Follow us


Orders and Judgments Duration November 08-22, 2020



  • M/s Ved Prakash Mithal and Sons v. Principal Kirorimal College & Anr
    Supreme Court (SC) fines Petitioner for bringing Arbitration matter directly to court-2 November 2020
    The Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed the special leave petition of a firm that wanted to skip the statutory Arbitration clause in a contract and approach the court directly instead.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • GE Power Conversion India Private Limited v. PASL Wind Solutions Private Limited
    Two Indian parties entitled to choose a foreign seat of Arbitration-3 November 2020
    The Gujarat High Court (HC) in a landmark judgment has conclusively held that Indian parties are entitled to choose a seat of arbitration outside India as a foreign/neutral seat. Such an agreement is not in violation of the public policy of India, the judgement noted. The Gujarat High Court held that an award that is passed in a foreign seat is a foreign award and may be enforced under Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. In addition, while determining whether an award is a foreign award enforceable under Part II of the Act, the nationality of the parties is not a relevant consideration. Part I of the Act does not apply and will not get attracted just because the parties to the arbitration are Indian parties. A party holding a foreign award is not entitled to apply for interim relief under Section 9 (as Part I of the Act does not apply), the judgement held.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:


  • XYZ v. Alphabet Inc and Google LLC & Others
    Competition Commission of India (CCI) to probe Google’s ‘abuse’ of position – 9 November 2020
    The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has ordered a detailed probe against internet giant Google for alleged unfair business practices with respect to Google Pay as well as Google Play’s payment system. “.. the Commission is of the prima facie view that the Opposite Parties have contravened various provisions of Section 4 of the Act… These aspects warrant a detailed investigation,” it said in a 39-page order. The CCI has ordered a detailed probe by its Director General (DG), which is the investigation arm, for alleged anti-competitive practices with respect to Google Pay. The CCI is of the prima facie view that the market for apps facilitating payment through the Unified Payments Interface (UPI) appears to be a distinct relevant market for the assessment of allegations in the present matter, the order said. The CCI is of “the prima facie view that said conduct of Google amounts to imposition of unfair and discriminatory condition, denial of market access for competing apps of Google Pay and leveraging on the part of Google, in terms of different provisions of Section 4(2) of the Act.” On the issue of mandatory use of Google Play’s payment system for paid apps and in-app purchases (IAPs), CCI said it was of the “prima facie view that mandatory use of application store’s payment system for paid apps & in-app purchases restricts the choice available to the app developers to select a payment processing system of their choice especially considering when Google charges a commission of 30 per cent (15 per cent in certain cases) for all app purchases and IAPs.”
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • Competition Commission of India (CCI) approves acquisition of 7.73% equity share capital of Jio Platforms Limited by Google International LLC– 12 November 2020
    The Competition Commission of India (CCI) approves acquisition of 7.73% equity share capital of Jio Platforms Limited (JPL) by Google International LLC (GIL) under Section 31(1) of the Competition Act, 2002. GIL is a wholly owned subsidiary of Google LLC (collectively with all Google LLC subsidiaries, Google). Google LLC is a Delaware limited liability company and wholly owned subsidiary of Alphabet Inc. GIL is a holding company and does not own / operate any of Google’s products/ services. JPL is a subsidiary of Reliance Industries Limited, which holds the majority of its issued equity share capital. JPL along with its subsidiaries primarily offers / will offer digital products / services, including wireless, home broadband and enterprise broadband services, telecommunication services, mobile applications, various digital platforms, back-end technology services for ecommerce entities and other miscellaneous software and technology related services. Detailed order of the Commission will follow.
    The Release can be accessed at:


  • SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd v. Arcelor Mittal India Pvt Ltd & Ors
    National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) approves ₹ 103 crore resolution plan for NIIL Infrastructures-4 November 2020
    The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has approved a ₹ 103-crore bid to acquire debt-ridden NIIL Infrastructures, which is developing a housing project in Agra, Uttar Pradesh.A two-member Principal bench of NCLT has approved the ₹103.18 crore resolution plan by a consortium of Rishabh Verma and Shilendra Khirwar along with N-Homes. In its order, NCLT has observed that the resolution plan provides no lay off for the workmen of the debt laden company and for the full and final discharge of their dues for the period of 24 months preceding the insolvency commencement date. “There appears to be no discrimination in the resolution plan in respective class of creditors as the same treatment is provided to similarly situated each class of creditors,” NCLT further observed.
    The Order can be accessed at: ReadMore


  • Arun Sharma v. State of M P and Others
    Producing suspects before media violates their privacy- 2 November 2020
    The Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (HC) has observed that producing suspects before the media violated their fundamental right under the Constitution. “By producing the victims and suspects before the media, the police not only violate the fundamental rights of the suspect as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India but also encourage media trials,” the Bench noted while hearing a petition.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • Rakesh Shetty v. State of Karnataka & Others
    Investigating agency cannot retain Username/Password of accused person’s social media platform: Karnataka High Court (HC)- 5 November 2020
    Earlier this month Karnataka High Court (HC) bench refused to interfere with the ongoing investigation in extortion case against Power TV Channel, MD Rakesh Shetty and also refused to quash the FIR against him. The FIR against him stated that Petitioner’s news channel runs a program which put allegations on the present Chief Minister Sri. B. S. Yediyurappa about illegal financial dealings and that Minister’s family members interfere in the day-to-day administration of the State Government. The arguments made in the case were that the counsel of the Petitioner argued before the court that the complaint filed is motivated and is at the instance of the family members of the present Chief Minister in as much as the filing of the same is post the telecast by Petitioner’s channel. The court in this case observed that- “An investigating agency cannot retain the user name and password of social media/digital platform like Facebook and YouTube pending investigation, the investigation agency can download the data required from such account and thereafter has to give back the changed credentials to the person who owns the said social media. The Respondents are therefore directed to handover new login credentials of the Facebook and Youtube account of the Petitioner within seven days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order”.
    The Judgement can be accessed at: