1. M. A Mohammed Sanaulla v State of Karnataka

Citation- M. A Mohammed Sanaulla v State of Karnataka, 2023:KHC:29141-DB, High Court of Karnataka, decided by Hon’ble Justice G Narendar and Hon’ble Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil, on 17.08.2023

Facts – The High Court remanded a case for land grabbing of forest lands filed by the forest department back to the special court for fresh consideration on maintainability on grounds that the property had been acquired due to sale deed by the Petitioners.

Ratio – Held, in order to make out a case for land grabbing, there needs to be conscious act to inject himself into possession that they are not due. In the current case, possession arose from sale deed which had achieved some legal sanctity.

2. Abhishek v State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation- Abhishek v State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083, Supreme Court of India, Decided by Hon’ble Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice S.V. Bhatti, on 31.08.2023

Ratio- Present matter arises out of appeal against dismissal of Section 482 applications filed by the Appellants in High Court against alleged acts of domestic violence under Section 498A, IPC. Held, even though chargesheet had been filed, the High Court can still quash a complaint if chargesheet filed during pendency of Petition. In the present case it was noted that the allegations were vague, unsubstantiated and omnibus in nature and further specific details were not forthcoming. Hence, appeal was allowed and complaint was quashed.

3. Shakeel Pasha and Ors v. M/s City Max Hotels

Citation- Shakeel Pasha and Ors v. M/s City Max Hotels, WP No. 8352/2022 & 12935/2022, High Court of Karnataka, decided by Hon’ble Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, on 28.07.2023.

Ratio- The Karnataka High Court held that penalties under the Karnataka Stamp Act cannot be imposed on “insufficiently stamped” arbitral awards at the stage of enforcement or execution of such awards.

4. Amit Guglani & Anr v L and T Housing Finance Ltd

Citation- Amit Guglani & Anr v L and T Housing Finance Ltd, 2023: DHC:5979, High Court of Delhi, decided by Hon’ble Justice Jyothi Singh, on 22.08.2023

    Ratio- The present case arises from a dispute regarding revised interest rates in a tripartite agreement for land development. The Court held that in the case of multiple agreements arising from an interlinked cause of action, the two documents should be read together and reconciled. In the present case, since Loan Agreement is an intrinsic part of the Main Tripartite Agreement, the arbitration clause in the Tripartite Agreement may be invoked. However, in the present case, it was the petition  that was dismissed as it was held an notice email sent by Petitioner invoking arbitration was defective as it does not explicitly invoke arbitration and merely envisages a third party to intervene.

5. Rakesh Kumar Gupta v Straight Edge Contracts Pvt. Ltd

Through its Resolution Professional & Ors.

Citation: Rakesh Kumar Gupta v Straight Edge Contracts Pvt. Ltd

Through its Resolution Professional & Ors, Comp App (AT)(Ins) No 444/2022, NCLAT- New Delhi, Decided by Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain Member (Judicial) & Dr. Alok Srivastava Member (Technical), on 28.08.2023.

Ratio- In the present case, the Corporate Debtors and Creditors colluded to initiate corporate insolvency proceedings. Other creditors came forward and filed IA to set aside the orders of the NCLT in allowing said proceedings. Held, the NCLT has the power to review and recall its orders in the event of fraud by parties in accordance with Section 65 of the IBC.

6. Dr Reddys Laboratories Ltd v Fast Cure Pharma

Citation: Dr. Reddys Laboratories Ltd v Fast Cure Pharma, 2023:DHC:6324, High Court of Delhi, Decided by Hon’ble Justice C. Hari Sankar, on 04.09.2023

Ratio: The issue was whether a petitioner who is a ‘person aggrieved in the territory of Delhi can approach the Delhi High Court to cancel a registration granted by a Registry office located outside Delhi. 

The court relied on its full bench decision in Girdhari Lal Gupta v. K. Gian Chand & Co. (which had decided on a similar issue relating to the cancellation of design registrations) to transpose the ‘dynamic effect’ principle to the cancellation of trademark registrations. The court also noted that due to the advent of the Internet, persons anywhere in the country can access goods and services originating from any website, and thus, the dynamic effect of the registration is felt within every such jurisdiction. The court also accepted our arguments that if the mark sought to be cancelled was obstructing a trademark application filed in Delhi, the dynamic effect of such a registration would be deemed to be felt within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.

7. Kavitha Jain v Commissioner of BBMP

Citation- Kavitha Jain v Commissioner of BBMP, 2023: KHC:29124, High Court of Karnataka, decided by Hon’ble Justice Suraj Govindraj, on 17.08.2023.

Link- Not provided, Pdf sent on the group has been updated on the team’s folder.
Ratio- In the present case, a demolition order passed by BBMP in accordance with Section 248 of the BBMP Act passed by Asst. Director of City Planning (South) was challenged. The High Court noted that in accordance with Section 74 of the BBMP Act, the Zonal Commissioner is only allowed to delegate their powers in accordance with rules framed by State Govt. No such rules have been notified yet. Hence, delegation to Assistant Director of City Planning of powers under Section 248 was bad in law and the writ was allowed.

8. Taashee Linus Services v Rajeev Satpal Lakhanpal & Ors

Citation- Taashee Linus Services v Rajeev Satpal Lakhanpal & Ors, CP No. 49/241/2021, NCLT- Hyderabad Bench, decided by- Dr. Venkata Ramakrishna Badarinath Nandula, Hon’ble Member (Judicial) AND

Shri Charan Singh, Hon’ble Member (Technical), on 22.08.2023

Ratio- In the present case, the Petitioners in an oppression and mismanagement petition sought leave for withdrawing the petition and filing fresh petition after curing defects. It was noted that in accordance with Rule 82 of the NCLT Rules, leave is only required for withdrawing a petition. Permission/Liberty to file fresh Petition is not contemplated in the NCLT Rules and thus such liberty need not be sought in the same manner as filing fresh suit under CPC. The application to withdraw was allowed.

9. K. Hymavathi v The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr

Citation- K. Hymavathi v The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr, 2023: INSC:811, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, decided by Hon’ble Justice A.S. Bopanna & Hon’ble Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, on 06.09.2023.

Ratio- In the present case, The Supreme Court held that the complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act were not time-barred allowing an appeal challenging a judgment passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court which quashed criminal proceedings. the promissory note indicated a repayment date of December 2016, and the cheque was issued in April 2017, which was within the limitation period and that there was no need to exercise the power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the complaint.

10. Venkat Rao Marpina v Vemuri Ravi Kumar

Citation: Venkat Rao Marpina v Vemuri Ravi Kumar, Comp App (AT) (INS) No. 134/2022, NCLAT Chennai, Justice M. Venugopal Member (Judicial), Shreesha Merla- Member (Technical)

Ratio:  Held, advances paid by Property buyers to real estate developer will be considered as ‘borrowing’. Therefore, such buyers are entitled to file insolvency petition as a financial creditor.

11. Rohit Chaudhary & Anr. Vs Vipul Ltd

Citation: Rohit Chaudhary & Anr. Vs Vipul Ltd, 2023: INSC:807, Supreme Court of India, decided by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat & Justice Aravind Kumar, on 06.09.2023.

Ratio: In the present case, the Appellant bought commercial space from the respondent which was not delivered to him. The Appellant preferred a consumer complaint before the consumer court which was denied on grounds that booking of commercial property for reselling cannot be said to be for the purpose of earning livelihood and thus the Appellants are not consumers. However, the appeal was allowed, and refund directed to be paid by the respondents as the appellant never stated in their complaint that said property that the property was for resale.

12. IFCI Ltd. Vs. BS Ltd., In liquidation

Citation: IFCI Ltd. Vs. BS Ltd., In liquidation, NCLT Hyderabad Bench, decided by Hon’ble Justice Smt. Telaprolu Rajani- Member (Judicial) and Hon’ble Sri Charan Singh- Member (Technical), on 28.08.2023

Ratio: The present appeal lies against the rejection of claim by a liquidator by a creditor under Section 42 of the IBC. The appeal was filed with a delay of more than 180 days. Held, an appeal against the rejection or acceptance of a claim must be filed under Section 42 by a creditor within 14 days of the rejection or acceptance. The NCLT was no statutory powers to condone any delays in filing such appeal.

13. Microvision Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India – Bombay High Court

Citation: Microvision Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 2023: BHC-OS:8899, Bombay High Court, decided by Hon’ble Justice R.I Chagla on 24.08.2023.

Ratio: The MSMED Act does not have overriding effect on the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. If the Facilitation Council fails to take up the dispute or fails to refer the dispute to an institution or centre for arbitration, the Court may, in an appropriate application, require the Facilitation Council to perform its functions. However, Section 18(3) of the MSME Act cannot be treated as an arbitration agreement for the Chief Justice or his designate to act upon under Section 11(6) of the Act. 

14. M/s. Stove Kraft Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Pradeep Stainless Steel India Pvt.

Citation: M/s. Stove Kraft Pvt Ltd. v. M/s. Pradeep Stainless Steel India Pvt, RFA No. 844/2010, Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, decided by Hon’ble justice P.S Dinesh Kumar and Hon’ble Justice T.G. Shivashankar Gowda, on 23.08.2023.

Ratio: Summary suit is maintainable if it is based on a written contract, and invoices can constitute written contracts further it was held that there is no requirement that the written contract should be signed by both the parties. In the present case, the suit arose from a high seas sale agreement and thus was valid as it arose from a written contract.

15. Manjula D Rita v Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 12 (PCIT), Bombay

Citation: Manjula D Rita v Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 12 (PCIT), Bombay, 2023: BHC-OS: 5421-DB, High Court of Bombay, decided by Hon’ble Justice K.R Shriram and Hon’ble Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, on. 19.06.2023.

Ratio: Held, in light of the lack of notice issuance and the absence of evidence, the order under section 179 of the IT Act for recovery of tax from director of private company is not maintainable and the subsequent rejection of the revision application were unjust. It further emphasized that the responsibility of a director should only arise when “non-recovery” is attributable to gross neglect, misfeasance, or breach of duty on their part.

16. Faizal Hasamali Mirza @ Kasib v State of Maharashtra

Citation: Faizal Hasamali Mirza @ Kasib v State of Maharashtra, 2023: BHC-AS:27039-DB, High Court of Bombay, decided Hon’ble Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Gauri Godse, on 14.09.2023

Ratio: An appeal was filed for crimes committed under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, including terrorism, under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act. The appeal was filed with delay of 838 days. Held, condonation of delay can be allowed if sufficient cause shown. Considering the serious nature of the punishment under the Act, the right to appeal is protected under the constitution. Further, the NIA had also filed appeals with delay over the 90 day period mandated by the Act.

17. Zeel Entertainment Enterprises Ltd v Triller Inc & Ors

Citation: Zeel Entertainment Enterprises Ltd v Triller Inc & ors, 2023:BHC-OS:9590, High Court of Bombay, decided by Justice Kamal Khata, on 07.09.2023

Ratio: Held, a party which did not take constructive part in pre-institution mediation under the Commercial Courts Act cannot subsequently claim that the provisions of Section 12A, Commercial Courts Act was violated in filing a commercial suit. In the present case, the defendant clearly was merely attempting to delay proceedings and plaintiff had reached out for settlement 2-3 times.

18. Ratheesh v V.S Mary

Citation: Ratheesh v V.S Mary, 2023:KER:55491, High Court of Kerala, decided by Hon’ble justice A. Badharudeen, on 05.09.2023

Ratio: The present case arise out a tenancy dispute wherein it was found that the tenancy agreement was unregistered and thus could not be admitted as evidence. However, since the tenant had not objected in the trial court stage and the agreement had been marked and the tenant had admitted his status as a tenant, he cannot deny his status as tenant. Thus, the present suit being a suit for eviction by efflux of time need not be bound by the requirement for notice under Section 106 of the transfer of property act and eviction was upheld.

19. Batliboi Environmental Engineers Limited v Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Anr

Ratio: Batliboi Environmental Engineers Limited v Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Anr, 2023INSC850, Supreme Court of India, decided by Hon’ble Justice Sanjiv Khanna, on 21.09.2023

Citation: In the present case, the Supreme Court noted that an arbitration award had significant defects with regards to computing the amounts to be awarded. There were also no reasoning for such computations. Held, there was manifest lack of reasoning in the award leading to double payments of amounts and contradictory reasoning. The award was thus rightly held to be unsustainable and was set aside.

20. Vivek Khanna v Oyo Apartments Investments LLP

Ratio: Vivek Khanna v Oyo Apartments Investments LLP, 2023:DHC:6763, High Court of New Delhi, decided by Hon’ble Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, on 18.09.2023

Citation: The present case arises from a challenge of award of arbitrator to award liquidated damages for illegal termination of agreement. Held, liquidated damages are not merely penalty but are pre-estimate of losses suffered in event of breach of contract. Therefore, parties must prove losses suffered in order to claim the same.

21. M/s Hi- Tech Resource Management Limited v M/s Overnite Express Limited

Citation: M/s Hi- Tech Resource Management Limited v M/s Overnite Express Limited, Company Petition No. (IB)-2240/2019, NCLT- New Delhi, decided by Hon’ble Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj- Judicial Member,  Hon’ble L.N Gupta- Member Technical.

Ratio: Held, the corporate debtor / Company in liquidation cannot acquire a MSME Certificate post-commencement of CIRP with the sole purpose of allowing back door entry of promoters who are in default and are other wise barred from submitting a resolution plan.

22. Bhaskar Raju vs Dharmaratnakara

Citation: Bhaskar Raju vs Dharmaratnakara, C.A. No. 1599/2020, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, decided by Hon’ble The Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, on 26.09.2023

Ratio: In light of the contradictions in law and ramifications raised by the decisions in N. N. Global Mercantile Private Limite vs Indo Unique Flame Limited and Ors regarding mandatory stamping of arbitration agreement, the Supreme Court has referred the same to a 7-Judge Bench for reconsideration of the decision.  

23. Parekh Plastichem Distributors LLP vs. Simplex Infrastructure Limited

Citation: Parekh Plastichem Distributors LLP vs. Simplex Infrastructure Limited, 2023:BHC-OS-9920, Bombay High Court, decided by Hon’ble Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, on 14.07.2023

Ratio: Held, in the event that there is separate venue for arbitration in purchase order and the invoice, the venue in the purchase order shall prevail. This is due to the fact that there is consensus in accepting the terms of the purchase order and all the terms of the transaction are contained therein.

24. Narender Steel and Alloys Vs. Jai Mata Engineering Ltd.

Citation: Narender Steel and Alloys Vs. Jai Mata Engineering Ltd, CP IB-695/ND/2022, NCLT New Delhi, decided by Shri Bachu Venkat Balaram Das, Hon’ble Member (Judicial), Shri Rahul Bhatnagar, Hon’ble Member (Technical), on 26.09.2023
Ratio: Held, dispute with regards to forgery cannot be adjudicated by the NCLT It is settled law that proceedings before NCLT are summary in nature and adversarial evidence cannot be led and appraised by this Tribunal. The Adjudicating Authority is not expected to ascertain the veracity of documents in a summary proceeding.

25. Pan Pacific Engineering Service Pvt Ltd VS Ayyappa Hydro Power Limited

Citation: Pan Pacific Engineering Service Pvt Ltd VS Ayyappa Hydro Power Limited, Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1239/2023, NCLAT New Delhi, decided by Hon’ble Justice Ashok Bhushan, Hon’ble Technical Members- Barun Mitra and Arun Baroka, on 27.09.2023.

Ratio: In the present case, the petition under Section 9 by an operational creditor was denied by the NCLT and confirmed on appeal by NCLAT on grounds that the Petition was barred due to limitation. In the present case, the operational debt arose on 15.06.2015. The operational creditor filed an application before MSME Council in 2019 and got favourable order on 10.11.2020. The NCLAT held that the debt arose in 2015 as opposed to 2020. Further, if date of default was taken as 2020 it would be barred under Section 10A, IBC as it would be filed within the exemption period for COVID-19 Pandemic.

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.