Follow us


Orders and Judgments Duration October 23, 2020- November 07, 2020



  • Big Charter Private Limited Ezen v. Aviation Ptv Ltd & Ors
    Mere submission to exclusive jurisdiction of foreign court does not bar Indian courts u/s 9 Arbitration Act -23 October 2020
    In Big Charter Pvt Ltd v. Ezen Aviation Ptv Ltd, the Delhi High Court (HC) was of the view that under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act) application of an arbitration proceedings in a foreign court does not take away the jurisdiction of an Indian court. The Court was also of the view that since arbitration law in India has been codified in the context of the 1996 Act, the question of jurisdiction for a Petition under Section 9 would emerge from the 1996 Act itself.
    The Court stated that any reference to the UNCITRAL model or any textual commentary can, if at all, be justified only if there is any uncertainty in any of the sections of the 1996 Act requiring resolution. The Court further stated that after the amendment of the provision to Section 2(2) on 23rd October, 2015, Section 9 of the 1996 Act must also apply to all international commercial arbitration.
    The Judgement may be accessed at:


  • Meethelaveetil Kaitheri Muralidharan v. Union of India and The Registrar of Companies Tamil Nadu, Chennai
    ROC cannot deactivate DIN of Director for Disqualification in Any Company-9 October 2020
    The Madras High Court (HC) has held that the Registrar of Companies (ROC) is not empowered to deactivate the Director Identification Number (DIN) under Companies (Appointment and Qualifications of Directors) Rules, 2014 (AQD).
    The Judgement may be accessed at:
  • Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd v. Yes Bank Limited and Mr Savan Godiawala
    DISCOMs can’t cancel PPA amid corporate insolvency process-20 October 2020
    In a ruling that is likely to come as a breather for power companies undergoing liquidation or insolvency under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has said that power distribution companies or DISCOMs cannot terminate, during the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP), the power purchase agreements (PPA) they had signed with power generation companies.
    The Judgment may be accessed at:
  • Volkswagen Finance Private Limited v. Shree Balaji Printopack Pvt Ltd and Usaka Electrotech Pvt Ltd
    Financier cannot claim status of ‘Secured Creditor’-19 October 2020
    While dismissing an appeal filed by Volkswagen Finance Pvt. Ltd. against an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has held that registration of a vehicle with Motor Vehicle Authority under Section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not qualify as registered ‘charge’ for a valid claim before a liquidator.
    The Judgement may be accessed at:


  • Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd v. Arg Outlier Media Pvt Ltd & Ors
    Delhi High Court (HC) allows Republic TV to use the phrase ‘Nation Wants To Know’-23 October 2020
    The Delhi High Court (HC) has said Republic TV’s editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami can use the tagline ‘NATION WANTS TO KNOW’ as part of his speech or presentation. The High Court noted in its order that Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd, which has filed a suit against Goswami or ARG Outlier Media Pvt Ltd, which owns Republic TV, has submitted that the journalist is free to use the same as part of his speech/presentation of any news channel, however, if Goswami or ARG Outlier Media Pvt Ltd choose to use ‘NATION WANTS TO KNOW’ as a trade mark regarding any of their goods/ services, they will have to maintain accounts for such usage and the accounts shall be filed in court regularly. “Regarding the tagline NATION WANTS TO KNOW, no interim order is passed at this stage in favour of the plaintiff (Bennett Coleman). As submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, defendant No. 2 (Goswami) is free to use the same as part of his speech/presentation of any news channel, etc ,” the HC has stated. Meanwhile, the HC allowed an interim application of Bennett Coleman group and passed an interim injunction in its favour and against the defendants retraining them from using the trademark ‘NEWSHOUR’ or any other mark which is deceptively similar to the trade mark ‘NEWSHOUR’ of the Bennett Coleman. The plaintiff has filed the suit seeking to restrain Goswami or ARG Outlier Media Pvt Ltd from using the trademark or title or tagline ‘NEWSHOUR’ and ‘NATION WANTS TO KNOW’ as it infringes its registered mark. The High Court said it was of the opinion that “it is only after evidence has been led that it can be ascertained as to whether the plaintiff was using the aforesaid mark as a trade mark or it was merely being used as a form of speech in the course of conducting the news channel or in the course of carrying on interviews/presentations by defendant No. 2 (Goswami). These are aspects on which, prima facie, no view can be made at this stage based on the documents placed on record, namely, screen shots of various sites of Twitter, Facebook, etc.”
    The Order may be accessed at:
  • MS X v. State & Ors
    Delhi High Court (HC) directs police to give details of child porn to National Crime Record Bureau (NCRB) to notify content for removal- 20 October 2020
    The Delhi High Court (HC) has directed the police agencies to forward sexually explicit material relating to a 24- year-old woman, who was a minor when the pictures were taken, to the National Crime Record Bureau (NCRB) for notifying the objectionable contents for removal from the Internet. The HC also directed Facebook and Google to remove the offending contents and URLs from their platforms. It also directed the police authorities to use protocols and resources available with the NCRB and other concerned agencies to identify persons who are reloading the offensive contents on the Internet in India and take action against them.
    The Judgement may be accessed at:


  • Imperia Structures Ltd v. Anil Patni
    Consumer complaint by allottee against builder not barred by RERA Act: Supreme Court (SC)
    The Supreme Court (SC) has held that a complaint before Consumer Fora by allottees against builders is not barred by the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. In this case, the complainants who had booked apartments by executing Builder Buyer Agreements in 2013, had approached the Consumer Commission which allowed their complaint and ordered refund of the amounts deposited by each of them with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the respective dates of deposits alongwith ₹ 50,000/- towards costs. Before the SC, the builder (the Appellant which is now registered under RERA) raised these two legal issues ; a) Whether the bar specified under Section 79 of the RERA Act would apply to proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (CP Act); and b) whether there is anything inconsistent in the provisions of the CP Act with that of the RERA Act. The court noticed the following Statutory provisions in RERA: Section 79 of the RERA Act bars jurisdiction of a Civil Court to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the Authority or the adjudicating officer or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered under the RERA Act to determine. Section 88 specifies that the provisions of the RERA Act would be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law, while in terms of Section 89, the provisions of the RERA Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law for the time being in force. It also noted that in Malay Kumar Ganguli v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, it was held that a consumer forum/commission is not a civil court and therefore observed that Section 79 of the RERA Act does not in any way bar the Commission or Forum under the provisions of the CP Act to entertain any complaint.