Orders and Judgments Duration March 08-22, 2021

Genius, like gold and precious stones, is chiefly prized because of its rarity.

MARK TWAIN

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

  • Yashwardhan Raghuwanshi v. District & Sessions `Judgc and another
    Commercial matters involving Arbitration disputes can only be heard by Commercial Court of status of District Judge/ Addl. District Judge-26 February 2021
    A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (HC), has said in a recent order that commercial matters involving Arbitration disputes can only be heard by commercial court of the status of district judge or additional district Judge. The Bench held that the language employed in the definition clause of “Court” in Section 2(1)(c) of the Arbitration Act shows that the Legislature intended to confer power in respect of disputes involving Arbitration on the highest judicial court of the district. This, the Court opined, was done to minimize the supervisory role of courts in the arbitral process and, therefore, purposely excluded any civil court of a grade inferior to such Principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes.
    The Order can be accessed at: ReadMore
  • Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd v. Navgant Technlogies Pvt Ltd
    Period of limitation for filing Petition Under S.34 Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 To be reckoned from the date of receipt of the signed copy of the Arbitral Award-2 March 2021
    The Supreme Court, while dealing with the computation of limitation period in a case where the dissenting opinion of one of the Arbitrators was provided later to the parties, held, “There is only one date recognized by law i.e. the date on which a signed copy of the final award is received by the parties, from which the period of limitation for filing objections would start ticking. There can be no finality in the award, except after it is signed, because signing of the award gives legal effect and finality to the award.” A Division Judge Bench, while allowing the present appeal, reiterated, “If the law prescribes that a copy of the award is to be communicated, delivered, despatched, forwarded, rendered, or sent to the parties concerned in a particular way, and since the law sets a period of limitation for challenging the award in question by the aggrieved party, then the period of limitation can only commence from the date on which the award was received by the concerned party in the manner prescribed by law.”
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
    https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/17590/17590_2020_43_1501_26606_Judgement_02-Mar-2021.pdf
  • Amway Enterprises Pvt Ltd v. Ravindranath Rao Sindha & Anr
    Where one party habitually resides in a foreign country, Arbitration becomes an
    international commercial Arbitration even when the business is being carried through anoffice in India-4 March 2021
    The Division Bench addressed an important case regarding nature of Arbitration under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Bench ruled, “If at least one of the parties was either a foreign national, or habitually resident in any country other than India; or by a body corporate which was incorporated in any country other than India; or by the Government of a foreign country, the Arbitration would become an international commercial arbitration notwithstanding the fact that the individual, body corporate, or Government of a foreign country carry on business in India through a business office in India.”
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
    https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/amway-india-v-ravindranath-raosc133-390248.pdf
  • Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Nortel Networks India Pvt
    When Claim Ex-Facie Barred, Court can decline reference Under Section 11 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act-10 March 2021
    The Supreme Court has held that only in very limited cases where the claims are ex facie time-barred, can the Court refuse to make reference under Section 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. For computation of Limitation by applying Section 137 Limitation Act, 1963, Court specified, “Parliament may consider amending Section 11 of the 1996 Act to provide a period of limitation for filing an application under this provision, which is in consonance with the object of expeditious disposal of Arbitration proceedings.” A Division Bench, while allowing the present appeals held, period of limitation for filing an application under Section 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act would be governed by Section 137 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
    https://indiankanoon.org/doc/118956979/

COMPETITION & UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE

  • Federation of Hotel & Restaurant Associations of India (FHRAI) and Casa2 Stays Pvt Ltd  v. MakeMyTrip India Pvt Ltd (MMT) & Ors
    Commission of India (CCI) asks MakeMyTrip to relist FabHotels, Treebo nearly 3 years after their delisting post tie-up with OYO-9 March 2021
    In an interim relief to OYO’s smaller rivals FabHotels and Treebo, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has asked the online travel company MakeMyTrip to relist properties operated by the two budget hotel chains on its online portals makemytrip.com and goibibo.com with immediate effect. The order was part of an ongoing probe by the CCI against MakeMyTrip and OYO for “entering into a vertical arrangement having an AAEC (Appreciable Adverse Effect on Competition) in the market,” further to CCI’s earlier order dated February 24, 2020, having an impact on companies like FabHotels and Treebo.
    The Order can be accessed at:
    https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/interimorder14-of-2019and01-of-2020-390505.pdf
  • People’s All India Anti-Corruption and Crime Prevention Society v. Usha International Ltd & Others
    Competition Commission of India (CCI) issues order against three suppliers for rigging bids-17 March 2021
    The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has found an agreement between three suppliers to rig the bids in respect of a tender floated by Pune Zilla Parishad for procurement of Picofall-cum-Sewing Machine. The CCI has concluded that the quoting of bid prices, which were very close to each other with difference of just a few rupees by the bidders for the impugned tender, was not a mere coincidence but a result of consensus/ understanding among the bidders. The CCI also noted that a holistic assessment of bid prices , coupled with other factors – single IP address, coordination in other tenders, call data record, mobile location – shows an agreement among the bidders to fix price, resulting in rigging the bids in the tender of Pune Zilla Parishad, an official release said.
    The Order can be accessed at:
    http://www.cci.gov.in/sites/default/files/90-of-2016.pdf

CORPORATE

  • Navinchandra Steels Private Limited v. Srei Equipment Finance Limited & Ors
    Petition Under S.7 Or S.9 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) is an independent proceeding, unaffected by winding up proceedings that may be filed qua the same company-1 March 2021
    The Supreme Court in its decision dated March 1, 2021, held that Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 7 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) is independent of winding up proceedings initiated under the Companies Act, 2013. Drawing a difference between the two Statutes, the bench observed, “what is of importance is that under the Companies Act, it is only winding up that can be ordered, whereas under the IBC, the primary emphasis is on revival of the corporate debtor through infusion of a new management.”
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
    https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/27013/27013_2020_33_1504_26551_Judgement_01-Mar-2021.pdf
  • Kridhan Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (now known as Krish Steel and Trading Pvt Ltd) v. Venkatesan Sankaranarayan & Ors
    Time is a crucial facet of scheme Under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) -1 March 2021
    Time is a crucial facet of the scheme under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), the Supreme Court (SC) said while dismissing the appeal filed by a Resolution applicant. In this case, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) allowed the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor to proceed. Upholding this order, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal observed that the applicant had failed to implement the Resolution Plan for a period of over eight months. In appeal, the bench noted that sufficient opportunities were granted to the applicant earlier during the pendency of the proceedings both before the NCLT and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The orders of the NCLT and NCLAT make it abundantly clear that despite the grant of sufficient time, the appellant has not been able to comply with the terms of the Resolution Plan, it said. "Since 9 October 2020, despite the passage of almost five months, the appellant has not been able to deposit an amount of 50 crores. Time is a crucial facet of the scheme under the IBC. To allow such proceedings to lapse into an indefinite delay will plainly defeat the object of the statute. A good faith effort to resolve a corporate insolvency is a preferred course. However a resolution applicant must be fair in its dealings as well.”, the Court said.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
    https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/20280/20280_2020_36_1_26554_Judgement_01-Mar-2021.pdf
  • Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Mr Amit Gupta & Ors
    Supreme Court (SC) on Corporate Debtor Insolvency-8 March 2021
    The Supreme Court (SC) observed that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has jurisdiction to adjudicate contractual disputes, which arise solely from or which relate to the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor. However, for adjudication of disputes that arise dehors the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor, the RP must approach the relevant competent authority, the bench observed while upholding the order of the National Company Law Tribunal which stayed the termination by the Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited of its Purchase Agreement.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
    https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/42523/42523_2019_36_1503_26738_Judgement_08-Mar-2021.pdf
  • State Bank of India v. Mr Animesh Mukhopadhyay
    Till payment is received in one, lender's claim maintainable in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against both Principal Borrower, Corporate Guarantor-8 March 2021
    The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has held that till payment is received in one Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), the claim of the lender for the same amount can be maintained in the insolvency proceedings against both the Principal Borrower and Corporate Guarantor.
    The Order can be accessed at:
    https://nclat.nic.in/Useradmin/upload/46341585760489071b4b31.pdf
  • Orator Marketing Pvt Ltd v. Samtex Desinz Pvt Ltd
    Interest free loan could not be treated as a financial debt without evidence that the amount was disbursed for time Value of Money-8 March 2021
    The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has ruled that Interest free loan could not be treated as a Financial Debt without evidence that the amount was disbursed for time value of money.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
    https://nclat.nic.in/Useradmin/upload/179888358260475e3439509.pdf

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

  • Sakshi Malik v. Venkateshwara Creations Pvt Ltd & Ors
    Bombay High Court (HC) allows Amazon Prime to re-release Telugu film post edit-2 March 2021
    The Bombay High Court (HC) has allowed the edited version of Telugu film ‘V’ to be released on Amazon Prime Video, after the OTT platform said that it has removed the movie and the producers have also deleted actor producer Sakshi Malik’s objectionable image from the film.
    The Order can be accessed at:
    https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/media-order-march-6kar-hc-390385.pdf

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