• Supreme Court (SC) stays Arbitration proceedings on DND toll -12 April 2019 (SUPREME COURT ORDER)
    The Supreme Court (SC) on Friday stayed the arbitration proceedings between Noida and Noida Toll Bridge Company Ltd over compensating the firm’s loss after the Allahabad High Court stopped collection of toll on DND Flyway linking Delhi with NOIDA.
  • Dr RS Grewal & Ors v. Chander Parkash Soni & Anr
    Tenants can be evicted only by following procedure laid down in applicable rent control laws-16 April 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Supreme Court (SC) has observed that the protection offered to a statutory tenant by Rent Control Laws can only be overcome by following the procedure laid out in such laws.
    The Judgement can be accessed at: ReadMore
  • Chairman and Managing Director, The Fertilizers and Chemicals Tranvancore Ltd & Anr v. General Secretary FACT Employees Association & Ors
    Res Judicata principle also applicable to labour/industrial proceedings, reiterates SC-11 April 2019 (SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Supreme Court (SC) has reiterated that principle of Res Judicata defined in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure also applies to the labour/industrial proceedings.
    The Judgement can be accessed at: ReadMore
  • Can full-time salaried law officers be considered Advocates? -5 April 2019 (ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ORDER)
    The Allahabad High Court (HC) has observed that a person enrolled as an advocate ceases to be one as soon as he/she takes a full-time salaried employment even if he/she continues to occasionally appear in Court for his/her employer. The Division bench observed that occasional appearance of Full Time Salaried employees in Courts/ Tribunals on behalf of their employer cannot be taken to mean that they are continuing to be in practice as advocates.


  • Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v. Mr Gopal Krishna Rahu & Anr
    Lenders having vested interest in debtor shouldn’t be part of creditors’ panel-27 March 2019 (NCLT ORDERS)
    In a judgement of far-reaching implication in the insolvency and resolution process, the National Company Law Tribunal’s Chennai Bench has held that a party having a vested interest /relation with a corporate debtor should not be a part of the Committee of Creditors (CoC). On an application moved by the Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. in a case relating to commercial realty firm Anandram Developers Pvt Ltd, a corporate debtor, the NCLT reasoned that the decisions of the CoC must remain independent. It observed that the CoC’s decisions will impact the debtor’s survival or liquidation, and the debt realization of all the creditors. Therefore, the institution of CoC needs to be completely independent and free from any kind of influence — either of the promoters or their close relatives who may have stakes, it said. The Tribunal held that the second respondent, Anandcine Services Pvt Ltd, is a ‘related party’, which shall have no right of representation, participation or voting in CoC meetings. The first respondent in the case is the Insolvency Resolution Profession (IRP). Anandcine had written a letter in August, 2018, annexing a legal opinion to substantiate that it was not a ‘related party’ to the debtor. The IRP claimed he had taken an independent view to that extent and had declared Anandcine was not a ‘related party’. The NCLT noted that the two loan Agreements between Anandcine and Anandram, signed in April 2015 (₹ 200 crore) and September 2017 (₹ 200 crore), are not substantiated with the books of accounts of the latter. The IRP has to conduct a forensic audit to examine the “fraudulent and avoidance transactions” over the claims of the creditors including Anandcine, it said. The Tribunal, however, made it clear that Anandcine’s claim shall remain subject to the outcome of the forensic audit. Consequently, it directed the IRP to delete the name of Anandcine from the list of CoC members with immediate effect.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • Andhra Bank v. Sterling Biotech Limited
    National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) rebukes Sterling Biotech resolution professional, demands explanation-5 April 2019 (NCLT ORDER)
    The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) reprimanded the resolution professional of Sterling Biotech for failing to discharge his duties and has asked him to submit an explanation as to why he didn’t opt for liquidation when no resolution plan was being approved by the committee of creditors and file his report within the time provided under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
    The Order can be accessed at:ReadMore
  • Rasiklal S Mardia v. Amar Dye Chem Limited
    Shareholders can file application to approve settlement with creditors even after appointment of official liquidator-8 April 2019 (NCLAT JUDGEMENT)
    The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has held that shareholders/promoters of a company can file application for approval of settlement with creditors, even after official liquidator has been appointed. This ruling was made while allowing an appeal filed against the decision of the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai bench, which had held that the application filed under Section 391 of the Companies Act 1956 (corresponding to Section 230(1), Companies Act 2013) could not have been moved by the shareholders after the appointment of Official Liquidator. The NCLT reasoned that only the Official Liquidator was entitled to represent the company under liquidation. Holding this to be erroneous after referring to judgments of Supreme Court and several High Courts., the Appellate Tribunal held:
    “Liquidator is only an additional person and not exclusive person who can move application under Section 391 of the old Act when the company is in liquidation. Looking to these Judgements, we are unable to support the view taken by NCLT that the Appellant could not have filed the Petition under Section 391 of the old Act”.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • Junaid Iqbal Mohammed Memon v. Union of India & Ors
    Passport cannot be suspended/revoked for non-appearance in investigation proceedings under FEMA -8 April 2019 (DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Delhi High Court (HC) has set aside the Centre’s order suspending the passport of the son of International drug smuggler Iqbal Mirchi for not joining the ED’s investigation in a money laundering case. The court said the passport of Junaid Iqbal Mohammed Memon, a Non-Resident Indian who has been residing permanently in UAE since 1993, could not have been suspended in public interest. It noted that the Memon had voluntarily agreed to appear by tele-conferencing and to make arrangements for it but that was not accepted by the agency.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • Jaiprakash Associate Ltd v. Gaurav Goyal & Anr etc etc
    Jaypee homebuyers can sue Jaiprakash Associates -15 April 2019 (SUPREME COURT ORDER)
    The Supreme Court (SC) has declined to stay the apex consumer commission’s order, which held that home buyers in Jaypee Infratech Ltd can move the consumer forum against JIL’s parent company, Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. for compensation and possession of their respective flats. JIL is undergoing insolvency proceedings. The Life Insurance Corporation declared JIL as a nonperforming account on September 30, 2015, and other lenders declared it as an NPA on March 31, 2016. On August 9, 2017, the National Company Law Tribunal admitted an application filed by one of JIL’s financial creditors, IDBI Bank Ltd., for initiating insolvency proceedings.
    The Order can be accessed at: ReadMore


  • Bandhan Bank gets Competition Commission approval to acquire Gruh Finance-16 April 2019 (CCI UPDATES)
    Kolkata-based Bandhan Bank has said it has received approval of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) for the proposed acquisition of Gruh Finance. Gruh Finance, the affordable housing finance arm of HDFC Ltd, was taken over in January by Bandhan Bank in a share-swap deal. As part of the deal, Bandhan Bank has to transfer 14.9 percent stake to HDFC for merging Gruh with itself. The deal will allow Bandhan Bank’s promoter Bandhan Financial Holdings’ shareholding to come down to about 61 percent from about 82 percent, and HDFC to hold around 15 percent in the merged entity from about 57 percent in Gruh.
    The full text of the article can be accessed at:
  • Delhi High Court (HC) asks car makers to challenge Competition Commission of India (CCI’s) ₹ 2,500 Cr penalty order in NCLAT-JUDGEMENT RELEASED-10 April 2019
    The Delhi High Court (HC) has told 14 car makers, who were slapped with a total penalty of over ₹ 2,500 crore by CCI for alleged violation of trade norms, that they can challenge the decision in the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The Bench passed the verdict on the pleas of the car manufacturers which had moved the High Court against the Competition Commission of India (CCI) order of August 2014. The bench said the companies are at liberty to move to NCLAT for the relief within six weeks as the “remedy lies there”. On August 25, 2014, the CCI had imposed a total penalty of ₹ 2,545 crore on 14 car manufacturers, including Honda, Volkswagen and FIAT, in India after finding them guilty of violating trade norms in the spare parts and after-services market. The CCI order was pursuant to a complaint filed in January 2011 against Honda, Volkswagen and FIAT. In April 2011, the CCI extended its probe to other manufacturers it found were following a similar practice. As per the CCI order, these car companies were found to have violated competition norms with respect to their Agreements with local Original Equipment Suppliers as well as in terms of pacts with authorized dealers. The CCI had also found that these companies, which were found to be dominant in the after services markets for their respective brands, abused their dominant position affecting around two crore car customers.


  • UTV Software Communication Ltd and Ors v. 1337X to and Ors
    Delhi High Court (HC) restrains 30 torrent sites from hosting copyrighted content, orders ISPs to block them-10 April 2019 (DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT)
    The Delhi High Court (HC) has permanently restrained 30 torrent sites from hosting, streaming, reproducing, distributing or making available to the public by any means the movies, music, shows or any content which violates the copyright of film production companies like Twentieth Century Fox and UTV Software. The Court, in the order, directed internet service providers like Airtel, Reliance Jio and MTNL, to block access to these websites. Directions were also issued by the court to the Department of Telecommunication and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to ensure that the ISPs registered with them block access to such “rogue websites”. It directed the DoT and the MEITY to “explore the possibility of framing a policy under which a warning is issued to the viewers of the infringing content, if technologically feasible in the form of e-mails, or popups or such other modes, cautioning the viewers to cease viewing/downloading the infringing material. “In the event the warning is not heeded to and the viewers/subscribers continue to view, access or download the infringing/pirated content, then a fine could be levied on the viewers/subscribers,” the court said. It added that such a measure would go a long way in curbing piracy and the dark-net as well as in “promoting the legal content and accelerating the pace of Digital India”.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • Sandeep Vinod Kumar Singh & Anr v. Election Commission of India through Chief Election Commissioner & Anr
    Biopic on PM Modi: Supreme Court (SC) directs Election Commission (EC) to watch full movie, submit decision in sealed cover-15 April 2019 (SUPREME COURT ORDER)
    The Supreme Court (SC) has directed the Election Commission (EC) to watch the full biopic on Prime Minister Narendra Modi and take an informed decision on banning its pan India release by April 19.
    The Order can be accessed at: ReadMore
  • PVR Limited v. Just Dial Limited
    Delhi High Court (HC) Orders Justdial To Remove PVR Cinemas from Its App and Websites-10 April 2019 (DELHI HIGH COURT ORDER)
    Hearing a lawsuit filed by Delhi-headquartered film entertainment company PVR Cinemas, the Delhi High Court (HC) has asked Justdial to restrain from using the registered mark PVR or any deceptive variant thereof which is identical or similar to PVR in respect of meta-tags in any manner. On May 31, 2016, Justdial had entered into an Agreement with PVR to list PVR Cinemas and its shows and other related details on its search pages. The Agreement expired on August 15, 2018 but Justdial continues to show PVR Cinemas as well as the timings of the shows on its App. The Counsel said that the Justdial App has been using a web development standard called frame to display the booking page from the PVR website. As a result, Justdial users could book tickets without leaving the app, completely bypassing the PVR website. This is not only the violation of the Trade Marks Act but also the Copyright Act, 1957, Srivastava added. The court has issued a notice to Justdial and its directors. Ordering in favour of PVR, the single judge bench of Delhi HC said that prima facie it is a case of infringement and passing off. Further, irreparable harm or injury would be caused to the plaintiff if an interim injunction order is not passed.
    The Order can be accessed at:


The Bar Council of India Rules do not permit law firms to solicit work or advertise. By clicking the ‘I Agree’ button the Reader accepts that it seeks information on its own accord. Alaya Legal shall in no way be responsible for any technical inaccuracies in the website, or for any actions taken or not taken for reasons attributable to the information contained in this website or accessed through this website. Readers are advised to seek counsel from a qualified professional while dealing with specific issues.By continuing to use this site you consent to use of cookies on your device as mentioned in this cookie policy.

Alaya Legal shall in no way be responsible for any technical inaccuracies in the website, or for any actions taken or not taken for reasons attributable to the information contained in this website or accessed through this website. Readers are advised to seek counsel from a qualified professional while dealing with specific issues.The views appearing under various heads, including ‘Trending’, are those of the author. The author may be reached at by writing to Alaya Legal at Nothing herein is or may be construed as legal advice.