A LEAN COMPROMISE IS BETTER THAN A FAT LAWSUIT.
ENGLISH PROVERB
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
- Dr S J Rajalakshmi & Dr S Sobha v. The Manager Customer Services Air India Limited & Ors
Karnataka High Court (HC) asks Air India to pay ₹ 20-lakh relief to physically challenged doctor-25 September 2019 (KARNATAKA HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT)
The Karnataka High Court (HC) directed Air India to pay ₹ 20 lakh as compensation to a physically challenged doctor and her mother for a missing wheelchair at London airport, which not only caused inconvenience but also caused mental agony to them during their Europe tour in July 2016. Partly allowing a Petition filed by Dr SJ Rajalakshmi and her 63-year-old mother Dr S Shobha, Justice B Veerappa observed that Air India’s conduct violated the fundamental rights of Petitioners apart from the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full participation) Act and it needs to compensated.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/299829/1/WP2432-17-25-09-2019.pdf - Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd & Ors
Supreme Court (SC) dumps tribunal rules-13 November 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT)
The Supreme Court (SC) yesterday struck down in entirety the rules formulated by the Centre on the appointment and service conditions for members of various tribunals, and referred to a larger bench the issue of examining the validity of the passage of the Finance Act 2017 as Money Bill. The court also directed a judicial impact assessment of the merger of the tribunals referred under Finance Act 2017. The questions the apex court framed for consideration included whether the” Finance Act, 2017”, insofar as it amends certain other enactments and alters conditions of service of persons manning different tribunals, can be termed as a” Money Bill” under Article 110 and consequently is validly enacted.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/9680/9680_2017_1_1501_18247_Judgement_13-Nov-2019.pdf - Shyam Bihari Tiwari v. State of U P and 2 Others
No need to seek sanction for prosecution for a retired Public Servant-11 November 2019 (ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT)
The Allahabad High Court (HC) has held that no sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is necessary after the retirement of Public Servant.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/167608090/ - Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal v. Directorate General of Good Service tax (GST) Intelligence
Presence of Lawyer can’t be allowed to at the time of questioning or examination by the Good Service tax (GST) Officers-6 November 2019 (DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT)
The Delhi High Court (HC) has observed that, presence of a lawyer cannot be allowed to the Petitioner at the time of questioning or examination by the GST officers.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/BS/judgement/13-11-2019/BS06112019CRLW26862019.pdf - Taj Mahal Hotel v. United India Insurance Company Ltd & Ors
Hotels cannot deny theft claim of vehicle handed over for valet parking-14 November 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT)
In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court (SC) has held that hotels cannot deny compensation under the garb of “owner’s risk” clause to its guest or visitors for theft of vehicle parked through its staff or valet. The top court has held that the burden of proof lies on the hotel to explain that any loss or damage caused to the vehicles parked was not on account of its negligence or want of care.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/15431/15431_2018_14_1502_18237_Judgement_14-Nov-2019.pdf - Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia v. M/s Krishna Wax (P)Ltd
Writ Petition should normally not be entertained against Mere Issuance of Show Cause Notice-14 November 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT)
The Supreme Court (SC) has reiterated that a writ Petition should normally not be entertained against mere issuance of show cause notice.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/17005/17005_2018_7_1501_18199_Judgement_14-Nov-2019.pdf - Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing CDR Surendra Agnihotri & Ors
Can counterclaim be filed after written statement under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC? Supreme Court answers-19 November 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT)
The Supreme Court (SC) has held that there is no embargo on the filing of a counterclaim after filing of written statements under Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The outer limit for the same is till the framing of issues.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-366820.pdf
CORPORATE
- Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited Through Authorised Signatory v. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors
Supreme Court (SC) paves way for ArcelorMittal’s takeover of Essar Steel in ₹ 42,000 crore deal-15 November 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT)
ArcelorMittal won approval from India’s top court to complete its $5.8 billion purchase of a bankrupt steel mill. The Supreme Court (SC) allowed Arcelor to pay creditors for Essar Steel India Ltd. and scrapped a bankruptcy appellate tribunal’s order that had given secured and unsecured lenders equal right over the sale proceeds.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-366651.pdf - M/s B R Traders v. Venkataramanarao Nagarajan & Ors
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) rejects PepsiCo plea for release of machinery from Oceanic Tropical-13 November 2019 (NCLAT JUDGEMENT)
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has rejected the plea of Pepsico India Holdings seeking release of its machinery from Oceanic Tropical Fruits, which is under the insolvency process. The beverages major had moved the NCLAT against the order passed on May 28, 2019, by the Chennai bench of National Company Law Tribunal denying permission to PepsiCo to take back its machinery that was lying at Oceanic Tropical Fruits. The NCLAT observed that Pepsico India Holding cannot derive advantage of its own agreement with Oceanic Tropical Fruits over the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, which has provision of termination in case of bankruptcy or liquidation or similar situation to get the assets back. The appellate tribunal also held that there were claims and counter claims by Oceanic Tropical Fruits and PepsiCo over the money to be paid to each other. “From the aforesaid fact, it is clear that the claim and counter claim by the corporate debtor (Oceanic Tropical Fruits) and the appellant- Pepsico India Holdings, till it is decided, the question of handing over any asset i.e. Plant & Machinery to the appellant does not arise,” a three-member bench said.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
https://nclat.nic.in/Useradmin/upload/4471704935dcc0499c0f20.pdf - Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) v. Abhilash Lal & Ors
Supreme Court (SC) overrules National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), upholds BMC right to ₹ 1.6k crore SevenHills land-15 November 2019 SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT)
The Supreme Court (SC) on Friday upheld the Mumbai civic administration’s right over its land on which SevenHills Hospital, which went into liquidation in 2018, stands. At stake for the civic body was land worth almost ₹ 1,600 crore, which it claimed was sought to be usurped in the name of providing healthcare services. The National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad, had allowed another company to take over the hospital after insolvency proceedings against SevenHills without allowing the civic body to have its say.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/29086/29086_2019_4_1503_18158_Judgement_15-Nov-2019.pdf - Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd v. Mr Bijay Murmuria & Ors
Creditors cannot pursue pending Litigation or Arbitration after claim is fairly acknowledged in Resolution Plan-13 November 2019 (NCLAT JUDGEMENT)
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has held that once a Creditor, Financial or Operational, files its claim before the Resolution Professional and a “successful resolution plan”, which gives them the same treatment as the other similarly situated creditors, comes into existence, the Creditor, thereafter, cannot take the benefit of Section 60(6) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and pursue any litigation or arbitration with respect to the same claim.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
https://nclat.nic.in/Useradmin/upload/16801333765dcc03cb907e9.pdf - Vinod Tarachand Agrawal v. ROC Gujarat
Registrar of Companies Cannot Strike Off Company When Insolvency Process Is Pending-6
November 2019 (NCLT ORDER)
A division bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Ahmedabad has directed the Registrar of Companies Gujarat to restore a Surat-based diamond company, which was delisted over insolvency proceedings, on its registry.
The Order can be accessed at:
https://taxguru.in/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/J.-R.-Diamonds-P-Limited-Vinod-Tarachand-Agrawal-Vs.-Registrar-of-Companies-NCLT-Ahmedabad_compressed.pdf
COMPETITION
- Competition Commission of India (CCI) approves Adani’s 23.5% stake-buy in Mumbai International Airport-14 November 2019 (CCI UPDATE)
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has reportedly approved Adani Properties’ acquisition of 23.5 percent stake in the country’s second busiest aerodrome, Mumbai International Airport. Adani Properties has acquired the shares from Mauritius based Bid Services Division and ACSA Global. As per the combination notice filed with CCI, the transaction involves acquisition of shares through two separate share purchase Agreements. While Adani is buying 13.5 percent stake in Mumbai International Airport from Bid Services Division, the rest 10 percent has been acquired from ACSA, as per the notice said.
The Release can be accessed at:
https://pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetail.aspx?PRID=1591687
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
- Intellectual Property Attorneys Association v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks & Anr
Registrar Of Trade Marks Is duty bound to furnish grounds for refusal Under Section 18(5) Of The Trade Marks Act -16 October 2019 (DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT)
The Delhi High Court (HC) ruled that the Registrar of Trade Marks is duty bound to furnish grounds for refusal under Section 18(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (Trade Marks Act) containing the grounds for refusal/conditional acceptance and material used by him in arriving at his decision to the applicant. It further held that the Rule 36 of the Trade Marks Rules is arbitrary, unreasonable and inconsistent with the mandatory provision of the statute insofar as it empowers the Registry to communicate the decision without the grounds for refusal/conditional acceptance. In that view of the matter, Section 18(5) of the Trade Marks Act shall prevail over Rule 36 of the Trade Marks Rules.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
https://mk0barandbenchgqge2s.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/IPAA-vs-Controller-General-of-Patents-Designs-Trademarks.pdf
