Follow us


Orders & Judgments Duration August 08-22, 2020



  • Balasore Alloys Limited v. Medima LlC
    Courts in India have power to grant Anti-Arbitration injunction against foreign-seated Arbitration, Albeit Sparingly-12 August 2020
    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 have the power to grant Anti-Arbitration injunctions. However, this power is to be used sparingly and with abundant caution, a caveat once previously stated in Devi Resources Ltd. (supra) by the learned Division Bench of this court. It is only under the circumstances enumerated in and exhaustively discussed in paragraph 24 of Modi Entertainment Network (supra) … which would merit the grant of an anti-arbitration injunction and therefore, its rare and controlled usage.”
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • Avitel Post Studioz Limited & Ors v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Limited
    Supreme Court (SC) lays down tests to determine ‘Fraud Exception’ to the Arbitrability of disputes
    The Supreme Court (SC) has laid down the tests to determine ‘serious allegations of fraud’ exemption to arbitrability of disputes. The bench, in a judgment delivered on Wednesday, observed: It is clear that ‘serious allegations of fraud’ arise only if either of the two tests laid down are satisfied, and not otherwise. The first test is satisfied only when it can be said that the arbitration clause or Agreement itself cannot be said to exist in a clear case in which the court finds that the party against whom breach is alleged cannot be said to have entered into the Agreement relating to arbitration at all. The second test can be said to have been met in cases in which allegations are made against the State or its instrumentalities of arbitrary, fraudulent, or malafide conduct, thus necessitating the hearing of the case by a writ court in which questions are raised which are not predominantly questions arising from the contract itself or breach thereof, but questions arising in the public law domain.
    The Judgment can be accessed at:


  • Competition Commission of India (CCI) approves proposed combination filed jointly by Keihin Corporation, Nissin Kogyo Co., Ltd., Showa Corporation and Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd.-11 August 2020
    The proposed combination pertains to Keihin Corporation(KC), Nissin Kogyo Co., Ltd.(NKCL), Showa Corporation (SC) and Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd.(HIAMS) forming a Joint Venture between Honda Motor Co. Limited (HAMCL) and Hitachi Limited(HL), an official release said. The transaction entails HAMCL’s acquisition of additional shares to convert its affiliates, KC, NKCL and SC, as its wholly-owned subsidiaries, following which the entities will amalgamate into HIAMS to form the integrated company, as per a combination notice. By way of the proposed combination, HAMCL and HL will jointly control the integrated company, the notice filed with regulator said.
    The Release can be accessed at:


  • Abbas Yahyabhai Jasdanwalla & Others New v. Consolidated Construction Company Limited & Others
    Affirmative vote at centre of credit facility renewal battle at realty co; National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) relief to promoters- 29 July 2020
    In a legal fight where majority shareholders of a construction company alleged oppression by the minority, National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Mumbai restrained two minority but substantial shareholders from ‘preventing or interfering’ in renewal of a ₹ 250 crore credit facility from two banks notwithstanding their objections in Board meeting held in December 2019 and May 2020.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • Kotak Investment Advisors Limited v. Mr Krishna Chamadia & Others
    National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) sets aside National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) orders approving resolution plan for Ricoh India- 5 August 2020
    The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has set aside NCLT orders approving the bids of a consortium comprising two investors Kalpraj Dharamshi and Rekha Jhunjhunwala for the IT peripherals and services firm Ricoh India. Allowing the plea of Kotak Investment Advisors, a three-member NCLAT bench has directed the Committee of Creditors (CoC) of Ricoh India to decide afresh within ten days from the date of the order. Failing this, Ricoh India would face liquidation as the mandated timeline of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Period (CIRP) under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code has already lapsed, the appellate tribunal further said. The NCLAT direction has come over a plea filed by Kotak Investment Advisors, which had challenged the Order passed by the Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on November 28, 2019, approving the resolution plan.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • Allied Silica Limited v. Tata Chemicals Limited
    National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) dismisses plea to initiate insolvency proceedings against Tata Chemicals- 11 August 2020
    The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has set aside a plea challenging an NCLT order that rejected the Petition to initiate insolvency proceedings against Tata Chemicals for claimed operational debt of ₹ 68.44 crore. A three-member NCLAT bench upheld the order of the Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) that dismissed the plea of Allied Silica to initiate insolvency proceeding against the Tata group firm. Observing that the NCLT has rightly dismissed the plea as Allied Silica has failed to prove the operational debt and its default and further on the ground of pre-existing dispute, the appellate tribunal rejected the appeal against it. “We are of the considered opinion that the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) has rightly dismissed the application filed under Section 9 of IBC,” the NCLAT bench said. “We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. There is no substance in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed.” Allied Silica and Tata Chemicals had entered into a business transfer Agreement (BTA) on April 7, 2018, under which the silica business of the former was to be acquired by the Tata group firm on a slump sale basis for a consideration of ₹ 123 crore. Allied Silica contended that post-transfer of the undertaking, both parties had mutually decided to continue their respective rights and obligations to lay down the pipeline, trial run, satisfactory operation etc with the additional scope of work with other tranche payments, which were separate and distinct from slump sale.
    However, Tata Chemicals rebutted it and said that the appeal was premised on the suppression of facts and information, misrepresentation and gross misconstruction. According to it, the alleged debt is not an ‘Operational Debt’ and Allied Silica is not an ‘Operational Creditor’ as defined under The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • Sh Sushil Ansal v. Ashok Tripathi and Others
    National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) sets aside insolvency proceedings against Ansal Properties and Infrastructure-14 August 2020
    The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has set aside the insolvency proceedings against Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd and ruled that the management of the company be handed over back to its board. A three-member NCLAT bench observed that a decree-holder cannot be treated as financial creditor for the purpose of triggering insolvency proceedings against a company.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • Babulal Vardharji Gurjar v. Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Pvt Ltd & Anr
    Supreme Court (SC) dismisses Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) application filed more than three years after default-14 August 2020
    The Supreme Court (SC) has said that the insolvency law is not out of purview of the Limitation Acts as it rejects an application for a default committed more than three years from the date of insolvency Petition. The SC said that only existence of a debt and a default on that debt is not enough for admitting an insolvency plea. It also stated that the NCLT cannot admit cases of default more than three years (as prescribed by the Limitation Act) before the filing of insolvency application.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:


  • Vinay Vats v. Fox Star Studios India Pvt Ltd & Anr
    Delhi High Court (HC) dismisses plea seeking stay on release of ‘Lootcase’- 30 July 2020
    The Delhi High Court (HC) has dismissed a Petition restraining release of a film ―Lootcase, that released on Friday. The HC reiterated that there is no copyright in any idea, subject matter, theme or plot, and violation of copyright is confined to the form, manner and arrangement and the expression of the idea by the author of the copyright at work. The subject case revolves around similarity in the idea and plot of movie ‘Lootcase’ with that of unreleased film and script of ‘Tukka Fitt’. The admitted position is that the script of the latter film was not in the public domain. Therefore, similarity, if any, has to be restricted to the idea and concept. While rejecting the prayer for interim injunction, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court upheld the proposition of law that there is no copyright protection in ideas and concept i.e. even if the idea/ concept of two literary works are same, one cannot seek an injunction against the others. This is because that the protection is granted in the work that results from the idea and/ or concept.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • LT Col P K Choudhary v. Union of India & Ors
    High Court (HC) rejects plea against Army’s policy banning social media use- 5 August 2020
    Observing that warfare is “not confined to accession of territory” but extends to “affecting the economies and political stability of enemy country” by “inciting civil unrest”, the Delhi High Court (HC) has rejected a plea challenging the Indian Army’s policy banning personnel from using certain social media platforms.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • Dr Gaurav Dahiya v. Mrs Leenu Singh & Ors
    Delhi High Court (HC) directs Google, Facebook, Twitter to remove posts defaming IAS officer- 15 July 2020
    The Delhi High Court (HC) has directed US-based Google LLC, Facebook and Twitter to take down or disable certain objectionable posts and tweets on their platforms, which level allegations against a suspended civil servant by a woman. The court has also restrained the woman from publishing or disseminating any news relating to the man in any manner on any website/ newspaper/ TV channels including YouTube/ Facebook/ Instagram till further orders.
    The Order can be accessed at:


  • Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors
    Injustice to daughters in Hindu Shastric Law done away with: Supreme Court (SC) explains the impact of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005
    The Supreme Court (SC) has explained the law regarding devolution of coparcenary property and also the impact of 2005 Amendment to Hindu Succession Act on daughters’ right to it. The observed that the classic Shastric Hindu law excluded the daughter from being coparcener, and this injustice has been done away with by the 2005 Amendment of the Hindu Succession Act in consonance with the spirit of the Constitution. The Judgment explains basic concepts like Joint Hindu Family system, Coparcenary and Coparcenary property.
    The Judgment can be accessed at:


  • M C Mehta v. Union of India & Ors
    Supreme Court (SC) orders De-Sealing of properties in Delhi; sets aside report of Court-appointed monitoring committee
    In a significant judgment pronounced on Friday, the Supreme Court (SC) ordered de-sealing of residential units in Delhi which had been sealed by a Court-appointed Monitoring Committee. A 3 -Judge Bench comprising arrived at this decision upon finding that the Committee had never been authorized to take action against the residential premises that were not being used for commercial purposes. The Court categorically held that it had not granted authority to the Committee to seal residential premises on private land, particularly when they were not being used for commercial purposes.
    The Judgment can be accessed at: