1. Indian overseas bank V. M/s. RCM Infrastructure Ltd

Citation: Indian overseas bank V. M/s. RCM Infrastructure Ltd.: Civil Appeal No. 4750/2021, Supreme Court, decided by Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai.

Ratio: The Apex Court clarified that after the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 14(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), there is a complete prohibition on any action to foreclose, recover, or enforce security interest created by the Corporate Debtor, including actions under the SARFAESI Act.

The Court emphasized that the IBC is a complete code, and its provisions will prevail over any inconsistent laws. The Court also considered the intention of parties in property sales and ruled that the sale would be complete only when the auction purchaser makes the entire payment and receives the certificate of sale from the authorized officer. Therefore, the Court upheld the orders of the NCLT and NCLAT, confirming the prohibition on any action to enforce security interest after the commencement of CIRP.

2. M/s IFCI Ltd. V. Sutanu Sinha RP of IVRCL Chengapalli Tollways Ltd

Citation: M/s IFCI Ltd. V. Sutanu Sinha RP of IVRCL Chengapalli Tollways Ltd.: COMPANY APPEAL (AT) (CH) (INS.) NO. 108/2023, NCLAT Chennai, decided by Hon’ble Justice M. Venugopal.

Ratio:  In this case, the issue revolves around Compulsorily Convertible Debentures (CCDs) that matured before the admission into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Hon’ble Tribunal relied on a Supreme Court decision stating that fully, compulsorily convertible instruments are considered equity, not debt. The terms and intentions of the parties involved did not specify that the instrument would be treated as a financial debt. The Debentures were part of the equity component of the project, and the Corporate Debtor was prohibited from taking further debt without the assignee’s consent.

The claim challenging the rejection of the claim was filed after a significant delay, which the court deemed unacceptable under the time-bound process of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Ultimately, the court concluded that the CCDs were equity instruments and did not qualify as financial debt. The appeal was dismissed.

3. M/s. A.G. Enviro Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. V. M/s. J.S. Enviro Services Pvt. Ltd

Citation: M/s. A.G. Enviro Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. V. M/s. J.S. Enviro Services Pvt. Ltd.: O.M.P. (COMM) 419/2020 & I.A. 3513/2020, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, decided by Hon’ble Justice Chandra Dhari Singh.

Brief Facts: In the present case, the arbitral award was challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act along the grounds that the Arbitrator had failed to appreciate the evidence placed on record by the Petitioner. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent colluded with employees of Petitioner to defraud the petitioner. Further, the counter claim of the Petitioner was not considered.

Ratio: Held, the constitutional courts have very limited powers for review and interference of arbitral award under Section 34. In the present case, the Hon’ble Court found that the grounds of patent illegality and public policy were not made out for interference with the arbitral award.

Further, the arbitrator had clearly appreciated and evaluated the evidence placed on record and the award was devoid of reasoning and thus could not be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The Hon’ble Court held that mere dissent from the reasoning by a Court from the decision of an arbitrator would not be valid reason to set aside award.

4. Bank of India Ltd. V. BD & P Hotels (India) Pvt. Ltd

Citation: Bank of India Ltd. V. BD & P Hotels (India) Pvt. Ltd.: CP (IB) No.226/MB-IV/2022, NCLT Mumbai, decided by Hon’ble Justice Kishore Vemulapalli.

Ratio: In the above case, Corporate Debtor challenged the maintainability of the petition based on insufficiency of stamp duty paid on loan/mortgaged documents. The Adjudicating Authority referred to the N.N. Global Mercantile case, which stated that an instrument that is not stamped or insufficiently stamped is considered void and unenforceable. However, the Authority noted that the Corporate Debtor’s plea of insufficiency of stamp duty contradicted its own admission while seeking disbursement of the term loan. The Authority emphasized that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) does not require enforcement of such rights during the resolution process. It also stated that the existence of debt and default can be established through means other than loan agreements, as specified in Section 7(3) of the IBC.

The Authority concluded that the fact of debt and default had been proved through other evidence. It further noted that the stamp duty, if paid by the lender, is recoverable from the borrower. Therefore, the Authority found no merit in the Corporate Debtor’s arguments regarding insufficiency of stamp duty and admitted the petition.

5. M/s SMS Foundation & Investment LLP V. M/s. Harsha Exito Engineering Pvt. Ltd

Citation: M/s SMS Foundation & Investment LLP V. M/s. Harsha Exito Engineering Pvt. Ltd.: Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 364/2022, NCLAT Chennai, decided by Hon’ble Justice M. Venugopal.

Ratio:  The applicant, M/s SMS Foundation, and Investment LLP, appealed against the decision of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to dismiss their application. In the originating case, the NCLT had concluded that the applicant was a shareholder of the corporate debtor based on the loan agreement and the presence of their names in the corporate debtor’s books. The applicant argued that the shares were not duly transferred according to the Companies Act, as there were no signed share transfer deeds, no stamp duty paid, and no transfer entry on the share certificate. They claimed that the documents showing their shareholder status were manipulated by the corporate debtor’s management. The respondent, the resolution professional, argued that the share transfer had taken place and the shares were transferred in the names of the applicant’s partners as reflected in the Registrar of Companies (ROC) records. They pointed out that the applicant had possession of the share certificate and had actively participated in the company’s decision-making process.

The NCLT found that the shares had been transferred to the applicant based on the share certificate, MGT-7 filings with the ROC, and the appellant’s endorsement on the share certificate. They concluded that the applicant’s claim as a shareholder was valid and hence, the appeal was dismissed.

6. Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corp. Ltd. V. M/s Goel & Goel

Citation: Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corp. Ltd. V. M/s Goel & Goel: O.M.P. (COMM.) 229/2021, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, decided by Hon’ble Justice Neena Bansal Krishna.

Brief Facts: In the present case, the Petitioner granted license to Respondent to operate food court on CST Station, Mumbai. The Respondent were allowed to sub-license 75% of the designated premises. It was alleged that the remaining 25% was sub-licensed without the permission of the Petitioner. The Respondent alleged that the third party who had occupied the remaining 25% had forcibly occupied the premises with forged documents. The termination of the license was challenged by arbitration by the Respondents. The arbitrator passed award in favor of the Respondents and found the termination of the license to be arbitrary and illegal. Hence, the Petitioner preferred the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the Award.

Ratio: An arbitral award can only be set aside under Section 34 on the ground of “patent illegality” or “public policy”, i.e., the Award is either patently illegal and against the public policy of India or an award which shocks the conscience of the court. A mere difference in opinion of the decision of the arbitrator is not valid ground to set aside the Award.

In the present case, it was found that the Respondent had raised complaint and sought assistance of the Petitioner in evicting the third party who had occupied 25% of the demised premises. The same was admitted by the Petitioner before the small causes court. Hence, the award of the arbitrator was not interfered with.

7. Tejinder Pal Setia V. Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors

Citation: Tejinder Pal Setia V. Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 262 of 2023 & I.A. No. 1122, 1124 & 1167 of 2023, NCLAT Delhi, decided by Hon’ble Justice Ashok Bhushan.

Ratio:  In the above case, the suspended director of the corporate debtor appealed against the order of the NCLT admitting a Section 9 application filed by an operational creditor. The appellant argued that the demand notice was defective because it was issued in Form-3 without attaching invoices. The NCLAT held that the operational creditor was allowed to submit the demand notice in either Form-3 or Form-4, and invoices were not required to be attached if the notice was in Form-3.

The demand notice in this case referred to a debt based on a supply agreement and an acknowledgement letter from the corporate debtor, without mentioning specific invoices. The NCLAT concluded that there was no need for invoices to be attached to the demand notice, and therefore, there were no grounds to interfere with the order admitting the Section 9 application.

8. Ramesh Chand V. Management of Delhi Transport Corporation

Citation: Ramesh Chand V. Management of Delhi Transport Corporation.: Civil Appeal No. 4208 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 7137/2016), Supreme Court, decided by Hon’ble justice Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal.

Brief Facts: In the present case, the Appellant was reinstated by the Labour Court after it found that his removal was illegal after 13 years. The Appellant preferred appeal as back wages was not granted by the Labour Court.

Ratio: Held, even if Labour Court passes and order of reinstatement of service, an order of payment of back wages in not automatic and is dependent on the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence placed on record.

In the present case, the evidence placed on record was not sufficient to prove that the Appellant was unemployed for 13 years. However, the Appellant discharged the burden to prove that he was unemployed till date of filing claim before Labour Court. Hence, partial back wages were granted.

9. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Winsome International Ltd

Citation: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Winsome International Ltd.: AP/418/2023, High Court of Calcutta, decided by Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya.

Ratio: In the present case, the interest rate of 24.6% awarded by arbitrator in accordance with Section 16 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 was challenged. Section 16 mandates that interest shall be three times bank rate in case of default by buyer to “supplier”. However, “supplier” is only defined with micro and small enterprises. The definition of “supplier” specifically excludes “medium enterprises”.

Hence, the interest rate was revised to 8% in the present case.

10. Satish Balan Director of Balan and Chheda Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Neeta Navin Nagda

Citation: Satish Balan Director of Balan and Chheda Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Neeta Navin Nagda: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 718 of 2023, NCLAT Delhi, decided by Hon’ble Justice Ashok Bhushan.

Ratio: In the above case, it was held that the Adjudicating Authority can admit an application under Section 7 of the Code if there is a complete application filed by a Financial Creditor with proof of default and a financial debt exceeding Rs. 1 crore. The presence of a written agreement is not necessary to prove the loan and its disbursement as financial debt. Clear acknowledgements and statements of accounts can serve as evidence of the loan and interest payments.

In this case, the Corporate Debtor issued acknowledgments for the money received and mentioned the interest payment, with TDS deducted. The NCLAT concluded that there was a clear financial debt and dismissed the appeal.

11. Sandeep Anand Vs. Gopal Lal Baser RP Wianxx Impex Pvt. Ltd

Citation: Sandeep Anand Vs. Gopal Lal Baser RP Wianxx Impex Pvt. Ltd.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 767 of 2023 & I.A. No. 2587 of 2023, NCLAT Delhi, decided by Hon’ble Justice Ashok Bhushan

Ratio: The NCLAT passed the above judgment on an application seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal. The applicant argued that the appeal should be considered within 45 days instead of the usual 30-day period because April 7th was declared a public holiday and April 8th and 9th were non-working days.

The NCLAT, however, noted that the jurisdiction to condone the delay under Section 61(2) of the relevant law is limited to 15 days. The applicant’s claim for an extended period of 45 days was not deemed applicable in this case. As the delay in filing the appeal exceeded the 15-day limit, the NCLAT dismissed the application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the appeal was also rejected.

12. Sajjan Singh v. Jasvir Kaur & Ors

Citation: Sajjan Singh v. Jasvir Kaur & Ors.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 4221 of 2023

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.9921/2019), Supreme Court, decided by Hon’ble Justice A.S. Bopanna and Hon’ble Justice M.M Sundresh.

Ratio: Plaint was dismissed by application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on grounds that had not sought for an appropriate prayer to declare the sale deeds as illegal, null and void and no court fee in that regard was paid.

Held, whether an appropriate prayer should have sought, is a matter ultimately to be decided in the suit and not an issue to be considered while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, Hence, civil suit was restored to the file of the civil court.

13. Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Ltd Vs Vikram Kapur and Ors

Citation: Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Ltd Vs Vikram Kapur and Ors.: CA/138(PB)/2023 In CP 18/(ND)/2015, NCLT Delhi, decided by Hon’ble Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar.

Ratio: In the above application, the applicant, M/s Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Limited sought for a stay on the recovery of dues and legal proceedings by creditors and statutory authorities for a period of six months or as determined by the Tribunal. The applicant company is facing severe financial difficulties, with total liabilities of approximately Rs. 179.27 crores and numerous creditors initiating proceedings against them. The newly appointed Board of Directors are making efforts to revive the company, including liaising with authorities, selling assets, and setting up new management structures. The applicant argued that a temporary stay on creditor actions is necessary for the company’s revival.

The NCLT, considering the interest of stakeholders and the power vested in it under Section 242(4) of the Companies Act, was pleased to grant an interim stay on the demand of dues and legal proceedings for six months. No coercive action can be taken against the Applicant Company by any statutory authorities during this period.

14. Ashok Kumar Tyagi Vs UCO Bank & Santanu Brahma.

Citation: Ashok Kumar Tyagi Vs UCO Bank & Santanu Brahma in CA(AT) (Insolvency) No. 1323 of 2022, NCLAT Principal Bench, New Delhi- decided by Hon’ble Justice Ashok Bhushan, Chairperson, Dr. Alok Srivastava Member (Technical), Mr. Barun Mitra (Member Technical)

Ratio: The NCLAT, based on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Limited v. Church of South India Trust Association, clarified that when an admission order is stayed, the Corporate Debtor cannot function as it did before the admission order. Additionally, the IRP cannot carry out any functions since the IRP was appointed by the same order, and the stay prevents any further action in pursuance of the admission order.

Therefore, the stay of an order does not erase its existence; it only means that the order is not operative from the date of the stay order.

15. 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.

16. Alok Kumar Goel Vs Union of India

Citation: Alok Kumar Goel Vs Union of India Ministry of Corporate Affairs through. Regional Director (Northern Region), Decided by NCLAT, Principal Bench New Delhi, Justice Rakesh Kumar Member (Judicial) & Dr Alok Srivastava Member (Technical), CA(AT) No. 225/2022 & I.A No. 4767/2022- on 19.07.2023.

Ratio: In the above matter the appellant filed an appeal against an order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The appeal was filed with a delay of 142 days, but the appellant claimed that they came to know about the order on 15.10.2022. The respondent argued that the appeal is also fit to be rejected on the ground of limitation. However, the Court decided to condone the delay and disposed of the appeal based on earlier orders where similar appeals were not interfered with by the Court.

17. State Bank of India Vs Salasar Ispat Ltd

Citation: State Bank of India Vs Salasar Ispat Ltd, C.P (IB)224/KB/2021, Decided by- NCLT Kolkata Bench (Court-II), Hon’ble Smt Bidisha Banerjee Member (Judicial), Hon’ble Shri Balraj Joshi Member (Technical)- on 14.07.2023.

Ratio: In this case, the appellant sought to exclude the time period between the filing of proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the SARFAESI Act and the filing of the above petition, based on Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The Tribunal examined the applicability of Section 14 and held that it requires specific conditions to be met, including prosecuting civil proceedings with due diligence in a wrong forum and for the same relief.

The Tribunal found that the conditions were not fulfilled in this case, and therefore, the time period before the Tribunal is not excluded. Consequently, the petition filed on 30.07.2021 was barred by limitation and dismissed.

18. Ahammedkutty Pothiyil Thottiparambil v Union of India

Citation: Ahammedkutty Pothiyil Thottiparambil V Union of India, CRL. A No. 1275/2022, Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, decided by Hon’ble Justice P.B Suresh Kumar & Hon’ble Justice C. S Sudha, Dated- 21.07.2023

Ratio: Held, an application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable in respect of offences punishable under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967. The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 doesn’t not allow for regular bail unless conditions under Section 43D are satisfied. If the statute was interpreted to have no bar regarding anticipatory bail, it would lead to an anomalous and absurd position that anticipatory bail can be granted to a person accused of an offence punishable under the Act unconditionally and restrictions would apply only in the matter of claiming regular bail.

19. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited v Priyadarsini Limited (Rep by Liquidator, Mr. Krishna Mohan Gollamudi)

Citation: Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited v Priyadarsini Limited (Rep by Liquidator, Mr. Krishna Mohan Gollamudi), IA (IBC)/168/2022, CP (IB) No. 369/10/HDB/2019, Hon’ble NCLT Hyderabad Bench-1, Decided by Dr. Venkata Ramakrishna Badarinath Nandula, Hon’ble Member (Judicial) Sh. Charan Singh, Hon’ble Member (Technical), Dated- 17.07.2023

Ratio: The delay in filing the Appeal can be excused under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Hon’ble NCLAT ruled that the power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act can be utilized to condone the delay in filing an Appeal under Section 42 even on basis of an oral pleading but the same cannot be done suo moto.

In the case of Sesh Nath Singh & Anr vs. Baidya Bati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd and Anr., the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India clarified that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not explicitly require a formal application. The provision enables the Court to admit an application or Appeal if the applicant or appellant demonstrates sufficient cause for the delay in making the application or preferring the Appeal. While it is common practice to formally apply under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court or Tribunal can still exercise its discretion to condone delay even without a formal application. An oral plea for condonation of delay, accompanied by reasons for the delayed filing, suffices.

20. Entertainment Network India Ltd v Praise Communications Pvt Ltd

Citation: Entertainment Network India Ltd v Praise Communications Pvt Ltd, IB 660/ND/2020, Hon’ble NCLT Delhi, Court- IV, Decided by Hon’ble Mr. P.S.N. Prasad, Member (Judicial) & Hon’ble Dr. Binod Kumar Sinha, Member (Technical), On 25.01.2023

Ratio: In the above case, the Adjudicating Authority noted that a Section 8(1) notice was issued in June 2018 and subsequent payments were received from the Corporate Debtor in August and October 2018. The Section 9 Application, filed in 2020 based on the June 2018 notice, disregarded the effect of these payments. The explanation to Section 8(2) clarifies that a demand notice is one served by an Operational Creditor to the Corporate Debtor for payment of operational debt in default.

Since the payments received were not considered and no new Section 8(1) notice was issued before filing the Section 9 Application, the stated amount in the notice did not align with the application. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority declined to entertain the Section 9 Application, dismissing it without costs.

21. 21. Go Airlines (India) Limited

Citation: Go Airlines (India) Limited, CP (IB) No. 264/PB/2023, Hon’ble NCLT, New Delhi Court- V, decided by Shri Mahendra Khandelwal, Hon’ble Member (Judicial) Shri Rahul Bhatnagar, Hon’ble Member (Technical), Dated- 26.07.2023.

Ratio: By way of the aforesaid order, the NCLT upheld the moratorium, and further clarified that leased aircrafts are assets and property of the Corporate Debtor as per definition of ‘property’.

The lessors not allowed to take back possession of leased aircraft despite they have applied for cancellation of aircraft lease before DGCA. This order goes contravenes the provisions of the Cape Town Convention and Aircraft Protocol adopted by India and Draft CTC Bill which is in the works.

22. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 31 Mumbai V Indravadan Jain, HUF

Citation: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 31 Mumbai V Indravadan Jain, HUF, BHC-OS:6615-DB, ITA No. 454/2018, Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, Decided by Hon’ble Justices K.R Shriram & Firdosh P Pooniwalla, JJ. Dated- 12.07.2023.

Ratio: The profits made from sale of penny stocks was assessed as an unexplained cash credit (taxed @ 60%) instead of long-term capital gains (taxed at 10%). The same was reversed on appeal to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Unexplained cash credit is any sum credited on the books of taxpayer for which the nature and source cannot be explained by the taxpayer. In the present case, a penny stock i.e. low priced stock was bought by the taxpayer and sold at huge profit. The taxpayer only needs to show the transfer of security for the transaction to be taxed under long term capital gains. The High Court of Bombay upheld the holding of the ITAT as the transaction was that of a security transfer.

Obiter: The same transaction was investigated and adjudged to be price manipulation by the SEBI. However, such penalty was found to have no bearing on determination whether a transaction was a security transfer or unexplained cash credit.

23. Mr. K.C.M. Kumar Vs. Mr. Raghu Babu Gunturu, RP of M/s. Speck Systems Ltd

Citation: Mr. K.C.M. Kumar Vs. Mr. Raghu Babu Gunturu, RP of M/s. Speck Systems Ltd, IA (IBC)/1048/2023 in CP (IB)No.06/7/HDB/2019, Hon’ble NCLT Hyderabad Bench Court- II, Decided by Justice Telaprolu Rajani– Hon’ble Member (J) Coram: Shri. Charan Singh – Hon’ble Member (T), Dated- 17.07.2023

Ratio: In the above matter, the Adjudicating Authority referred to several precedents, including the NCLAT’s judgment in Saravana Global Holdings Ltd. vs. Bafna Pharmaceuticals Ltd., highlighting that the objective of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) is to maximize the value of a corporate debtor’s assets. It emphasized that for an MSME (Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprise) corporate debtor, the promoters need not compete with other resolution applicants to regain control. 

The Authority considered the PLBB Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. Piyush Periwal case and ruled in favor of the applicant, an MSME, allowing them to submit a resolution plan within 20 days. The resolution plan would be evaluated by the Resolution Professional and presented to the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for negotiation and decision-making. CoC voting would be paused until the consideration of the MSME’s resolution plan, which would be compared to existing plans for commercial viability and technical feasibility. 

24. Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh v Jet Airways

Citation: Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh v Jet Airways, Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 646, CA No. 4404/2023, SLP(C) No. 14886/2023, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Decided by Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Sanjay Karol, Dated- 25.07.2023

Ratio: In the present case temporary workers of Jet Airways through workers union claimed permanent employment status as they had been employed for 240 days and were entitled to such status in accordance with Bombay Model Standing Order. Jet Airways contended that the union had entered into a settlement agreement by which the workers gave up such right to permanent status.

Held, no contract/settlement which abridges such a right can be agreed upon, let alone be binding. The Act being the beneficial legislation provides that any agreement/contract/settlement wherein the rights of the employees are waived off would not override the Standing Orders.

25. Dr. Ashok V v. The State

Citation: Dr. Ashok V vs The State, CRMP No. 531/2022 Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Decided by Justice M Nagaprasanna, Dated- 04.07.2023

Ratio: Held¸ private complaint of corruption are maintainable against state officials even if not meeting rigour of Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act.

• The complaint should narrate that the complainant has made his efforts to register a crime before the Karnataka Lokayukta and no action is taken by the police on the complaint. Mere statement in the complaint would not suffice but documentary evidence to demonstrate such fact should be appended to the private complaint.
• The private complaint should also append prior approval granted by the competent authority to register a private complaint, akin to a prior approval for an FIR to be registered by the Investigating Agency as obtaining under Section 17A of the Act. This would become a prerequisite to the concerned Court to refer the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.
• The aforesaid direction (ii) would be applicable only if the offences alleged would be the ones punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act or the allegation would be an amalgam of offences both under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code. This direction at (ii) will not be applicable if the alleged offences are only of the Indian Penal Code.

26. JK Technosoft v Unikul Solutions Pvt Ltd

Citation: JK Technosoft v Unikul Solutions Pvt Ltd, 2023: KHC:23900, CMP No. 77/2023, Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Decided by Justice R Devdas, Dated- 11.07.2023.

Ratio: Dispute arising from Unstamped service agreement which had been signed by both parties was referred to arbitration.

Held, if a contract is not stamped & signed by the parties, but it is in writing, such a document can be accepted as a contract.

If only photocopies of agreement are only provided, question of impounding would only arise when the original document is produced. Hence, petition was allowed, and arbitrator was directed to be appointed.

27. 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 Supreme Court upheld a previous order by a five-judge bench of the NCLAT, which established that while the NCLAT doesn’t have the power to review its judgments, it can employ its inherent powers to ‘recall’ a judgment under specific circumstances.

The Supreme Court dismissed the plea, affirming that Union Bank of India could challenge the order on factual grounds through the appropriate forum. The court’s decision reaffirmed the power of NCLAT and NCLT to recall their own judgments if there is a mistaken interpretation of the law or a deviation from proper procedures, within the framework of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

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.