Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 – Regulation 2B – Companies Act, 2013 – Section 230 – Compromise or arrangement – A person who is not eligible under the IBC to submit a resolution plan for insolvency resolution of the corporate debtor shall not be a party in any manner to such compromise or arrangement.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARUN KUMAR JAGATRAMKA — Appellant Vs. JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R.…
A & C Act – Obviously, once time has started running, any final rejection by the Appellant by its letter dated 10.11.2010 would not give any fresh start to a limitation period which has already begun running, following the mandate of Section 9 of the Limitation Act – This being the case, the High Court was clearly in error in stating that since the applications under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act were filed on 06.11.2013, they were within the limitation period of three years starting from 10.11.2020.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SECUNDERABAD CANTONMENT BOARD — Appellant Vs. M/S B. RAMACHANDRAIAH AND SONS — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Civil…
BAIL – Even otherwise in a case like this, where the allegations are of tampering with the court order and for whatever reason the State has not filed the bail application the locus is not that much important and it is insignificant. accused to surrender forthwith as a consequence of cancellation of the bail granted by the High Court, if not surrendered.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAVEEN SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M. R.…
If on the basis of the examination-in-chief of the witness the Court is satisfied that there is a prima facie case against the proposed accused, the Court may in exercise of powers under Section 319 CrPC array such a person as accused and summon him to face the trial.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SARTAJ SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M. R. Shah,…
Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC does not bar prosecution by the investigating agency for offence punishable under Section 193 IPC, which is committed during the stage of investigation – This is provided that the investigating agency has lodged complaint or registered the case under Section 193, IPC prior to commencement of proceedings and production of such evidence before the trial court
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHIMA RAZU PRASAD — Appellant Vs. STATE, REP. BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI/SPE/ACU-II — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Vineet…
State Election Commissioners appointed under Article 243K in the length and breadth of India have to be independent persons who cannot be persons who are occupying a post or office under the Central or any State Government –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH STATE OF GOA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. FOUZIYA IMTIAZ SHAIKH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman, B.R. Gavai and…
A & C Act, 1996 – S 11 – Period of limitation for filing an application under Section 11 would be governed by Article 137 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963 – Period of limitation will begin to run from the date when there is failure to appoint the arbitrator.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S NORTEL NETWORKS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Indu Malhotra and Ajay…
Cheating – Criminal breach of trust – Simply because there is a remedy provided for breach of contract or arbitral proceedings initiated at the instance of the appellants, that does not by itself clothe the court to come to a conclusion that civil remedy is the only remedy, and the initiation of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will be an abuse of the process of the court
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRITI SARAF AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi,…
Nature of modification which has been made by the High Court order in the form of an ad-hoc interim arrangement is exceeding its jurisdiction, and not within the realm of power of judicial review to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is well settled that by an interim order, even the final relief ordinarily should not be granted.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUNE METROPOLITAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (PMRDA) — Appellant Vs. PRAKASH HARKACHAND PARAKH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi,…
Commercial wisdom of Committee of Creditors “CoC” is not to be interfered with, excepting the limited scope as provided under Sections 30 and 31 of the I&B Code – Paramount importance given to the decision of CoC. HELD NCLAT was not correct
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH KALPRAJ DHARAMSHI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. KOTAK INVESTMENT ADVISORS LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, B.R. Gavai and Krishna…