The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has said insolvency proceedings cannot be triggered on the basis of debt that has been converted into capital such as equity of a company. The appellate tribunal also said any investment cannot be ‘financial debt’ and

The Supreme Court (SC) has held that enforcing the Malaysian arbitral award in favour of Vedanta on the Ravva oil and gas fields, located in the shallow offshore area of the Krishna-Godavari basin on the eastern coast of India, will not go against public policy in India. In doing this the Court has upheld the Delhi High Court’s order

In the present case, Deccan contended before the Apex Court in appeal, that since the prayer in the suit is for cancellation of three “written instruments”, the proceeding under section being a proceeding in rem, would fall within one of the exceptions made out in Booz Allen & Hamilton

The Calcutta High Court (HC) has ruled that Indian courts have the power to grant Anti-Arbitration injunctions against foreign seated Arbitrations (Balasore Alloys Limited v. Medima LLC). The Judgement passed by the Court states, “… courts in India do

The Supreme court (SC) has observed that the High Court (HC) cannot appoint an Arbitrator ignoring the procedure prescribed in the Agreement between parties for such appointment

Delhi High Court (HC) has stayed the penalty imposed on an Insolvency Professional (IP) who allegedly violated the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code by going against the terms of the moratorium

The Calcutta High Court (HC) on Thursday held that prisoners in the state of West Bengal are not to be governed by the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) set aside an order of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) which mandated the impleadment of the Union Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) as a party in all Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) matters and Company Petitions. NCLAT was of the view that the order was

The Delhi High Court (HC) has held that the doctrine of frustration under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act is not applicable to Lease Agreements.
This ruling is based on SC precedents which held that Section 56 is applicable only to “executory contracts” and not to “executed contracts