1. Union Bank of India v Financial Creditors of M/s Amtek Auto Limited & Ors

Citation: Union Bank of India v Financial Creditors of M/s Amtek Auto Limited & Ors, CA No. 4620/2023, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, decided by Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul & Hon’ble Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Dated- 31.07.2023

Ratio: In the above matter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the 5 Member bench order of the NCLAT wherein, the NCLAT clarified that while it doesn’t have the power to review its judgments, it does possess the inherent jurisdiction to entertain applications for the recall of judgments based on valid grounds. It disagreed with previous decisions that suggested it lacks the authority to recall judgments. The NCLAT had also emphasized that the power of recall is distinct from review and can be exercised when procedural errors or other valid reasons are present.

2. M/s Agarwal Polysacks Limited v M/s Samdari Strips Pvt Ltd

Citation: M/s Agarwal Polysacks Limited v M/s Samdari Strips Pvt Ltd, CP No. (IB). 189/7/JPR/2019, IA No. 53/JPR/2023, MA(IBC) No. 03/JPR/2022, NCLT Jaipur Bench, decided by Shri Deep Chandra Joshi (Judicial Member), Shri Atul Chaturvedi (Technical Member), dated 31.07.2023.

Ratio: The above Application under Section 7 of the IBC against Samdari Strips Pvt. Ltd., the Corporate Debtor, citing default in loan repayment. The Tribunal observed that the Corporate Debtor’s admission of loan disbursement and matching TDS deductions with Form 26AS, along with the absence of disputed facts, established the default. From this it can be taken that Form 26AS is a solid proof of admission of debt and the same can be utilized in all such cases where there’s an outstanding.

3. Latif Yusuf Manikkoth v. Board of Directors of the Bank of Baroda and Ors.

Citation: Latif Yusuf Manikkoth v. Board of Directors of the Bank of Baroda and Ors. 2023: BHC-OS:6939-DB, W.P (L) No. 9116 of 2023, Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, decided by Hon’ble Justice G.S Kulkarni & Justice Rajesh S. Patil, dated- 20.07.2023.

Ratio: In the present case, the secured property was in possession of the guarantor of the loan. The High Court held that a secured creditor could initiate proceedings under the SARFAESI Act against the guarantor in case of loan default even when there is a moratorium on action against borrower under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Further, the High Court noted that the Petitioner/guarantor was already contesting the securitization applications before DRT. Thus, petitioner has already availed benefits of SARFAESI Act and cannot approach the High Court for relief.

4. Lok Shikshan Trust & Others And Davalsab S/O Malliksab Nadaf

Citation: Lok Shikshan Trust & Others And Davalsab S/O Malliksab Nadaf, 2023:KHC-D:7644, CRL.P No. 100541-100543/2020, High Court of Karnataka- Dharwad Bench, Hon’ble Justice V Srishananda.

Ratio: In the present case, Petitions for quashing of complaints of criminal defamation were filed before the High Court. Due to an unfortunate incident of violence in 2012 in the City Civil Court, certain advocates, police personnel, journalists and members of the public were injured. Advocates associations across the state resolved that journalists who had been booked for the incident would not be defended by members of the advocates associations. Subsequently, reporting on the comments of one MLA regarding said resolution as “Taliban mentality”, the print media have used unparliamentary words with regards to the advocates fraternity at large as “Goonda Mentality”. Criminal Defamation complaints were filed by advocates against the above news reports.

The petition were accompanied by affidavits stating remorse by the Petitioners and statement that there was no intention to malign the advocates fraternity at large. While reporting on the statements of the legislative assembly, some reporters might have reported in excess or beyond the guidelines. The Petitioners tendered unconditional apology.

The High Court allowed quashing but also stated using word such as “Taliban, Goonda etc.,” are against the guidelines issued by the Press Council of India. Since the general public treat the new articles as gospel truth, the editors of newspapers are required to show utmost restraint in using such unparliamentary or defamatory word.

5. Ashok Kumar v New India Assurance Co. Ltd

Citation: Ashok Kumar v New India Assurance Co. Ltd, 2023:INSC:659, C.A No. 4758/2023, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, decided by Hon’ble Justices J.K. Maheshwari & K.V. Viswanathan, 31.07.2023

Ratio: The present cases arises out of a consumer complaint for deficiency of service by insurer in not paying the disbursal amount for vehicle after theft. In the present case, the previous counsel of the Petitioner had withdrawn the consumer complaint filed before district consumer court accidentally.

The Supreme Court held that the Petitioner should not be made to suffer for the mistake of the counsel and allowed the appeal and granted 75% of the admissible claim. The 25% was reduced due to contributory negligence of the Petitioner.

6. Pure Diets India Ltd. v. Lokmangal Agro Industries Ltd

Citation: Pure Diets India Ltd. v. Lokmangal Agro Industries Ltd, 2023 SCC Online Del 4486, ARB.P 1128/2022, I.A 15902/2022, High Court of Delhi, decided by Hon’ble Justice Jyoti Singh, 25.07.23

Ratio: Agreement was executed between the parties for supply of products such as organic sugar, organic molasses, etc. customized for the petitioner. Due to breach of exclusivity clause, agreement was terminated and Petitioner issued notice for reference to arbitration. However, it was found that agreement merely stated parties were at liberty to seek relief from a Court of competent jurisdiction either prior to or during ‘any arbitration’ to protect their interests and preserve the status quo pending arbitration proceedings.

Held, the word “arbitration” was qualified by the word “any” and therefore it could not be said that there was a clear intent of the parties to refer their disputes to arbitration. The words merely disclosed a contemplation or a possibility of resorting to arbitration as different and opposed to an obligation to do so.

7. Late Smt. Sunil Chhabra Vs. M/s. Shib Dass Metal Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: Late Smt. Sunil Chhabra Vs. M/s. Shib Dass Metal Pvt. Ltd, NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-III, IB-702(ND)/2021, Hon’ble Bachu Venkat Balaram Das, Hon’ble Member (Judicial) & Hon’ble Atul Chaturvedi, Hon’ble Member (Technical), 01.08.2023

Ratio: In the above matter, the Adjudicating Authority addressed a divergence of opinions among Tribunal benches regarding the inclusion of interest in reaching the Rs. 1,00,00,000/- threshold limit. It referenced an agreement indicating the entitlement to interest on overdue payments. The Authority accepted that interest can be combined to meet the threshold. The Corporate Debtor contested the validity of invoices and accounts, claiming forgery. However, the Operational Creditor presented evidence, including signed confirmation of accounts, which the Authority deemed valid. With a finding of due debt and default, therefore, the Authority approved the admission of the Section 9 application under the IBC.

8. M/s Shri Veerganapathi Steel (P) Limited- Narayan Maheshwari v Kavitha Surana

Citation: M/s Shri Veerganapathi Steel (P) Limited- Narayan Maheshwari v Kavitha Surana & Bank of India, CP/229/(IB)/2018 & IA(IBC)/193(CHE)/2023, NCLT Special bench-I Chennai, decided by Hon’ble Judicial Member Sanjiv Jain & Hon’ble Technical Member Sameer Kakar, 19.07.2023

Ratio: The above judgement addresses the issue of withdrawal of applications under Section 12A of the IBC, 2016 during the liquidation process. It was emphasised that the IBC treats corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) and liquidation as distinct phases, each with its own set of regulations.

It was argued that allowing withdrawals during liquidation could be misused and contrary to the IBC’s objectives. The NCLT highlights the lack of IBBI regulations on the matter and emphasizes the binding nature of IBC provisions. It concludes that withdrawal from liquidation is not supported by the law and dismissed the applicant’s request.

9. M/s Globe Express Services v M/s MM Cargo

Citation: M/s Globe Express Services v M/s MM Cargo, (IB) 204(ND)/2017, NCLT Delhi Court II, decided by Hon’ble Deepa Krishan (Member Technical), Hon’ble Ina Malhotra, Member (Judicial), 21.05.2018.

Ratio: In the above case, the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, clarified that creditors can have their claims considered even after the commencement of the liquidation process.

Despite objections from the liquidator, the Adjudicating Authority ruled in favor of the creditor, emphasizing that it’s the liquidator’s duty to assess all claims, considering past precedents and the expenses incurred during the liquidation process. The order underlines that verified claims can be entertained until assets are distributed and not beyond that stage.

10. Vineet Saraf v Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd

Citation: Vineet Saraf v Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd, Neutral Citation: 2023: DMC:5049, Hon’ble High Court of New Delhi, Decided by Justice Purusha Indra Kumar Kaurav, 21.07.2023

Ratio: In the above case., the petitioner challenged a demand notice issued by the respondent under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Application to Deciding Authority for Insolvency Resolution Procedure for Personal Guarantors Rules, 2019. The petitioner had acted as a personal guarantor for a corporate debt owed by FACOR Power Ltd. The petitioner contended that the respondent had transferred the debt to FACOR Power Ltd., and therefore, his personal guarantee should not be enforced. However, the court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the petitioner’s right to be heard should be determined by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) based on the merits of the case, rather than through a writ petition. The court’s decision upheld the procedural requirements of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and left the final decision to the NCLT.

11. Vittal and The PSI of Bableshwar Police Station

Citation: Vittal and The PSI of Bableshwar Police Station, 2023: KHC-K:5678, High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, Decided by Hon’ble Justice Suraj Govindaraj, 20.07.2023

Ratio: The present writ petition arises out of grievance of petitioner that the complaint of Petitioner that their daughter-in-law was assaulted, abused, had cell phone taken from her and threatened with death had not been registered as an FIR and not investigation had been conducted.

Held, when a complaint discloses a cognizable offence, it is mandatory for the police to register FIR. Failure to do so would amount to dereliction of duty by police. The Petition was allowed and instruction through SOP were to be posted to all police stations.

12. Tehsil Bar Association, Sadar Tehsil Parisar v U.P. Power Corporation Limited And 3 Others

Citation: Tehsil Bar Association, Sadar Tehsil Parisar v U.P. Power Corporation Limited And 3 Others, 2023: AHC:155009-DB, Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad, decided by Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani & Hon’ble Justice Anish Kumar Gupta, dated- 03.08.2023

Ratio: Held, lawyers offices shall not charge the commercial rates for supply of electricity. Lawyer services are in the nature of a professional service or social work based on the intelligence, integrity and individual characteristics of the lawyer. Further, the rules of the Bar distinguish the practice of law from any other commercial activity, trade, or business. Thus, legal services cannot be termed as a commercial activity.

13. Kishore Balkrishna Nand v. State of Maharashtra and Anr

Citation: Kishore Balkrishna Nand v. State of Maharashtra and Anr, 2023:INSC:675, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Decided by Justice J.B Pardiwala & Justice Manoj Misra, 02.08.2023

Ratio: The Respondent in good faith made a complaint that Petioner had encroached on property. The High Court held that an accusation in good faith against a person to any who have lawful authority over the person cannot be stated to be defamatory in nature.

14. M/S Bansal Construction Office Vs Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority and Ors

Citation: M/S Bansal Construction Office Vs Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority and Ors, 2023;AHC:157255, Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad, Decided by Hon’ble  Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra, – 04.08.2023

Ratio: In the present case, the arbitration clause in the agreement stated that CEO of the Company shall be responsible for appointing arbitrator or failing that, shall be the arbitrator.

Held, the stipulation is violative of the neutrality of arbitrator under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Concillation Act, 1996. However, the clause itself would not be invalidated. Even if arbitrator is ineligible, the clause may still be given effect by appointment of neutral arbitrator by the High Court.

15. Mr. Arun Kumar Vs. Ms. Sripriya Kumar

Citation: Mr. Arun Kumar Vs. Ms. Sripriya Kumar, Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 431/2022, NCLAT Chennai, Justice M. Venugopal, Member (Judicial), Shreesha Merla Member (Technical), 08.08.2023

Ratio: The above case involves disputes over penal interest and interest accrual in a settlement agreement between the Corporate Debtor, Promotors, and Kotak Bank. The NCLAT clarified that it lacks jurisdiction to modify interest rates in a contract, emphasizing the primacy of the Code. The moratorium under Section 14 suspends enforcement actions but not claims. Section 238 of the Code prevails over other laws.

The NCLAT further affirmed the creditor’s right to accrue interest until repayment under the settlement agreement. The CoC’s decision and the contractual terms are upheld, and there’s no violation of Section 30(2) of the Code.

16. NHAI v Meerashivalingiah

Citation: National Highway Authority of India v Meerashivalingiah, and Anr, M.F.A No. 1402/2023, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, decided by Hon’ble Justice H.P Sandesh, 28.07.2023

Ratio:  In the present case, the Applicant – NHAI, sought appeal against order of district judge. However, there was delay of 270 days in filing appeal for which application of condonation delay was filed. The High Court held that merely due to the fact that a separate yardstick is applied for governmental institutions, in the present case sufficient cause for condonation of delay could not be made out. Mere statement that file was sent for legal opinion and could not be found were not sufficient cause for delay in filing by more than 2 years since date of order. The Appeal was dismissed.

17. Sanjay P S v Abhishek M

Citation: Sanjay P S v Abhishek M, CrMP No. 5944/2023, High Court of Karnataka, decided by Hon’ble Justice M Nagaprasanna, 28.07.2023

Ratio: In the present case, a revision petition was preferred  and allowed before sessions court after application for payment of interim compensation under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The same was challenged before the High Court on grounds that under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., powers of revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order.

Held, the application under 143A is not in the nature of interlocutory order but intermediate order as it emerges with a proceeding and culminates in closure of said intermediate proceeding upon rights and liabilities of parties being determined. The same is amenable to powers of revision before the session court.                                                                                                                        

18. The Board of Major Port Authority for the Shyama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata. vs Marine Craft Engineers Private Limited

Citation: The Board of Major Port Authority for the Shyama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata. vs Marine Craft Engineers Private Limited, AP 252/2023 & AP 179/2023, High Court of Calcutta (Commercial Division), decided by Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya, 31.07.2023.

Ratio: Held, unless pre-deposit of 75% of the award is made under Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, the High Court has no powers to hear on application to aside award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This includes any order for stay of operation of the award, which is inoperable till payment of deposit as the application under Section 34 remains eclipsed in eye of law as foundation of prayer.

19. NTPC Ltd v M/s Tata Projects Ltd

Citation: NTPC Ltd v M/s Tata Projects Ltd, 2021:DHC:4059, High Court of New Delhi, decided by Hon’ble Justice Vibhu Bakhru, dated 08.12.2021

Ratio: Arbitral Tribunal failed to frame issues for grant of liquidated damages to the Petitioner. Upon challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the High Court held that there was no patent illegality in the order as patent illegality is a illegality which goes to the root of the matter. In the present case, the tribunal restricted itself to only question of payment of prologation delay costs instead of damages. Hence, the Petition was dismissed.

20. Saravana Global Holdings Ltd v N Jayamurugan

Citation: Saravana Global Holdings Ltd v N Jayamurugan, O.S.A.(CAD) No. 123/2021, High Court of Madras, decided by Justice M Duraiswamy & Justice Sunder Mohan, dated 29.08.2022

Ratio: In the present case, the Appellants filed intra-court appeal against order of the single bench of the High Court of Madras denying a petition to set aside arbitral award under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration Act. The Division bench observed that as per the appealable orders under Section 37, Arbitration Act, 1994, an order under Section 34(4) was not appealable. Therefore, the intra-court appeal was rejected.

21. Mr. Ramneek Goel Vs. Mr. Sunil Bajaj

Citation: Mr. Ramneek Goel Vs. Mr. Sunil Bajaj, Comp App (AT)(INS) No. 845/2023, NCLAT, New Delhi, decided by Hon’ble Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) & Hon’ble Justice Barun Mitra (Technical) dated 08.08.2023.

Ratio: The above appeal concerns the decision to re-publish Form-G for resolution plans after the Appellant’s plan was under consideration. The CoC received a higher offer from Respondent No.1 and decided to seek new plans. The Tribunal ruled that this decision was justifiable as it aimed to maximize the Corporate Debtor’s value. The case differs from previous judgments as it involves republishing to provide all parties, including the Appellant and Respondent No.1, an opportunity to submit plans. The Tribunal held that the CoC’s decision to re-publish Form-G was valid and aimed at the IBC’s objective. The Tribunal referred to previous cases to support this interpretation. The Appellant’s arguments, based on other judgments, were deemed distinguishable. The appeal’s decision allowed the republishing of Form-G to proceed.

22. A. Sreenivasa Reddy v Rakesh Sharma & Anr

Citation: A. Sreenivasa Reddy v Rakesh Sharma & Anr, 2023:INSC:682, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, decided by Hon’ble Justice J.B Pardiwala & Justice B.R Gavai, dated 08.08.2023

Ratio: In this case, the appellant, a bank manager, was facing trial for offences in respect of allegations of a loan scam. The Special Court discharged the appellant for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act for want of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, the Special Court decided to proceed with the trial for the IPC offences observing that sanction under Section 197 CrPC was not applicable for a bank employee. After the High Court also approved the Special Court’s decision, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Held, sanction under Section 197 CrPC for IPC offences and sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act operate on different levels. Sanction contemplated under Section 197 of the CrPC concerns a public servant who “is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty” whereas, the offences contemplated in the PC Act are those which cannot be treated as acts either directly or even purportedly done in the discharge of his official duties. Hence, appeal was dismissed.

23. Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Vs Raman Ispat Private Limited & Ors.

Citation: Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Vs Raman Ispat Private Limited & Ors, Civil Appeal- 7976/2019, Supreme Court of India, Decided by- Hon’ble Justice S. Ravindra Bhat

Ratio: In the above case, the Supreme Court clarified that the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) override the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Court emphasized that a secured creditor must decide whether to relinquish its security interest at the outset of the liquidation process. If it chooses not to relinquish and enforces its security interest without success, it will stand lower in priority for asset distribution.

The Court also distinguished between dues owed to secured creditors and government dues, stating that government dues are treated separately and are covered by Section 53(1)(f) of the IBC. The Court ruled that the judgment in Rainbow Papers should be confined to its specific context and does not apply to liquidation situations.

24. Government of Kerala & Anr. v. Joseph and Ors

Citation: Government of Kerala & Anr. v. Joseph and Ors, 2023:INSC:693, Supreme Court of India, decided by Hon’ble Justices Abhay S. Oka & Sanjay Karol, 09.08.2023.

Ratio: Appeal was filed in Supreme Court against the judgment passed by the Kerala High Court stating that land belonged to Respondents by adverse possession. The Supreme Court held that the exact dates of the adverse possession could not be made out. The Respondents had planted rubber trees and High Court noted that the rubber trees were planted just about 15 to 18 years prior to the date on which the depositions were recorded. Held, the appeal was allowed and claim of adverse possession was denied.

25. Venus Buildtech India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Senbo Engineering Ltd

Citation: Venus Buildtech India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Senbo Engineering Ltd, C.P. (IB) No. 60/KB/2021, NCLT- Kolkata Bench, Decided by- Smt. Bidisha Banerjee, Member (Judicial) Shri Balraj Joshi, Member (Technical), 04.08.2023

Ratio: In this case, the Operational Creditor claimed the date of default as the execution date of a decree in March 2020. However, it was revealed that the Creditor had filed a civil suit against the Corporate Debtor back in November 2010 due to non-payment, indicating that the default had occurred at that time. The Adjudicating Authority ruled that the default indeed originated with the civil suit, as it triggered the legal action due to non-payment. They further noted that once the period of limitation begins to run, it can only be extended as provided by the Limitation Act. Acknowledgment of debt by the Corporate Debtor, as seen in the balance sheet, doesn’t change the date of default. Therefore, the date of default couldn’t be shifted to the execution date of the decree.

The Tribunal clarified that the IBC recognizes decree holders as a distinct class of creditors, separate from financial or operational creditors. This distinction aligns with the purpose of the Code. Consequently, the application by the Operational Creditor was rejected, but they were free to pursue other remedies available under different laws.

26. Deptt. Of Health, Govt. of NCT of  Delhi v. Kamla Mehndiratta & Ors. – Sushanth

Citation: Deptt. Of Health, Govt. of NCT of  Delhi v. Kamla Mehndiratta & Ors, 2023:DHC:5598, Delhi High Court, Decided by- Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, 04.08.2023

Ratio: In the present case, the Petitioner being a governmental authority filed application for restoration of petition which had been dismissed due to non-appearance of Petitioner advocate and seeking condonation of delay of 691 days. The Petitioner stated that delay was caused due frequent change in empanelled advocates of the governmental authority.

Held, a governmental authority cannot be treated any differently than other litigants in determining condonation of delay. The condonation can only be given in cases of bona fide reasons provided for such delay. It was clear from the facts of the case that the Petitioner was unserious in litigating the matter and had only filed application seeking restoration after 2 years. Other parties could not be put to hardship due to the actions of the Petitioner and the governmental authority should give valid reasons for such inordinate delay, which cannot be excused merely for the fact that there was change in advocates. Hence, application was dismissed.

27. Mr. Anuj Bajpai, RP of Tollways (Ujjain) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Surendra Lodha

Citation: Mr. Anuj Bajpai, RP of Tollways (Ujjain) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Surendra Lodha, CP(IB)4106/MB/2018, NCLT Mumbai Bench, Decided by- Shyam Babu Gautam Member (Technical) & Shri Kuldip Kumar Kareer (Judicial), 11.08.2023

Ratio: In the above case, the Resolution Professional (RP) failed to provide substantial evidence to support the claims of fraud under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The RP primarily relied on a forensic audit report, which itself cautioned against interpreting it as definitive proof of fraud. Furthermore, the transactions in question primarily involved the Corporate Debtor and another party, not the Respondent No.1 (Suspended Director).

Regarding the allegations, one related to the increase in the Respondent’s salary, which had been approved by shareholders and did not appear fraudulent. Another concerned the reimbursement of travel expenses, which also did not indicate fraud. In a third case, funds had been deposited in a different bank account due to operational difficulties with the primary escrow account. While this deviation from the concession agreement raised concerns, it was not sufficient to establish fraud under Section 66 of the IBC.

In summary, the reliance on the forensic audit report and the absence of clear evidence of fraudulent intent led the tribunal to dismiss these applications, as they lacked merit.

28. M/s. Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company Vs. Union of India & Ors-

Citation: M/s. Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company Vs. Union of India & Ors, 2023 INSC 708, Supreme Court, Decided by S. Ravindra Bhat, Dipankar Datta, 11.08.2023

Ratio: In the present appeal, the Supreme Court heard matter of reduction of interest by High Court order from 18% to 9 %.

Held, under Section 31(7) of the Arbitration Act, the statutory rate of interest itself is contemplated at 18% per annum in the event the award does not contain any direction towards the rate of interest. Therefore, there is little to no reason, for the High Court to have interfered with the arbitrator’s finding on interest accrued and payable. Unlike in the case of the old Act, the court is powerless to modify the award and can only set aside partially, or wholly, an award on a finding that the conditions spelt out under Section 34 of the 1996 Act have been established. Further, the powers of appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act are much narrower and the Court should only interfere with award for patent illegality. Hence, the appeal was allowed, and interest was restoring to 18%.

29. Gannon Dunkerley and Co Ltd. Vs. Zillion Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd-

Citation: Gannon Dunkerley and Co Ltd. Vs. Zillion Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd, 2023:DHC:5632, Delhi High Court, Decided by- Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, 10.08.2023

Ratio: Held, while hearing an application under Section 34, is not expected to act as an Appellate Court and re-appreciate the evidence. The conclusion of the Arbitrator which are based on no evidence or having been arrived at by ignoring vital evidence are perverse and can be set aside on the ground of patent illegality.

30. Naresh Choudhary (Suspended Director of NIK-SAN Engineering Company Ltd.) Vs. Sterling Enameled Wires Pvt. Ltd

Citation: Naresh Choudhary (Suspended Director of NIK-SAN Engineering Company Ltd.) Vs. Sterling Enameled Wires Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

Ratio: In this case, the NCLAT upheld the Adjudicating Authority’s decision to admit the petition under Section 9 of the IBC, allowing the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor. The NCLAT pointed out that the Corporate Debtor had unequivocally acknowledged an operational debt of Rs. 2,07,11,209/- in their communication to the Operational Creditor. This acknowledgment was supported by previous emails and an assurance from the Corporate Debtor to clear the outstanding amount with an extra payment. While the Corporate Debtor had raised some letters of dispute earlier, these pertained to a period prior to the demand notice, and the subsequent acknowledgment of the debt in July 2021 indicated a lack of any genuine pre-existing dispute. The NCLAT concluded that all the necessary conditions for triggering CIRP under Section 9 were met, as the operational debt had been acknowledged, a default had occurred, and there were no substantial pre-existing disputes.

As a result, the NCLAT dismissed the appeal, finding that the Adjudicating Authority’s decision was sound and did not warrant any interference. The acknowledgment of the outstanding debt and the absence of significant pre-existing disputes supported the admission of the application by the Operational Creditor under Section 9 of the IBC.

31. H. Vasanthi v. A. Santha

Citation: H. Vasanthi v. A. Santha, 2023:INSC:731, Civil Appeal No. 7374 Of 2008, Supreme Court of India, decided by Hon’ble Justice S.V.N Bhatti dated 16.08.2023

Ratio: The present appeal arises out of coparcenary right accrued by unmarried daughters one-third share in the said property, and partition was also sought along with an injunction order, restraining the father and brother from disposing of one-third part claimed by the appellant to the third parties. The daughter also sought sought partition under partial partition deed.

Held, The Court noted that the High Court had found that the property was not available for partition as of the date of coming into force of Section 29A of the State Amendment and dismissed the appeal, the Court concurred with the findings of the High Court. Further, the Court observed that there is a principle that there is no prohibition to affect a partition otherwise than through an instrument in writing by duly complying with the requirement of law. The Court explained that the division of property may also be affected under a settlement or an oral understanding. However, the appellants had failed to put to record any evidence that said property was coparcenary.

31. Timex Bond Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deist Industries Pvt. Ltd

Citation: Timex Bond Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deist Industries Pvt. Ltd, C.P. No. 2952/IBC/MB/2019, NCLT Mumbai Bench, Hon’ble Shri H.V. Subba Rao, Member (Judicial), Hon’ble Ms. Madhu Sinha, Member (Technical), 10.08.2023

Ratio: In this case, the Operational Creditor claimed interest despite not having a written contract for it. The Tribunal emphasized that Operational Creditors are not entitled to interest without a written agreement. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the Operational Creditor’s conduct was inconsistent, as they had admitted to receiving a partial payment from the Corporate Debtor while simultaneously demanding the full amount. This inconsistent behavior created a dispute between the parties regarding the exact claim amount.

The Tribunal concluded that the Operational Creditor had not approached the case with integrity and had used the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code as a means of recovery rather than a genuine claim resolution process. As a result, the Company Petition was dismissed on the grounds of this pre-existing dispute and the Operational Creditor’s conduct.

32. Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company v Union of India & Ors.- Sushanth

Citation: Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company v Union of India & Ors 2023 INSC 708, Supreme Court of India, decided by Hon’ble Justice S Ravindra Bhat & Justice Dipankar Datta, dated- 11.08.2023

Ratio: In the present appeal, the Supreme Court heard matter of reduction of interest by High Court order from 18% to 9 %.

Held, under Section 31(7) of the Arbitration Act, the statutory rate of interest itself is contemplated at 18% per annum in the event the award does not contain any direction towards the rate of interest. Therefore, there is little to no reason, for the High Court to have interfered with the arbitrator’s finding on interest accrued and payable. Unlike in the case of the old Act, the court is powerless to modify the award and can only set aside partially, or wholly, an award on a finding that the conditions spelt out under Section 34 of the 1996 Act have been established. Further, the powers of appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act are much narrower and the Court should only interfere with award for patent illegality. Hence, the appeal was allowed, and interest was restoring to 18%.

33. Raghavendra Joshi, Director of Khadkeshwar Hatcheries Ltd. v Axis Bank Ltd.

Citation: Raghavendra Joshi, Director of Khadkeshwar Hatcheries Ltd. v Axis Bank Ltd, Company Appeal (AT) Ins No. 914 of 2023, NCLAT Delhi Bench, decided by Hon’ble Justice Ashok Bhusan & Barun Mitra Member (Technical), 18.08.2023.

Ratio: The above appeal involves a suspended director of a corporate debtor challenging the admission of a Section 7 application by Axis Bank Ltd. The dispute stemmed from a default by the corporate debtor, leading to the account being classified as a non-performing asset (NPA) in July 2016. An initial settlement proposal (OTS) was agreed upon in February 2020, but the corporate debtor subsequently sought modifications, and later withdrew the OTS proposal in January 2021.

The Appellate Tribunal, referencing a relevant judgment, clarified that Section 10A of the law aimed to protect corporate debtors from insolvency applications due to defaults caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. It emphasized that Section 10A did not extend to defaults occurring before this period. In this case, the corporate debtor had committed a default even before Section 10A came into effect. Therefore, the appeal’s argument that Section 10A should apply due to a default during the OTS period was not valid.

34. Union Bank of India v Mr. M. Madhusudhana Reddy RP of Cura Technologies Ltd-

Citation: Union Bank of India Vs. Mr. M. Madhusudhana Reddy RP of Cura Technologies Ltd., CP(IB)224/9/HDB/2021, NCLT Hyderabad Bench, Decided by Hon’ble Justice Telaprolu Rajani Member (Judicial) & Justice Charan Singh Member (Technical), 09.08.2023

Ratio: This application, filed by Union Bank of India, seeks to excuse the delay in submitting a claim to the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) in response to a public announcement and requests the IRP to admit the bank’s claim. The bank’s argument is based on the contention that the public announcement was made in newspapers with limited circulation, and they missed an email notification due to a merger with Andhra Bank. The Respondent’s counterarguments include a claim that their records showed a zero balance for the bank as of November 2, 2012, and that Regulation 6A, requiring RP to inform financial creditors, was not in effect at the time of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) initiation.

Despite these arguments, the tribunal decided to condone the delay in the bank’s claim submission and instructed the IRP to accept and process the claim in accordance with the law. The CoC’s approval of the Resolution Plan was not considered a valid reason to reject the bank’s application.

35. LBF Publications Private Limited v A&A Business Consulting Private Limited-

Citation: LBF Publications Private Limited v A&A Business Consulting Private Limited, CP (IB)- 341/2022, NCLT Mumbai Bench, Decided by Hon’ble Kishore Vemulapalli- Member (Judicial), Hon’ble Mr. Prabhat Kumar- Member (Technical), 10.08.2023

Ratio: In the above case, the tribunal dismissed the Corporate Debtor’s argument that the debt from advance payment for goods and services couldn’t be considered an operational debt. The tribunal also rejected the claim that pursuing the matter in the MSME facilitation Council barred the petition under section 9 of the Code.

Regarding the Corporate Debtor’s claim that the petition lacked specification of the default date, the tribunal found that the advance payment under the consulting agreement became due for refund on August 10, 2018, unless terminated earlier. The Corporate Debtor’s reliance on a non-refundable clause was noted.

The Operational Creditor presented evidence of the debt, including an email acknowledgment from the Corporate Debtor and post-dated cheques. However, the tribunal couldn’t establish the default date due to the absence of a clear due date in the documentation. As a result, the petition did not meet the conditions under section 8 of the Code, and it was dismissed.

36. Pericharla Sudara Vijaya Lakshmi v Kusampudi Buchiraju-

Citation: Pericharla Sudara Vijaya Lakshmi v Kusampudi Buchiraju, 2023 SCC OnLine AP 1391, Andhra Pradesh High Court, Decided by Hon’ble Justice T Mallikarjuna Rao, 21.07.2023

Ratio: In the present case, incomplete promissory notes i.e., with blank amounts issued by the Appellant were held to be valid as the promissory notes were duly stamped and stamp duty had been paid.

37. Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd V. Raman Ispat Private Limited: Relief for creditors

Ratio: In the present case, the IBC was deemed to have primacy over the Electricity Act’s non-obstante clauses by virtue of Section 238 of IBC. This means that IBC would prevail over the other statutes, to the extent that the authorities shall have limited jurisdiction to initiate recovery of dues by means of attachment of property, once moratorium is imposed.

38. Mohan Kumar Garg v Omkara Agencies

Citation: Mohan Kumar Garg v Omkara Agencies, NCLAT New Delhi, Decided by Mr Justice Ashok Bhushan Chairperson, Mr Barun Mitra Member (Technical) and Shri Ajai Das Mehrotra Member (Technical), 21.08.2023

Ratio: The above appeal challenges the admission of a Section 7 application by the Adjudicating Authority against the appellant, who is a Corporate Guarantor. The appellant initially sought to settle with the Financial Creditor but was unsuccessful. The key argument against the order was that proceedings against the Corporate Guarantor should not have been initiated when proceedings against the Principal Borrower had already been admitted. The appellant also claimed that the Corporate Guarantee documents were not presented as evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the existence of the Corporate Guarantee was never disputed during the proceedings, making it unnecessary to include the Corporate Guarantee in the record. Additionally, it upheld that simultaneous proceedings against both the Principal Borrower and Corporate Guarantor can occur under Section 7.The Tribunal concluded that there was no error in admitting the Section 7 application against the Corporate Guarantor, ultimately dismissing the appeal.

39. Splendor Landbase Ltd v Aparna Ashram (Society) & Anr-

Citation: Splendor Landbase Ltd v Aparna Ashram (Society) & Anr, 2023 DHC 5989, High Court of New Delhi, Decided by Hon’ble Justice Sachin Datta, 22.08.2023

Ratio: In the event that an arbitration agreement is not stamped or improperly stamped, the Court is to itself collect the requisite stamp duty with which the agreement/ instrument is chargeable, together with ten times the amount of proper duty or deficient portion thereof, in terms of proviso (a) to Section 35. However, where the arbitration agreement is duly stamped, filing of the original instrument can be obviated provided the true copy or certified copy thereof clearly indicates that it has been duly and properly stamped and it is also accompanied by a clear and cogent statement to that effect in the petition filed under Section 11 of the Act.

40. Transvahan Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Vs S.R. Venkatesan (Competition Commission of India)

Citation: Transvahan Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Vs S.R. Venkatesan (Competition Commission of India), Case No. 30/2022, Competition Commission of India, Ms. Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Ms. Sangeeta Verma (Member), Mr. Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi (Member), 22.08.2022

Ratio: The present information before the CCI arises out of challenge that that the employment condition imposed was an unfair imposition contravening the Competition Act. Further, the informant alleged that there was denial of market access for the supply of self-recovery winches used by the Indian Army. However, CCI held that the dispute arose from contractual terms between two parties and there was not competition law issue in the matter.

41. Prodosh Kumar Banerjee v The Authorized Signatory State Bank of India

Citation: Prodosh Kumar Banerjee v The Authorized Signatory State Bank of India, Consumer Complaint No 67/2023, Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- Bangalore Urban II, Decided by Hon’ble Member Smt V. Anuradha, 14.08.2023

Ratio: Consumer complaint denied relief to petitioner who claimed Rs. 2 lakhs after the Petitioner complainant visited fake website created by fraudsters and clicked link for payment. Held, there was no deficiency of service by the Bank since transaction was not due to negligence of opposite party and therefore case was dismissed.

Ratio: The dispute concerned a question of whether the marks ELEKTROMAG (used by the plaintiffs) and ELEKTROMAGNETISCH (used by the defendants) were deceptively similar. The Court rejected the defendants’ contention that “ELEKTROMAGNETISCH” is the name of the technology which literally means “ELECTROMAGNETISM” and that both the plaintiffs and the defendants had derived their names from it. The defendants had asserted that these marks were generic and could not be registered. The Court, however, rejected this stance, considering that the defendants too had applied for the registration of the device, albeit under a different class. Hence, the Court held that the defendant was liable for passing off

44. Laxmi Trading Corporation Vs. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd

Citation: Laxmi Trading Corporation Vs. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd, CP(IB) No. 147/2021, NCLT Mumbai Bench, Decided by Hon’ble Judicial Member Kishore Vemulapalli & Hon’ble Technical Member Prabhat Kumar, dated 25.08.2023.

Ratio: In the above matter, the Applicant had filed an Application under section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, for initiation of CIRP against the Defendant, however, the Applicant had erroneously failed to mention a date of default. The Operational Creditor raised invoices for the goods provided by them with respect to six distinct projects and the Corporate Debtor made the part payment against the said invoices. It was agreed between the parties that the payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of invoices. The date of default is to determine with reference to each invoice and invoices which are beyond the period of 3 years of the date of filing are to be excluded, unless the period of limitation is extended u/s 18 of the Limitation Act by way of acknowledgement. Held, since there was no acknowledgment of debt to outstanding amounts under these projects, the said application was dismissed.

Disclaimer: This material and the information contained herein prepared by Anirudh Associates is intended to provide general information on a subject or subjects and is not an exhaustive treatment of such subject(s). Anirudh Associates is not, by means of this material, rendering professional advice or services. The information is not intended to be relied upon as the sole basis for any decision. Anirudh Associates shall not be responsible for any loss whatsoever sustained by any person who relies on this material.