Orders and Judgments Duration February 08-22, 2021

‘It is a worthy thing to fight for one's freedom; it is another sight finer to fight for another man's.

MARK TWAIN

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

  • Knowledge Podium Systems Pvt Ltd v. S M Professional Services Pvt Ltd
    Send dispute to Arbitration if there is a doubt regarding existence of valid Arbitration Agreement -25 January 2021 (High Court of Delhi)
    It is best if the arbitral tribunal decides on the question of the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. When there is a doubt regarding the validity of an arbitration agreement, the Court must send the matter to the arbitral tribunal for further consideration. The Court relied on the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India in Vidya Drolia and Ors v. Durga Trading Corporation to reach this conclusion.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
    https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2021-01/d8cbeab1-f244-4439-871b-9c261d503714/Knowledge_Podium_Systems_vs_SM_Professional_Services.pdf
  • Chintels India Ltd v. Bhayana Builders Pvt Ltd
    Condonation of Delay under Section 34 of Arbitration is Appealable under Section 37 of the Act-11 February 2021 (Supreme Court)
    This Appeal arose out of a certificate issued under Article 133 read with Article 134A of the Constitution of India by the High Court (HC) of Delhi. The question raised in this appeal was whether the Court’s order refusing to condone the Appellant’s delay in filing an application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration Act, 1996’) is an appealable order under section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration Act, 1996. It was held that an appeal under section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 would be maintainable against an order refusing to condone delay in filing an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 to set aside an award.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
    https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/chintels-india-ltd-v-bhayana-builders-pvt-ltdll77-389036.pdf

COMPETITION & UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE

  • Thupili Raveendra Babu v. Bar Council of India (BCI) and Others
    Competition Commission of India (CCI) dismisses complaint against Bar Council of India-20 January 2021
    The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has dismissed a complaint which alleged that the Bar Council of India (BCI) was abusing its dominant position with respect to legal education in the country. The complaint was regarding the BCI rules that impose maximum age restrictions for new entrants into the legal education. It was also alleged that the BCI members who are managing the affairs were misusing the council’s dominant position in controlling legal education in the country. Rejecting the complaint, the CCI said that the BCI appears to carry out functions which are regulatory in nature in respect of the legal profession. "In the present matter, when the BCI appears to be discharging its regulatory functions, it cannot be said to be an ''enterprise'' within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the (Competition) Act and consequently, the allegations made in relation to discharge of such functions which appears to be non-economic in nature, may not merit an examination within the provisions of Section 4 of the Act,.... the Commission is of the opinion that there exists no prima facie case under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act".
    The Order can be accessed at:
    https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/bci-cci-388514.pdf
  • Chandra Prabhu Offset Printing Works Pvt Ltd & Ors v. Mr Ashok Kumar Gupta and Ors
    Competition Commission of India (CCI) closes alleged bid rigging case; finds no evidence of competition norms violations-12 February 2021
    Competition Commission has closed a case of alleged bid rigging after a detailed investigation found no evidence to suggest manipulation in the bidding process by three firms for three different tenders. The matter pertained to three separate tenders that were issued by the Department of Printing under the Ministry of Urban Development. One tender was issued in 2014 and two other tenders in 2015. There were complaints that the three firms -- Chandra Prabhu Offset Printing Works Pvt Ltd, Saraswati Offset Printers Pvt Ltd and United India Tradex Pvt Ltd -- had conspired to fix rates in bids submitted for the tenders. Competition Commission of India (CCI) had directed its probe arm -- Director General (DG) -- for a detailed investigation, which revealed close linkages among the three firms (opposite parties). "The evidence gathered by investigation showed that there are business dealings, funds transactions, loan exchanges, sharing of work orders and personal acquaintances among the opposite parties. However, the investigation could not unearth any cogent evidence that could establish contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3) of the (Competition) Act," the regulator said citing the investigation report. The Commission noted that the inter-se dealings between the opposite parties are explained to be on account of their historic business linkages and such dealings thus appear to be in usual course of business. "... there is nothing on record as per investigation to suggest that the opposite parties joined hands to manipulate the process of bidding in respect of the aforementioned three tenders," the Commission said, adding that no case of contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3) is made out in the facts and circumstances of the case.
    The Order can be accessed at:
    https://www.cci.gov.in/sites/default/files/03-of-2019_1.pdf

CORPORATE

  • Phoenix Arc Private Limited v. Spade Financial Services Limited & Ors
    Collusive or Sham transactions with a Corporate Debtor won’t amount to ‘Financial Debt’-1 February 2021
    The Supreme Court (SC) held that the collusive or sham transactions with a corporate debtor will not amount to ‘financial debt’ under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
    https://ibbi.gov.in/uploads/order/a05b0fb37f6ba33290c7e0bfc690cf75.pdf
  • Ramesh Kymal v. M/s Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Pvt Ltd
    Retrospective bar on filing plea for start of insolvency process does not extinguish debt-9 February 2021
    The Supreme Court (SC) has said that the retrospective bar on the filing of applications for the commencement of insolvency process put in place by the Centre by an ordinance in view of COVID-19 pandemic does not extinguish the debt owed by the company or the right of lenders to recover it.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
    https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2021-02/b33b9882-42fc-4f30-84cf-260f43abe5c5/Ramesh_Kymal_v__Siemens.pdf
  • M/s Kalamani Tex v. P Balasubramanian
    Dishonour of cheques- blank cheque would attract presumption U/s 139 NI Act if signatures are admitted: Supreme Court (SC)
    The Supreme Court (SC) observed that even a blank cheque leaf would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act when signatures are admitted by the accused. The bench observed that 'reverse onus'. clauses under Section 118 and Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act become operative once the signature(s) of an accused on the cheque are established. Though the presumptions raised under Section 118 and Section 139 are rebuttable in nature, a probable defence needs to be raised, which must meet the standard of "preponderance of probability", and not mere possibility, the bench observed.
    kalamani-tex-vs-p-balasubramanian-ll-2021-sc-75-388959.pdf (livelaw.in)

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