Follow us


Orders and Judgments Duration May 23, 2019- June 07, 2019



  • Abdul Kuddus v. v. Union of India and Others
    Decision of foreigners’ tribunal will prevail over National Register of Citizens (NRC) order -17 May 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT)May 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS)
    The Supreme Court (SC) has held that a tribunal’s order declaring a person as an illegal foreigner would be binding and prevail over the Government decision to exclude or include the name from the National Register of Citizens in Assam.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • Madan Tiwari v. Yashwant Kumar Sahu
    Dishonour of cheque issued for discharge of later liability clearly covered by Negotiable Instrument Act-17 May 2019 (CHHATISGARH HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Chhattisgarh High Court (HC) held that dishonour of cheque issued for discharge of later liability is clearly covered by the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The Court said further that cheques undoubtedly represent the outstanding liability. That once the loan is disbursed and instalments fall due on the date of the cheque as per the agreement, dishonour of such cheques would fall under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • G Ramesh v. Kanike Harish Kumar Ujwal & Anr
    Section 141 NI Act: company includes partnership firm or other association of individuals-5 April 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Supreme Court (SC) has observed that the expression ‘company’ used in Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act includes a partnership firm or association of persons.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • P V Ramana Reddy v. Union of India & Ors
    Goods and Services Tax (GST) evasion cases: Supreme Court (SC) dismisses plea challenging Telangana High Court (HC) verdict-27 May 2019 (SUPREME COURT ORDER)
    The Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed a plea challenging the Telangana High Court (HC) verdict which gave the power to the concerned authorities to arrest a person in cases of Goods and Services Tax (GST) evasion.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • Rajasthan High Court (HC) orders withdrawal of Driver’s Licences from Illiterate Persons-24 May 2019 (RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ORDER)
    A single bench of the Rajasthan High Court (HC) has instructed the state Government to withdraw the driving licenses of those who cannot read. Moreover, the court has also instructed the transport authorities to issue proper instructions and guidelines and take the necessary action in cases where a driving license has been issued to someone who can’t read and write. After ordering that the driver’s licence issued to the Petitioner as well as all other illiterate persons be withdrawn, the Court also directed the state authorities to lay down guidelines in this regard. “The State Transport Authorities are directed to issue appropriate instructions in this regard laying down guidelines. Action should also be taken where licenses have been issued to persons who are unable to read and write. “The authorities have also been directed to file a report of the action taken within a month. The case has been posted to be taken up next on July 5.
  • Surinder Singh Deswal@Col S S Deswal and Others v. Virender Gandhi
    Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act Has Retrospective Effect, Holds Supreme Court (SC)-29 May 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT)
    In an important judgment, the Supreme Court (SC) has held that Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as amended, shall be applicable in respect of the appeals against the order of conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, even in a case where the criminal complaints for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act were filed prior to 2018 amendment Act i.e., prior to 01.09.2018.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • Anil Kumar v. Devender Kumar & Ors
    Framing omnibus issues in suits violates Order XIV Rule 1(3) of Civil Procedure Code-21 May 2019 (DELHI HIGH COURT ORDER)
    Discouraging the practice of framing general issues, the Delhi High Court (HC) has held that framing of omnibus issues with respect to the reliefs claimed in a suit is in violation of Order XIV, Rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Code. “Framing of omnibus issues with respect to the reliefs claimed..is in violation of Order XIV Rule 1(3) which requires distinct issues to be framed on each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other… Omnibus issues .. do not cull out the material propositions of fact or law on which the parties are at variance and do not tell the Court the issues on which the right decision of the case depends, as required by Rule 1(5). Framing such omnibus issues has the potential of the trial as well as the decision, going haywire.”, the Court has said.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • Shewantabai v. Arun & Anr
    Genuineness of Will can’t be doubted merely because it was executed in favour of neighbour-28 May 2019 (SUPREME COURT ORDER)No Goods and Services Tax (GST) at duty-free shops-3 May 2019 (ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT)
    Merely because the testator executed the Will in favour of the neighbour, the genuineness of the Will cannot be doubted, said the Supreme Court (SC) while rejecting the plea of the widow of the deceased testator.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • No Goods and Services Tax (GST) at duty-free shops-3 May 2019 (ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT)
    An Allahabad High Court (HC) judgment has ruled that there shall be no tax levied in case of purchases made at duty free stores at the arrival or departure terminals. The court held that tax will not be levied as the goods never cross customs border and passengers carry the items as their personal belonging.


  • Ericsson India Pvt Ltd v. Reliance Communications Limited
    National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) starts bankruptcy process for Reliance Communications-9 May 2019 (NCLT ORDER)
    The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has admitted Reliance Communications Ltd for insolvency and allowed it to exclude the 357 days spent in litigation from the resolution process.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • ICICI Bank Limited v. Hyderabad Ring Road Project Private Limited
    National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dismisses ICICI Bank insolvency plea against Hyderabad Ring Road Projects-23 May 2019 (NCLT ORDERS)
    The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has dismissed an insolvency plea filed by ICICI Bank against Hyderabad Ring Road Projects, observing that there was “duplicity of the claims” of the private lender.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • MAIF Investment India PTE Ltd v. M/s Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited & Others
    National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has exclusive jurisdiction to try all company matters including contentious & complex ones-28 May 2019 (NCLAT JUDGEMENT)
    The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) recently reiterated that company law cases now fall within the jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunals even if they involve contentious or complex issues. This is in view of the bar on civil court jurisdiction under Section 430 of the currently prevailing Companies Act, 2013.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • Remuneration to Director in proportion to his experience which has no bearing on his shareholding is not dividend-10 May 2019 (ITAT ORDER)
    The Delhi India’s Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), in a significant ruling, held that the remuneration paid to Director of company in commensuration with his experience which has no bearing on his shareholding, cannot be construed as ‘dividend’ under the Income Tax Act.
  • Hari Sankaran v. Union of India & Others
    Companies Act: Observations Made in Order U/s 241/242 Relevant for Passing Order of Reopening of Accounts-4 June 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Supreme Court (SC) has held that the observations made by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) while passing order under Section 241/242 of the Companies Act can be said to be relevant observations for passing the order under Section 130 of the Companies Act.
    The Court observed that the National Company Law Tribunal can pass an order of reopening of accounts under Section 130 of the Companies Act if either one of the two conditions precedent
    is satisfied.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:


  • Competition Commission of India’s probe finds Monsanto abused dominant position in the market to hurt rivals-22 May 2019 (CCI UPDATE)
    A probe by the investigations unit of the antitrust body has found that Monsanto abused its dominant position as a supplier of genetically modified cotton seeds in the country, three sources with direct knowledge of the matter told Reuters. The Competition Commission of India in 2016 ordered the unit to carry out the probe after farm ministry and some local seed companies complained that Monsanto was charging unreasonably high royalty fees for its GM technology. The investigation unit’s report will now be reviewed by senior members of the CCI. The watchdog has powers to impose a penalty of up to 10 percent of the company’s relevant turnover in the past three financial years if it agrees with the report’s findings.
    The full text of the article can be accessed at:                                                                                                                            https://www.firstpost.com/business/competition-commission-of-indias-probe-finds-monsanto-abused-dominant-position-in-the-market-to-hurt-rivals-6681981.html
  • Competition Commission of India (CCI) approves GSK, Pfizer consumer healthcare JV formation-24 May 2019 (CCI UPDATE)
    The Competition Commission has said it has approved the formation of a joint venture for consumer healthcare products by pharmaceutical giants GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer. GSK, in December 2018, had said it has reached an agreement with Pfizer to combine their consumer health businesses into a new joint venture with combined sales of around USD 12.7 billion (around ₹ 88,900 crore).
    The full text of the article can be accessed at:
  • Mr Kanhaiya Singhal v. Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited and OrsCompetition Commission of India (CCI) dismisses complaint against Indiabulls Housing Finance
    Limited-24 May 2019 (CCI ORDERS)
    In the present case, the Informant had availed a Home Loan facility from the Opposite Party, for which he entered into a Loan Agreement on 21.06.2018. Thereafter, he was extended a home loan of ₹ 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One crore only) at a rate of interest of 8.75% p.a. It was alleged that the Opposite Party increased the rate of interest from 8.75% p.a. to 8.95% p.a. and the same was intimated to the Informant vide an email dated 21.08.2018. The Informant also expressed his concern regarding increase in rate of interest that would cost him about ₹ 2,00,000/- per year over and above the initially contracted EMI. The Informant also alleged that he was forced to sign a number of papers by the OPs and the Loan Agreement does not mention either about the frequent revision of interest rate or that OP-1 is authorised to revise the rate of interest exorbitantly. Based on the above averments and allegations, the Informant has prayed that the Commission direct Ops to discontinue such practices of abuse of dominant position and to modify the Loan Agreement to an extent as may be specified by the Commission. After careful perusal of the evidence, the Commission upheld that as a large number of players are operating in the relevant market this suggests that not only the market is competitive in nature but also that the Opposite Party does not seem to have the ability to operate independently of
    the competitive forces. Hence Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited was not found to be dominant in the relevant market. In the absence of dominance, the issue of abuse of dominant position does not survive. Also, the Commission after examining the facts of the case did not find anything that would suggest that there exists any kind of horizontal/ vertical agreement that
    could be brought under the purview of Section 3 of the Act. As a result, no case of contravention of the provisions of Section 3 or 4 of the Act was made out against Indiabulls Housing Finance
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • Madhya Pradesh Chemists and Distributors Federation (MPCDF) v. Madhya Pradesh Chemists and Druggist Association (MPCDA) and OthersCompetition Commission of India (CCI) imposes ₹ 74 Cr fine on Himalaya Drug, 3 others for anticompetitive trade practices-3 June 2019 (CCI ORDERS)
    The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has levied a total fine of over ₹ 74 crore on pharma firms—Himalaya Drug Company and Intas Pharmaceuticals—along with its senior officials as well as two Madhya Pradesh-based drug groupings for indulging in anti-competitive trade practices. The two drug associations are Madhya Pradesh Chemists and Druggist Association and Indore Chemists Association as per an order by the Competition Commission of India. The fair-trade regulator held both the drug associations and pharma companies responsible for mandatingthe requirement of obtaining NOC (No Objection Certificate) prior to the appointment as stockists which resulted in limiting and controlling the supply of drugs and medicines in Madhya Pradesh. The act of entities contravened Section 3 of the Competition Act which pertains to the anti-competitive agreement, the regulator said in an order dated 3 June. Regarding Himalaya Drug and Intas Pharmaceuticals, CCI noted that “despite advising the pharmaceutical companies not to facilitate such practices of the associations and directing the companies to bring to the notice of the Commission any kind of anti-competitive conduct being forced upon them by the trade association(s), the pharmaceutical companies have failed to demonstrate such ability.”
    The Order can be accessed at:


  • Abhijit Mishra v. Government of NCT of Delhi
    PIL against Paytm post-paid wallet; High Court (HC) seeks reply from Reserve Bank of India (RBI) -14 May 2019 (DELHI HIGH COURT ORDER)
    The Delhi High Court (HC) has sought RBI’s response on a PIL alleging that online payments platform Paytm was providing lending facilities in violation of the law regulating such activity. The Court issued notice to RBI and Paytm Payments Bank Ltd seeking their stand on the plea which claims that the company’s ‘Post Paid’ service was operating contrary to the existing law and guidelines regulating such entities.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • Raj Rewal v. Union of India & Ors
    Architect has no right under Section 57 Copyright Act to object to demolition of his work-28 May 2019 (DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT)
    An architect cannot restrain the owner of a building he has designed from demolishing it, the Delhi High Court (HC) ruled on Tuesday, while dismissing a plea for recreating the demolished Hall of Nations and the Nehru Pavilion at a separate location here.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • Delhi High Court (HC) declines interim hold on gambling websites-29 May 2019 (DELHI HIGH COURT ORDER)
    The Delhi High Court (HC) has declined to pass an interim order to stop online gaming but sought the Government’s response to a Petition seeking a blanket ban on such “illegal” activities.
  • Teleecare Network India Pvt Ltd v. M/S Asus Technology Pvt Ltd & Ors
    Delhi High Court (HC) restrains Asus Technology from selling mobile phones, accessories under ZEN, ZENFONE trademarks-28 May 2019 (DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Delhi High Court (HC) has restrained mobile manufacturer Asus Technology Pvt Ltd from selling and advertising mobile phones, accessories, and any other related products under the trademark ZEN, ZENFONE or any other deceptively similar trademark. The interim order was
    passed by a Single Judge Bench in a suit for infringement and passing off filed by Telecare Network India Pvt Ltd against Asus.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • Policybazaar Insurance Web Aggregator & Anr v. Acko General Insurance Ltd & Ors
    High Court (HC) fines Policybazaar ₹ 10 lakh for concealing facts to get ex-parte injunction-28 May 2019 (DELHI HIGH COURT ORDER)
    The Delhi High Court (HC) has imposed a ₹ 10-lakh fine on online insurance aggregator, Policybazaar, for concealing facts to obtain an ex-parte injunction in a trademark infringement
    case filed by it against insurance company Acko General Insurance. The next date of hearing is on July 11. The High Court on May 16 had restrained Acko General Insurance, which sells policies online, from using the trademark and was restrained from adopting and using the plaintiffs’
    “Policybazaar Word Marks” trademarks (“Policy Bazaar”, “PolicyBazaar”, “PolicyBazar” and ‘Policy Bazar’), in any manner, form, variation and/or combination, as an AdWord or Ad Word
    Program or any other ad word/key word program through Google.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • Dr Rishi Dixit And Others v. Ms Preventine Life Care Pvt Ltd
    Tribunal upholds State’s judgement in data theft case-31 May 2019 (TDSAT JUDGEMENT)
    Five years after the State’s Principal Secretary, Information Technology indicted the founder of a medical research startup for stealing crucial data from his former employer, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi recently upheld the order. In June 2013, Abhimanyu Kumar, head of PreventiNe Life Care Pvt Ltd, had approached the then Principal Secretary Rajesh Aggarwal, whose office is the adjudicating authority for cases of data theft via electronic means, to complain against his former employee, Rishi Dixit. Mr. Kumar alleged that Mr. Dixit, after breaking off from PreventiNe in 2012, started his own company called Navigene in Mira Road and used research data stolen from PreventiNe to pitch its services to clients.
    In March 2014, Mr. Aggarwal directed Mr. Dixit to pay ₹ 30 lakh as damages. Vrushali Joshi, a former PreventiNe employee who later went to work for Mr. Dixit, was also named as a respondent in the case. Both appealed against the order before the tribunal. In its judgement dated May 31 this year, the tribunal said while the allegation of Navigene having stolen PreventiNe’s software to generate its own reports was not substantiated, it has been established that Mr. Dixit took sensitive data from PreventiNe and used it for his own business interests, despite signing confidentiality clauses in his employment contract. The clauses are valid even after his breaking off from the company, it said, while exonerating Ms. Joshi of the charges as there was “no evidence of unauthorised transfer of data”. “In the facts of the case, we therefore hold that a compensation of ₹ 15 lakh will hold just and fair,” the tribunal’s order said. The adjudicating officer also granted 12% compound interest in case the amount is not paid within one month of the order. “We have generally been allowing a simple interest of 8% in most cases before us. Though such cases may not be similar, we intend to follow the practice in this case as well,” the order said. The tribunal found Dixit and Navigene to be in violation of Section 43 (b) of the Information Technology Act, read with (i) and (j), and directed them to pay ₹ 15 lakh by way of compensation along with simple interest of eight per cent.