1. AKASH KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA

Citation: Akash Kumar Vs. Union of India, Writ No. 13293 of 2020, High Court of Allahabad, decided by Hon’ble Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra, dated 05.01.2021.

Ratio: The present case arises from denial of recruitment of candidate for constable of UP Police. The denial arose as during character verification it was found that the candidate had been involved in motor vehicle accident. The same had been disclosed at the time of application. Held, the appointing authority should examine the nature of allegation against the candidate, whether the acquittal was clean or due to reasonable doubt and whether it involves a question of moral turpitude. In the present case, since it is a case of motor accident, it would not constitute any valid material to deny appointment. Thus, the appointing officer was directed to reconsider the application of candidate.

2. UNIBROS VS ALL INDIA RADIO

Citation: Unibros Vs. All India Radio, Civil Appeal No. 8781/2020, Supreme court of India, decided by Hon’ble Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, dated 19.10.2023.

Ratio: In the present case, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that damages for the loss of profit to the litigant must be based on the cogent evidence as produced on record of the Hon’ble Court. Further, while the Hudson Formula might be a useful guide to estimating losses, it alone in vacuum cannot prove loss of profit. Thus, loss of profit is determined by meeting the following criterion: first, there was a delay in the completion of the contract; second, such delay is not attributable to the claimant; third, the claimant’s status as an established contractor, handling substantial projects; and fourth, credible evidence to substantiate the claim of loss of profitability.

3. SURAKSHA REALTY LTD VS ANUJ BAJPAI RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL OF PANACHE ALUMINIUM EXTRUSION PVT. LTD.

Citation: Suraksha Realty Ltd Vs. Anuj Bajpai Resolution Professional of Panache Aluminium Extrusion Pvt. Ltd., COMP APP (AT)(INS) No. 1389 of 2023, NCLAT Delhi, decided by Hon’ble Justice Ashok Bhushan, Mr. Barun Mitra Member, Mr. Arun Baroka, dated 01.11.2023.

Ratio: The Hon’ble NCLAT Delhi reiterated that after approval of the resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors, the claims cannot be entertained.

4. PRADEEP MEHRA VS HARIJIVAN J. JETHWA

Citation: Pradeep Mehra Vs. Harijivan J. Jethwa, Civil Appeal No. 6375 of 2023, Supreme Court of India decided by Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, dated 30.10.2023.

Ratio: The Hon’ble Supreme Court relying on the principle of finality and res judicata stated that if a matter has been decided or deemed to have been decided in an earlier stage of the same proceedings, the same court will be precluded from re-examining the same question. This means that parties cannot raise objections in later stages of a legal proceeding that they failed to raise in earlier stages, if the matter has moved forward and there has been no challenge to the previous decision.

5. ALFA ONE GLOBAL BUILDERS PVT. LTD. & ANR. VS NIRMALA PADMANABHAN & ORS.

Citation: Alfa One Global Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Nirmala Padmanabhan & Ors., WP (CRL.) No. 1196 OF 2022, High court Kerala, decided by Hon’ble Justice A. Badharudeen, dated 21.08.2023.

Ratio: Interpreting the NI Act, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala held that where a cheque is delivered for collection at any branch of the bank of the payee or holder in due course, then, the cheque shall be deemed to have been delivered to the branch of the bank in which the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account. Thus, the court within the jurisdiction of the bank branch shall have jurisdiction.

6. AMAR S. MULCHANDANI VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: Amar S. Mulchandani Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Interim Application No. 3704 Of 2023 In Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2801 of 2023, High court Bombay Decided by Hon’ble Justice N.J. JAMADAR, dated 31.08.2023.

Ratio: The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay held that a person in custody in one criminal case is not precluded from seeking anticipatory bail in connection with another criminal case wherein he apprehends arrest.

7. AZIZUR REHMAN GULAM VS RADIO RESTAURANT

Citation: Azizur Rehman Gulam Vs. Radio Restaurant, Commercial Appeal No. 18 of 2023, High Court of Bombay, decided by Hon’ble Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, and, Arif S, dated 25.10.2023.

Ratio: Present case arises out of second appeal against arbitral award. The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the appeal as the award was being challenged on new grounds which had not been argued at any stage prior to appeal. Further, The Court also held that second appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the A&C Act is only maintainable against the order of the Court under Section 34 not the award of arbitrator.

9. M/S DIVYAJYOTHI VIDYA KENDRA VS KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD & ORS.

Citation: M/s. Divyajyothi Vidya Kendra Vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors., Writ Appeal No. 873 of 2023, High Court Karnataka, decided by The Hon’ble Mr. Prasanna B. Varale, Chief Justice, dated 10.10.2023.

Ratio: Land was allotted to Petitioner for the public interest purpose of building an educational institution. Sale was conditional that school should be built within 5 years or allotment would be rescinded. School was not built though BBMP issued khata. Held, when a public property is allotted for a specified purpose and that purpose remains unaccomplished, the retention of such allotment militates against the public interest. Thus, appeal was dismissed and land stood forfeited

10. FERVENT SYNERGIES LIMITED VS MANISH MOTILAL JAJU AND OTHERS

Citation: Fervent Synergies Limited Vs. Manish Motilal Jaju and Ors., I.A. 2974 of 2021 In C.P.(IB) No. 3169/MB/2019, NCLT Mumbai, decided by Hon’ble Kuldip Kumar Kareer, and Anuradha Sanjay Bhatia, dated 19.07.2023.

Ratio: The Hon’ble NCLAT, New Delhi in an appeal against the rejection of application objecting to the Resolution Plan categorizing homebuyers into affected and unaffected groups based on NOC possession and affirmed the validity of the Resolution Plan approved by the CoC and rejected the appellant’s objections based on discrimination and promissory estoppel. Further, individual homebuyers cannot object to the resolution plan.

11. LOMBARDI ENGINEERING LIMITED VS UTTARAKHAND JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED

Citation: Lombardi Engineering Limited Vs. Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited, Arbitration Petition No. 43 of 2022, Supreme Court of India, decided by Hon’ble CJI Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, dated 06.11.2023.

Ratio: The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that any condition to appointment of arbitrator of pre-deposit of any portion of total amounts claimed under arbitration is invalid. Further, unilateral appointment of arbitrator by any party to arbitration is also invalid.

12. MIST AVENUE PVT. LTD. VS NITIN BATRA & ORS.

Citation: Mist Avenue Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Batra & Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 127 of 2023 & I.A. No. 463 of 2023, NCLAT Delhi, decided by Hon’ble Justice Ashok Bhushan and, Barun Mitra, dated 17.11.2023.

Ratio: Appeal arises out of question whether application to initiate corporate insolvency is maintainable against three related, but separate corporate entities involved in joint real estate project. The Hon’ble NCLAT held that since resolution of project was contingent on all three entities, application was maintainable against all three entities.

13. STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR, UMASHANKAR SINGH AND ANR. VS NATIONAL PRINTERS AND ORS.

Citation: State Project Director, Umashankar Singh, and Anr. Vs. National Printers and Ors., LPA No. 505 of 2019, High Court of Jharkhand, decided by Hon’ble Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Anubha Rawat Choudhary, dated 11.09.2023.

Ratio: The Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand upheld the imposition of interest under Section 16 of MSMED Act, even in the absence of interest clause in the agreement.

14. NORTHERN INDIA PAINT COLOUR AND VARNISH CO. LLP VS SUSHIL CHAUDHARY

Citation: Northern India Paint Colour and Varnish Co. LLP Vs. Sushil Chaudhary, CRL.M.C. 2480/2023, CRL.M.A. 9435/2023 (stay), High Court of Delhi, decided by Hon’ble Justice Amit Bansal, dated 10.11.2023.

Ratio: The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that at the stage of summons in a cheque bounce case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a comprehensive inquiry into the conditions of the transactional agreements was not possible. The courts may only need to determine if basic ingredients of Section 138 are met, and any contention that no debt exists under Section 139 may be taken up at trial.

15. MR. BRAJESH MISHRA AND OTHERS VS M/S. DOLPHIN OFFSHORE SHIPPING LTD.

Citation: Mr. Brajesh Mishra And Others Vs. M/s. Dolphin Offshore Shipping Ltd., CP(IB) 206 MB 2021, NCLT Mumbai Bench V, decided by Hon’ble Anuradha Sanjay Bhatia and Kuldip Kumar Kareer, dated 02.11.2023.

Ratio: The Hon’ble NCLT – Mumbai held that a joint petition for initiating corporate insolvency by operational creditors filed by more than one individual is not maintainable if they individually do not fulfill the threshold limit of Rs. 1 crore.

16. M/S. INDIA GLYCOLS LIMITED AND ANOTHER VS MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES FACILITATION COUNCIL, MEDCHAL – MALKAJGIRI AND ORS.

Citation: M/s. India Glycols Limited And Another Vs. Micro And Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Medchal – Malkajgiri And Ors., Civil Appeal No 7491 of 2023, Supreme Court of India, decided by Hon’ble Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J B Pardiwal, and Manoj Misra, dated 06.11.2023.

Ratio: The present case arise out of appeal against order of High Court of Telegana in setting aside order of MSME Council. Section 19 of the MSMED Act mandated a pre-deposit of seventy-five per cent of the awarded amount for entertaining an application to set aside the award. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that parties could not sidestep the pre-deposit obligation by filing writ petition.

17. MR. SANIL PRAKASH SAHU VS KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED AND MR. SATYEN SARASWAT

Citation: Mr. Sanil Prakash Sahu Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and Mr. Satyen Saraswat, Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 1281 of 2023, NCLAT Delhi, decided by Hon’ble Justice Ashok Bhushan and Barun Mitra, dated 17.11.2023.

Ratio: Held, entries in balance sheet constitute a valid acknowledgement of debt for filing application under Section 7 for initiating corporate insolvency by financial creditor. Further, defense that debtor is going concern is not applicable as such application is maintainable upon non-payment of dues.

18. SHAKEEL AHMED VS SYED AKHLAQ HUSSAIN

Citation: Shakeel Ahmed Vs. Syed Akhlaq Hussain, CIVIL APPEAL NO.1598 OF 2023, Supreme Court of India, decided by Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, dated 01.11.2023.

Ratio: The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that no title could be transferred with respect to immovable properties on the basis of an unregistered Agreement to Sell or on the basis of an unregistered General Power of Attorney.

 19. BHARAT BHUSHAN VS SAMTEX DESINZ PRIVATE LIMITED AND MR VIMAL KUMAR

Citation: Bharat Bhushan Vs. Samtex Desinz Private Limited and Mr. Vimal Kumar, Company Petition No. (IB) – 908/(ND)/2020, NCLT Delhi – VI, decided by Hon’ble Justice Rahul Bhatnagar and P.S.N Prasad, dated 09.11.2023.

Ratio: Held, insolvency resolution professional is empowered to revise the amounts of claims admitted if additional information warranting such revision comes to light.

20. L AND T FINANCE LIMITED VS DIAMOND PROJECTS LIMITED AND ORS.

Citation: L And T Finance Limited Vs. Diamond Projects Limited and Ors., Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 1430 Of 2019, High Court of Bombay, decided by Hon’ble Justice Bharati Dangre, dated 27.07.2023.

Ratio: An inadequately stamped arbitration agreement does not preclude parties from seeking interim relief under Section 9 of the arbitration act.

21. SMT. M. HEMALATHA DEVI AND ORS. VS B. UDAYASRI

Citation: Smt. M. Hemalatha Devi and Ors. Vs. B. Udayasri, Civil Appeal Nos. 6500-6501 of 2023, Supreme Court of India, decided by Hon’ble Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, dated 05.10.2023.

Ratio: The Supreme Court of India held that since consumer disputes, as assigned by the legislature, are deemed non-arbitrable to protect consumer welfare, a party cannot be compelled into arbitration merely due to a contractual clause, especially when one party seeks redressal under welfare legislation like the Consumer Protection Act. The choice of forum, whether a consumer forum or arbitration, lies with the consumer. 

22. TAQA INDIA POWER VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED. AND ANOTHER VS NCC INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS LIMITED.

Citation: Taqa India Power Ventures Private Limited. And Another Vs. NCC Infrastructure Holdings Limited., O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 1/2018, High Court of Delhi, decided by Hon’ble Justice Prateek Jalan, dated 09.11.2023.

Ratio: Award holder has the right to institute enforcement proceedings in any jurisdiction where the assets of the award debtor exist, irrespective of their diminished value. This does not amount to forum shopping but rather is an inherent entitlement vested in the award holder.

23. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED. AND ANR. VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: Indian Oil Corporation Limited. And Anr. Vs. Union Of India And Ors., W.P.O. No. 1624 of 2023, High Court of Calcutta, decided by Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, dated 17.11.2023.

Ratio: An interim order under Section 9 of the arbitration act does not preclude the parties from approaching the MSME Council under the MSMED Act.

24. DR REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED. VS SMART LABORATORIES PVT. LTD.

Citation: Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited. Vs Smart Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., CS(COMM) 744/2023, High Court of Delhi, decided by Hon’ble Justice C. Hari Shankar, dated 16.11.2023.

Ratio: The present case arise out of trademark infringement by the Respondent. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi  relying on Pianotist test, held that There is no real distinction between their “look” and “sound” and thus the mark was deceptively similar.

25. SANGHI INDUSTRIES LTD VS C.C. KANDLA

Citation: Sanghi Industries Ltd Vs C.C. Kandla, Customs Appeal No. 10127 of 2016 – DB, Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench at Ahmedabad, decided by Hon’ble Ramesh Nair and Mr. Raju, dated 06.11.2023.

Ratio: Held, demurrage charges shall not form part of value of imported goods for computation of customs duty.

26. IFCI LIMITED. VS SUTANU SINHA AND ORS.

Citation: IFCI Limited. Vs Sutanu Sinha and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4929/2023, Supreme Court of India, decided by Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, dated 09.11.2023.

Ratio: The question before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether compulsory convertible debentures are in the nature of debt or equity. Held, the nature of an instrument being debt or equity, would depend on facts and circumstances of each case, and hybrid instruments, such as CCDs, are to be read in context of a particular matter.

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.