• Matrix Global Pvt. Ltd. v. Ministry of Education, Federal
    Foreign State cannot claim sovereign immunity against enforcement of arbitral award arising out of commercial transactions – 18 June 2021
    The Delhi High Court held that the in a contract arising out of a commercial transaction, a foreign State cannot seek sovereign immunity for the purpose of stalling execution of an arbitral award rendered against it. The Court stated that, “Once a Foreign State opts to wear the hat of a commercial entity, it would be bound by the rules of the commercial legal ecosystem and cannot be permitted to seek any immunity, which is otherwise available to it only when it is acting in its sovereign capacity.” It further held that, “Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure is of limited applicability and the protection thereunder would not apply to cases of implied waiver. An arbitration agreement in a commercial contract between a party and a Foreign State is an implied waiver by the Foreign State so as to preclude it from raising a defence against an enforcement action premised upon the principle of Sovereign Immunity.”
    The Judgment can be accessed at:
  • M/s. Silpi Industries etc. v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation & Anr.
    Limitation Act is applicable to the arbitration proceedings under MSME Act – 29 June 2021
    The Supreme Court held that the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to arbitration proceedings under Section 18(3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. It was further held that when the settlement with regard to a dispute between the parties is not arrived at under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, necessarily, the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council shall take up the dispute for arbitration under Section 18(3) of the 2006 Act or it may refer to institution or centre to provide alternate dispute resolution services, and provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 are made applicable as if there was an agreement between the parties under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the 1996 Act.
    The Judgment can be accessed at:


  • Zacharia Maramkandathil Mohanv.Union of India & Ors.
    Section 164(2) of Companies Act not retrospective and default before F.Y. 2014-15 can’t be considered – 16 June 2021
    The Kerala High Court held Section 164(2) (Disqualifications for Appointment of Director) and Section 167(1) (Vacation of Office of Director) of the Companies Act, 2013 are not ultra vires Article 14 or Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It was further held that the Section 164(2) is not retrospective in operation and only default made by Companies in filing Financial Statements/Annual Returns in F.Y. 2014-15 and subsequent years can be taken into account. The High Court also held that the Director’s Identification Number (DIN) cannot be deactivated solely for disqualification from the appointment in any Company by operation of Section 164(2).
    The Judgment can be accessed at:
  • Arbor Charitable Foundation & Ors.v. Union of India
    No forcible action against NGOs that fail to file annual returns – 1 July 2021
    The Delhi High Court has restrained the Centre from taking any coercive steps against an NGO that was unable to submit its annual return due to discrepancy in the new form prescribed for declaring foreign contributions.
    The Court stated that “The citizen cannot be penalised for a discrepancy in the form prescribed by the respondent, which has resulted in the form being unable to be submitted even in the case of a law-abiding citizen.”
    The Judgment can be accessed at:
  • Hytone Merchants Pvt. Ltd. v. Satabadi Investment Consultants Pvt. Ltd.
    NCLAT sets aside Insolvency Application on the signs of Collusion – 30 June 2021
    The National Company Law Appellant Tribunal (NCLAT) has passed an order stating that it is empowered to refuse insolvency applications if there are signs of collusion and mala fide intent. The NCLAT pointed out that before admitting the application, every precaution is necessary to be exercised so that the insolvency process is not misused for any other purpose other than the resolution of insolvency and that the NCLT has to exercise careful discretion.
    The order can be accessed at:


  • Kshitiz Arya & Anr. v. Google LLC & Ors.
    Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) orders probe into Google for alleged abuse of dominance in India’s Smart TV market – 22 June 2021
    The CCI has ordered further investigation into the allegations that Google Inc. is abusing its dominant position with Android in India’s Television market. CCI in its order said it prima facie opines that certain clauses of agreements entered into between Google and Smart TV manufacturers amount to an abuse of Google’s dominant position in the market.
    CCI said in its order that,”In this backdrop, the commission is of the prima facie opinion that by making pre- installation of Google’s proprietary apps (particularly Play Store) conditional upon signing of ACC for all android devices manufactured/distributed/marketed by device manufacturers, Google has reduced the ability and incentive of device manufacturers to develop and sell devices operating on alternative versions of Android i.e. Android forks, and thereby limited technical or scientific development relating to goods or services to the prejudice of consumers in contravention of Section 4(2)(b) of the act,”.
    The Order can be accessed at:


  • WhatsApp LLC v. Competition Commission of India & Anr.
    Delhi High Court refuses to stay Competition Commission of India(“CCI”) notice to WhatsApp, Facebook – 21 June 2021
    The Delhi High Court refused to interfere in this stage of proceedings and has declined the plea by WhatsApp to put on hold a notice issued by the CCI seeking information regarding the messaging app’s controversial new privacy policy. However, it urged “the DG, to bear in mind that the investigation against the appellant is under judicial consideration before a division bench of this court” and the matter would be taken by the regular bench on July 9.
    The Judgment can be accessed at:
  • Martin Jayakumar v. The Govt. of India & Ors.‘ Courts can’t regulate children’s mobile addiction – 1 July 2021 The Madras High Court has declined to entertain a plea that wanted a ban on all online and offline video games, observing that elected governments were the appropriate authority to take a policy decision on concerns around the addiction of children and young adults to these games. The Bench stated that “It is not for the court to impose restrictions”.The Bench, however, added that the court could step in if the Executive fails to act on any representation made in this regard.
    The Judgment 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.