’) had initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) by filing a Petition before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The said Petition was admitted. Thereafter, Tata Steel Limited had submitted a Resolution Plan with respect to the Petitioner (then known as ‘Bhushan Energy Limited’), which was approved by the Committee of Creditors and the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). In terms of the Resolution Plan, the management of the Petitioner Company has been taken over by new promoters, who were not connected with the previous management. The counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that, in terms of Section 32A of the IBC, as inserted by Section 10 of the Insolvency of Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2019; the Petitioner is required to be discharged from the aforesaid proceedings. It is clear from the express language of the Section 32A (1) of the IBC that, a Corporate Debtor would not be liable for any offence committed prior to commencement of the CIRP and the corporate debtor would not be prosecuted, if a resolution plan has been approved by the Adjudicating Authority. The Petition has, accordingly, been allowed and the impugned order and the impugned summons are set aside. The impugned compliant against the Petitioner, is also set aside. ReadMore