Orders and Judgments Duration July 08-22, 2019

The achievement of justice is an endless process.

JOHN F. KENEDY. 35TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

  • Hemlata Verma v. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co Ltd & Anr
    Liberal view is to be adopted in matters of condonation of delay, Supreme Court (SC) tells NCDRC-1 July 2019 (SUPREME COURT ORDER)
    The Supreme Court (SC) has reiterated that, in matter of condonation of delay, the Consumer Commission should take liberal view. The bench set aside an order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which had refused to condone a delay of 207 days in filing the revision Petition before it. Referring to an old Supreme Court judgment in Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., the Consumer Commission had held that the Petitioner had not properly explained the delay and thus no case is made out to condone the delay.
    The Order can be accessed at:
    https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/11379/11379_2019_6_20_14640_Order_01-Jul-2019.pdf
  •  The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Lafarge Dealers Association and Others
    Inter-State Sales Between Successor States After Reorganization Cannot Be Treated as Intra-State Sales-9 July 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Supreme Court (SC) observed that creation of a new political State must be given full legal effect and the inter-state sales between the two successor states cannot be treated as intra-state sales.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
    https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2014/11883/11883_2014_5_1501_14974_Judgement_09-Jul-2019.pdf
  • Libra Automotives Private Limited v. BMW India Private Limited & Anr
    Courts cannot recast the terms of arbitration agreement-9 July 2019 (DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Delhi High Court (HC) has reiterated that ‘Court while exercising its power under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot recast the terms of the Contract and direct the parties to go for a composite Arbitration contrary to the procedure prescribed under the arbitration clause provided in distinct Arbitration Agreements’.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
    http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/SVN/judgement/09-07-2019/SVN09072019AA1632019.pdf
  •  Pam Developments Private Ltd v. State of West Bengal
    No exceptional treatment to be given to the Government while considering the application for stay of arbitral award-12 July 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS)
    The Supreme Court (SC) has observed there is no exceptional treatment to be given to the Government while considering the application for stay under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act filed by the Government in proceedings under Section 34 of the said Act.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
    https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/8788/8788_2019_8_1501_14955_Judgement_12-Jul-2019.pdf
  •  Sopan (dead) through His L R v. Syed Nabi
    Sale with a mere condition of retransfer is not a mortgage, reiterates SC-16 July 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Supreme Court (SC) has reiterated that a sale with a mere condition of retransfer is not a mortgage. In this case (Sopan vs. Syed Nabi), the sale deed dated 10th December, 1968 does not disclose that the transaction is one of mortgage or that of a conditional sale. However, another contemporaneous document was relied upon by the plaintiff to claim that the same indicates that the transaction is a mortgage and the relationship of debtor and the creditor is established by the said document. The bench referring to proviso to Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act and a recent judgment in Dharmaji Shankar Shinde & Ors. vs. Rajaram Sripad Joshi (D) Lrs., observed that, if the sale and agreement to repurchase are embodied in separate documents then the transactions cannot be a mortgage by conditional sale irrespective of whether the documents are the  contemporaneously executed.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
    https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2007/34554/34554_2007_7_1501_15053_Judgement_16-Jul-2019.pdf
  •  RB Dealers Private Limited v.The Metro Railway, Kolkata
    Solatium U/S 30 RFCTLARR Act has to be calculated only on the Market Value plus the value of the assets attached to the Land-17 July 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Supreme Court (SC) has held that the solatium as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 has to be calculated only on the market value plus the value of the assets attached to the land i.e. total compensation amount as determined as per Sections 26, 27 and 28 of the said 2013 Act.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
    https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/17901/17901_2019_4_1502_15075_Judgement_17-Jul-2019.pdf
  •  Sterling Industries v. Jayprakash Associates Ltd & Ors
    Arbitration Award cannot be set aside by HCs Invoking Writ Jurisdiction-10 July 2019 (SUPREME COURT ORDER)
    The Supreme Court (SC) has reiterated that any award passed by the Arbitral Tribunals cannot be set aside by the High Courts invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.
    The Order can be accessed at:
    https://sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/37116/37116_2016_2_1_14862_Order_10-Jul-2019.pdf

CORPORATE

  • IDBI Bank Limited v. Siva Industries and Holdings Limited
    National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) admits insolvency plea against Sivasankaran’s company-5 July 2019 (NCLT ORDERS)
    The Special Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Chennai has admitted insolvency Petition against industrialist Sivasankaran’s Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd. for defaulting ₹130.30 crore and failing to discharge duty as a guarantor in respect of loans given to another firm.
    The Order can be accessed at:
    https://nclt.gov.in/sites/default/files/final-orders-pdf/siva%20industries%20and%20holdings.pdf
  •  State v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja
    Different transactions of cheating the investors cannot be clubbed in the single FIR-8 July 2019 (DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Delhi High Court (HC) has held that in a case of inducement, allurement and cheating of large number of investors/ depositors in pursuance to a criminal conspiracy, each deposit by an investor constitutes a separate and individual transaction. All such transactions cannot be amalgamated and clubbed into a single FIR by showing one investor as the complainant, and others as witnesses.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
    http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/VSA/judgement/08-07-2019/VSA08072019CRLRF12014.pdf
  •  Union of India v. Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd & Ors
    Pension, provident funds to get top priority in repayment from IL&FS-12 July 2019 (NCLAT ORDER)
    The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has said pension and provident funds which had invested in Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services would have priority in payment from all categories of companies, whether classified as green, amber or red. While the companies classified under the green category by the new board of IL&FS have been allowed to service their debt to all secured and unsecured creditors, those under amber category had been allowed to service debts of only senior secured creditors.
    The Order can be accessed at:
    https://nclat.nic.in/Useradmin/upload/11900871705d287875e6141.pdf
  •  The Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax
    Supreme Court (SC) pronouncement binding on High Court (HC) even if it cannot be strictly called 'Ratio Decidendi'-9 July 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT)
    A pronouncement by the Supreme Court (SC), even if it cannot be strictly called the ratio decidendi of the judgment, would certainly be binding on the High Court (HC), the Supreme Court has held. The bench observed that when the character of the transaction is a capital receipt in the hands of the assessee, it cannot possibly be taxed as income in the assessee's hands. The issue before the High Court was whether receipts of subscriptions in the hands of the assessee- Company should be treated as income and not capital receipts inasmuch as the assessee has in its books of accounts shown this sum as income. The High Court held that a decision of the Apex Court in Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd. v. RBI did not lay down any absolute proposition of law that all receipts of subscription at the hands of the assessee for the previous year relevant to the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87 must necessarily be treated as capital receipts.
    The Judgement can be accessed at: ReadMore
  • Mr S Gopakumar Nair & Smt. Asha Devi v. OBO Bettermann India Private Limited & OBO Bettermann Holdings
    Purchase of Minority Shareholding under Section 236 Companies Act-9 July 2019 (NCLAT JUDGEMENT)
    The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has held that purchase of minority shareholding under Section 236 of the Companies Act 2013 can be done only in the event of an amalgamation, share exchange and conversion of securities and other similar circumstances. The phrase "for any other reasons” used in the Section after "amalgamation, share exchange, conversion of securities", therefore, ought to be read ejusdem generis with the preceding words. The Appellate Tribunal has also held that in the absence of valuation by a registered valuer in terms of Section 236(2), shares of a minority shareholder could not be cancelled under Section 236(6).
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
    https://nclat.nic.in/Useradmin/upload/19995650525d247744bebe0.pdf

COMPETITION

  • Consumer Educational and Research Society & Ms Parul Choudhary v. Union of India, Ministry of Railways & Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd
    Competition Commission of India (CCI) dismisses complaint against Indian Railways, IRCTC for refund-28 June 2019 (CCI ORDER)
    The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has dismissed a complaint against Indian Railways and IRCTC regarding refund of fare. "The Commission is of the opinion that there exists no prima facie case" warranting an investigation into the matter, CCI said while dismissing the case against Indian Railways and Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. "At the same time, the Commission feels that Indian Railways may consider review of the existing rules of refund of fare and make the same more consumer-friendly so that the passengers are not inconvenienced due to deficiency in services on its part, including delays on account of running the trains," CCI said. The ruling came on a complaint filed by Consumer Educational and Research Society (CERS) and Parul Choudhary alleging abuse of dominant position by IR and IRCTC.
    The Order can be accessed at:
    https://www.cci.gov.in/sites/default/files/20-of-2019.pdf
  •  Competition Commission of India (CCI) calls meeting with restaurants' association and EY for recommendations on e-commerce policy- 15 July 2019 (CCI UPDATE)
    The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has called a meeting with the National Restaurant Association of India and consultant EY to seek recommendations on an e-commerce policy. Amid growing friction between restaurants and e-commerce platforms, CCI’s letter said, “The workshop will bring together all relevant stakeholders on a platform to discuss competition issues in e-commerce from different perspectives. The objective is to understand issues and trends in the context of growing ecommerce activities.” CCI’s move follows the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade calling Swiggy, Zomato, Uber Eats and foodpanda for a meeting earlier this month to resolve concerns of restaurant companies over “deep discounting” and “predatory pricing.” “The objective is stakeholder recommendations on policy options that may adequately address these issues while safeguarding both, freedom of trade and innovation incentives of online platforms,” said CCI.
    The full text of the article can be accessed at:
    https://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/internet/cci-calls-meeting-with-restaurants-bodyey-to-discuss-e-commerce-policy/70220008

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

  • Dabur India Ltd v. Emami Limited
    Delhi High Court rejects Dabur's plea to stop Emami's Chyavanprashad advertisements-3 July 2019 (DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Delhi High Court (HC) has dismissed a plea by Dabur seeking to restrain Emami from broadcasting, printing and publishing ZANDU CHYAVANPRASHAD advertisements in any media. While dismissing Dabur's plea for an interim injunction, it was observed that courts should not stifle innovation and fair competition.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
    http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/SVN/judgement/03-07-2019/SVN03072019SC10742018.pdf
  •  Amway India Enterprises Pvt Ltd v. 1MG Technologies Pvt Ltd & Anrs
    Delhi High Court (HC) restrains e-commerce firms from selling direct sellers' products without consent-8 July 2019 (DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Delhi High Court (HC) has restrained e-commerce majors like Amazon, Flipkart and Snapdeal from selling health and beauty products of direct sellers -- Amway, Modicare and Oriflame, without their consent.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
    http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/PMS/judgement/08-07-2019/PMS08072019S4102018.pdf
  • MRF Limited v. Metro Tyres Limited
    Copyright subsists in Cinematograph film as an original work-1 July 2019 (DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Delhi High Court (HC)has held that in a suit for Copyright infringement of a Cinematograph film, the infringing copy need not be an exact copy of the Cinematograph film, made by a process of duplication or a substantial/material copy. It has opined that the blatant copying of fundamental /essential/distinctive features of a Cinematograph film on purpose would amount to copyright infringement. Consequently, it held that the scope of protection of a film was at par with other original works and the test laid down in Supreme Court's decision in RG Anand v. Deluxe Films and Ors. (1978) would apply.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
    http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/MMH/judgement/01-07-2019/MMH01072019SC7532017.pdf
  •  No bike-sharing, carpooling through mobile apps-18 July 2019 (MADRAS HIGH COURT ORDER)
    The Madras High Court (HC) has ordered that no private company should be permitted to facilitate the use of private two-wheelers and four-wheelers for services titled as ‘bike taxi, call taxi or carpooling’ through their smartphone applications in Tamil Nadu until the Government frames necessary regulations.
    The Order can be accessed at:
    http://164.100.79.154/chennai-do/index.php/casestatus/viewpdf/WP_21058_2019_XXX_0_0_18072019_156.pdf

 

Disclaimer (a) “This information has been gathered from various sources. Nothing herein is or may be construed as legal advice”.