1. Ashish Chaturvedi & Anr. vs Inox Leisure Limited & Anr
Citation: Mr. Ashish Chaturvedi & Anr. vs Inox Leisure Limited & Anr: Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) – 1103/2020, NCLAT New Delhi, decided by Hon’ble Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial) and Hon’ble Dr. Alok Srivastava (Technical)
Ratio: NCLAT held that since the IA was filed under the provisions of IBC, the Adjudicating Authority ought not to have imposed penalty under Companies Act. It also noted that penalty could be imposed under the provisions of Chapter VII of IBC
2. Thaniyulla Parambath Jahafar Versus Relax Zone Tourism Private Limited and others:
Citation: Thaniyulla Parambath Jahafar Versus Relax Zone Tourism Private Limited and others: CP/24/KOB/2021, NCLT Kochi, decided by Hon’ble Justice Ashok Kumar Borah (Judicial) and Shyam Babu Gautam, Member (Technical)
Ratio: The Hon’ble NCLT, Kochi Bench stated that one of the crucial rights which Companies Act, 2013 gives to the shareholders is the right to remove the directors of the company (Section 169), if they are not acting in consonance with the articles of association of the company, but only utilizing their powers for their own benefits. Therefore, the removal from the directorship is not an illegal act done against the director.
NCLT relied on the dictum laid down in TATA Consultancy Services Limited that even in cases where the Tribunal finds that the removal of a director was not in accordance with law or was not justified on facts, the Tribunal cannot grant a relief under Section 242 unless the removal was oppressive or prejudicial.
3. Sivagnanagovindasamy Nambi – Shareholder of Manashanthi Mental Health Care Private Limited VS The Registrar Registrar of Companies
Citation: Sivagnanagovindasamy Nambi – Shareholder of Manashanthi Mental Health Care Private Limited VS The Registrar Registrar of Companies: MA (Companies Act) – 6/2021, NCLT Chennai, decided by Hon’ble Justice R. Sucharitha (Judicial) and Hon’ble Sameer Kakar (Technical)
Ratio: NCLT Chennai held that the possession of immovable property by the Company cannot be a ground to state that the Company has been active and carrying on business nor can be a valid ground to invoke the ‘just’ ground as envisaged under Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, unless the object of the Company pertains to the same.
4. Hasan Shafiq vs CT Technologies Aps & Anr
Citation: Hasan Shafiq vs CT Technologies Aps & Anr: Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) – 802/2020, NCLAT New Delhi, decided by Hon’ble Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial) and Hon’ble Dr. Alok Srivastava (Technical)
Ratio: NCLAT held that despite there being a clause of arbitration in the Agreement, Application under Section 9 was fully maintainable and could be proceeded with by the Adjudicating Authority. Though the proceedings under Code having been given overriding effect, the right to initiate Application under Section 9 shall not be taken away by the Operational Creditor by any Agreement of arbitration in the contract, when Operational Creditor elect to initiate proceedings under Section 9.
5. Standard Surfa Chem India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mr. Kishore Gopal Somani:
Citation: Standard Surfa Chem India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mr. Kishore Gopal Somani: Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 684 of 2021, NCLAT New Delhi, decided by Hon’ble Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial), Hon’ble Mr V. P. Singh (Technical) and Hon’ble Dr Ashok Kumar Mishra (Technical)
Ratio: NCLAT Delhi held that the Liquidation Process Regulation 47 deals with the Model Timeline for Liquidation Process, which is only directory in nature and cannot be considered a deadline. It is provided under Regulation as a guiding factor to complete the liquidation process in a time bound manner and only in exceptional circumstances, such a time limit can be extended.
6. Wizaman Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kedrion Biopharma Inc.
Citation: Wizaman Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kedrion Biopharma Inc. (07.02.2022 – SC): MANU/SC/0207/2022, decided by Hon’ble Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath.
Ratio: The Supreme Court, while admitting the appeal held that documents which were not produced by creditor before NCLT, and produced for the first time in appeal, cannot be taken on record by the Appellate Authority for the first time in its order allowing the appeal without having given the respondent an adequate opportunity of response to the Corporate Debtor.
Where the additional documents not produced by creditor before NCLT were admitted by the NCLAT only in its impugned order allowing the appeal, the order of NCLAT allowing the appeal was to be set aside and matter remanded to NCLT by setting aside its order also with directions to consider the additional evidence of admitted by NCLAT while extending adequate opportunity to corporate debtor.
7. Palogix Infrastructure (P) Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Citation: Palogix Infrastructure (P) Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(2) (27.10.2021 – ITAT Kolkata): MANU/IK/0181/2021, decided by Hon’ble Justice A.T. Varkey (Judicial) and P.M. Jagtap, Vice President.
Ratio: ITAT held that the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal under section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 has an overriding effect over anything inconsistent contained in the Income Tax Act and it shall be binding on all the respective entities including other stakeholders, which include Central Government, State Government and other Local Bodies.
Therefore, the government bodies who are found sleeping instead of submitting their proof of claim cannot claim their debts from the successful resolution applicant.
8. Periasamy Palani Gounder vs Mr. Radhakrishnan Dharmarajan
Citation: Dr. Periasamy Palani Gounder vs Mr. Radhakrishnan Dharmarajan: Company Appeals (AT) (CH)(Insolvency) No.164, 176, 218 & 219 of 2021, NCLAT Chennai
Ratio: The Hon’ble NCLAT, Chennai Bench held that IBC treats related parties as a separate category for specific purposes like excluding related parties from the COC under Section 21 and disqualifying them from being Resolution Applicants under Section 29A.
However, the IBC does not treat Related Party as a separate class for any other purpose. Therefore, a rational nexus must exist for any classification between the object sought to achieve the classification and subclassification.
Further the Related Party (either financial or operational creditor) cannot be discriminated against under the Resolution Plan, denying their right to get payments under the Resolution Plan only on being a Related Party and it is also made clear that by getting only payment under the Resolution Plan, related party creditors could in no way sabotage the CIRP.
9. Shri Trinkeshwar Developers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.
Citation: Shri Trinkeshwar Developers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.: W.P.(C) 2469/2022 & CM APPL. 7099/2022, Delhi High Court; decided by Hon’ble Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva.
Ratio: Delhi High Court held that when the remedy of the petitioner to challenge the sale of property is either before the DRT or DRAT, which was initiated, and admittedly there is no interim protection granted to the petitioner, he cannot seek to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India to indirectly seek the same relief he failed to get from DRT and DRAT.
10. Go Airlines (India) Limited vs Sovika Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: Go Airlines (India) Limited vs Sovika Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd.: Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) – 1076/2021, NCLAT New Delhi, decided by Hon’ble Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial) and Hon’ble Dr. Alok Srivastava (Technical)
Ratio: NCLAT dismissed an appeal by an Operational Creditor whose claim was submitted and during verification of claims, an application under Section 12A stood allowed by the Adjudicating Authority. The bench held that if the claim has not been entertained in the insolvency resolution proceeding, it is always open for the Appellant to take recourse to appropriate legal proceedings before appropriate forum as permissible in law.
11. Satya Sadasiva Basava Prasad Maley VS Pattela Projects Private Limited:
Citation: Satya Sadasiva Basava Prasad Maley VS Pattela Projects Private Limited: CP(IB) No.6/7/AMR/2021, NCLT Amravati, decided by Hon’ble Justice Telaprolu Rajani (Judicial)
Ratio: NCLT Amravati Bench held that whatsapp conversations relied upon to prove the acknowledgement of debt, could not be admitted as evidence without Section 65(B) certificate under Indian Evidence Act. It further pointed out that Section 20 of the Companies Act also does not make provision to permit electronic evidence without a certificate under Section 65(B).
12. NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd vs Subir Chakravarthy & Ors:
Citation: NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd vs Subir Chakravarthy & Ors: S.L.P. (CIVIL) NO.30240 OF 2019, Supreme Court, decided by Hon’ble Justice A.M. Khanwilkar
Ratio: The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it would be open to the CMM/DM to appoint an advocate commissioner to assist him/her in execution of the order passed under Section 14(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
There is no compulsion to approach Tehsildar & Court Registrar for assistance in possession now as the Advocate commissioner can be appointed by the CMM/DM to take possession.
13. Taj Mahal Hotel vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.
Citation: Taj Mahal Hotel vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. (14.11.2019 – SC): MANU/SC/1566/2019, decided by Hon’ble Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Hon’ble Justice Ajay Rastogi.
Ratio: The Supreme Court held that even where there was a general or specific exemption clause, there remains a prima facie burden of proof on the hotel to explain that any loss or damage caused to the vehicles parked was not on account of its negligence or want of care per Sections 151 and 152 of the Contract Act. Only after this burden of proof is discharged, can the exemption clause come into force. The burden of proving that such loss or damage was covered by the exemption clause would also be on the hotel.
Therefore, the hotel could not deny the claim for theft of vehicle handed over to valet parking and the Supreme Court held that hotels cannot deny compensation under the garb of “owner’s risk”.
14. State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Mehar Din
Citation: State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Mehar Din (02.03.2022 – SC): MANU/SC/0265/2022, decided by Hon’ble Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon’ble Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka.
Ratio: The Supreme Court held that that the highest bidder has no vested right to have the auction concluded in his favour. The acceptance of the highest bid or highest bidder is always subject to conditions of holding public auction and the right of the highest bidder is always provisional to be examined in the context in different conditions in which the auction has been held.
15. Welspun Specialty Solutions Limited and Ors. vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.
Citation: Welspun Specialty Solutions Limited and Ors. vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and Ors. (13.11.2021 – SC): MANU/SC/1059/2021, decided by Hon’ble Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana and Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant.
Ratio: Supreme Court held that ‘Whether time is of the essence in a contract’, has to be culled out from the reading of the entire contract as well as the surrounding circumstances. It was further held that since time was not the essence of the contract, the measure of damages specified under Clause/Liquidated damages, which was the essence of the contract, cannot be regarded as appropriate for determining the loss sustained.
16. VST Weaves India Pvt Ltd VS Siva Ram Yarns Pvt Ltd:
Citation: VST Weaves India Pvt Ltd VS Siva Ram Yarns Pvt Ltd: CP (IB) No. 173/9 HDB/ 2018, NCLT Amravati, decided by Hon’ble Justice Telaprolu Rajani (Judicial.
Ratio: The Hon’ble NCLT, Amaravati Bench directed the Resolution Professional to place the Resolution Plan of the Applicant before the COC and that COC will decide on the eligibility/ineligibility under Section 29A.
The RP has no right to reject the Resolution Plan under Section 29A.
17. Rajnish Gupta vs. Union Bank of India & Anr:
Citation: Rajnish Gupta vs. Union Bank of India & Anr: Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 351 of 2021, NCLAT New Delhi, decided by Hon’ble Justice M. Venugopal (Judicial) and Hon’ble Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical)
Ratio: NCLAT observed that “It is a well settled preposition in Law that the creditor is not bound to exhaust his/its remedy against the ‘Principal Borrower’ before invoking the ‘Guarantor’ or suing the ‘Guarantor’ for payment of outstanding sum(s), (unless otherwise agreed to in the Guarantee Deed).”
NCLAT further stated that a suit can be maintained against the guarantor for payment of outstanding sums in connection with the loan extended to the borrower even if the borrower itself has not been sued by the lender.
18. Whether the Adjudicating Authority Vikram Puri vs Universal Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.:
Citation: Whether the Adjudicating Authority Vikram Puri vs Universal Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) – 1018/2021, NCLAT New Delhi, decided by Hon’ble Justice Ashok Bhushan (Judicial) Hon’ble Dr. Ashok Mishra (Technical), Dr. Alok Srivastava (Technical)
Ratio: NCLAT held that the provision of Rule 77 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 read with Order XVI Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code fully empowers the NCLT to issue a Non-Bailable Warrant for enforcing attendance of a person.
19. Shapoorji Pallonji Finance Private Limited v. Rekha Singh:
Citation: Shapoorji Pallonji Finance Private Limited v. Rekha Singh: CP No. (lB) 25/95/JPR/2021, NCLT Jaipur, decided by Hon’ble Justice Deep Chandra Joshi (Judicial) and Hon’ble Raghir Nayyhr (Technical)
Ratio: NCLT held that insolvency resolution process(es) can be initiated against the Personal Guarantor(s) of a NBFC / FSP irrespective of CIRP against the NBFC, provided that the concerned NBFC falls within the category of those FSPs (Financial Service Provider) having assets size of Rs. 500 cores or more, thus being included in the definition of Corporate Debtor under IBC and being construed as Financial Service Provider wherever the term Corporate Debtor occurs in the Code.
20. Alchemist Asset Reconstructions Company vs Mr. Deepak Puri
Citation: Alchemist Asset Reconstructions Company vs Mr. Deepak Puri; C.P. (IB) – 438/2021; NCLT Principal Bench; decided by decided by Hon’ble Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar (Judicial) Hon’ble SH Kumar Sarangi (Technical)
Ratio: NCLT held that on the demise of the Personal Guarantor, the question of continuing the proceedings against such a dead person will not arise and since the proceedings abate, an application under Section 95 also has to be closed.
21. State of Orissa & Ors vs. M/s Utkal Distilleries Ltd.
Citation: State of Orissa & Ors vs. M/s Utkal Distilleries Ltd.; Civil Appeal No. s 5666 – 5668 of 2009; Supreme Court of India; decided by Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai
Ratio: The Supreme Court held that the State has power to levy excise duty only in respect of the alcoholic liquor for human consumption. The term ‘Excisable article’ has been defined to be any alcoholic liquor for human consumption or any intoxicating drug.
22. Aanchal Mittal and Ors v Ankur Shukla
Citation: Aanchal Mittal and Ors v Ankur Shukla; CM(M) 687/2021; Delhi High Court; decided by Hon’ble Justice Amit Bansal.
Ratio: The Delhi High Court has held that parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a court by an agreement if the court otherwise does not have such a jurisdiction.
23. Darshan Kaur Bhatia vs Ramesh Kumar & Anr
Citation: Darshan Kaur Bhatia vs Ramesh Kumar & Anr; Civil Appeal No 1701-1702/ 2022; Supreme Court; decided by Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon’ble Justice M.M. Sundresh
Ratio: The Supreme Court held that an owner loses his right of eviction, if a person has possessed the property by way of adverse possession for more than 12 years
Similarly, the adverse possession holder can file a suit for declaration of title on the basis of possession getting matured into ownership.
24. Sudhir Kumar Hasija vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Citation: Sudhir Kumar Hasija vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax; Crl. O.P. No. 27922/ 2017. Decided by Hon’ble Justice Sathish Kumar.
Ratio: Madras High Court held that where there were two PAN numbers allotted to assessee and it had filed its return of income in respect of one of PAN numbers without any default and it had already surrendered second PAN number. Therefore, such an assessee could not be prosecuted on ground that assessee had not filed return concerning its second PAN number.
25. Vidya Sagar vs Union of India
Citation: D. Vidya Sagar vs Union of India; WP (PIL) No.89/2019, Telangana High Court; decided by Hon’ble Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Hon’ble Justice N. Tukaramji.
Ratio: The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently ruled that the road tax paid under the Motor Vehicles Act while purchasing the cars, and collection of toll tax at National Highway Toll Booths does not amount to double taxation.
26. Surjeet Singh Sahni vs State of UP & Ors
Citation: Surjeet Singh Sahni vs State of UP & Ors; SLP (C) 3008/2022, Supreme Court of India; decided by Hon’ble Justice Mr. Shah.
Ratio: The Supreme Court held that mere representation does not extend the period of limitation and the aggrieved person has to approach the Court expeditiously and within reasonable time.
No writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall be maintainable and/or entertainable for specific performance of the contract and that too after a period of 10 years by which time even the suit for specific performance would have been barred by limitation.
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.
