• Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corp. Limited v. CG Power and Industrial Solutions Limited and Anr.
    Arbitration Clause not absolute bar for High Court to entertain Writ Petition in contractual matter-12May 2021
    The Allahabad High Court had allowed the Writ Petition filed by CG Power an Industrial Solutions Ltd. against the order of Executive Engineer, Unnao, UPPCL regarding Labour Cess under the Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Cess Act, 1996 read with Rules 3 and Rule 4 (1), (2) (3) and (4) of the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Rules, 1998, and also Section 2 (1)(d), (g) and (i) of the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Condition of Service) Act, 1996.
    An appeal was preferred against the decision of the Allahabad High Court to allow the petition.
    The Supreme Court has held that the mere existence of the Arbitration Clause does not debar the Court from entertaining writ petitions. Writ petitions are maintainable if:
    (i) It seeks enforcement of a fundamental right;
    (ii) There is failure of principles of natural justice;
    (iii) Impugned orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or
    (iv) The vires of an Act is under challenge.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:


  • Neha Gupta v. Tata Motors Ltd &Ors
    CCI found a prima facie case of violation of provisions of the Competition Act by Tata Motors – 4 May 2021
    A Tata Motors’ dealer from Uttar Pradesh alleged that the company’s terms for dealership included manufacturing and financing of commercial vehicles through the NBFCs, Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd and tata Motors Finance Ltd., which was “abusive, anti-competitive and detrimental to the financial health of authorised dealers.” This was also alleged by another dealer in Nashik.
    The Commission found a prima facie case of violation by agreement among enterprises at different stages of production and abuse of dominance. It directed the DG to complete the investigation and submit its report within 60 days.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:


  • Basavaraj Koujalagiv. SumitBinani, liquidator of Gujarat NRE Coke Ltd.
    Decisions taken by Liquidators in good faith for the company undergoing liquidation proceedings are protected-03 May 2021
    There were allegations against the liquidator by the workers. Dismissing the plea, the NCLT, Kolkata held that the decisions of the liquidators taken in good faith are protected under the IBC and also commented on the degree of autonomy accorded to liquidators.
    It was held that “in the absence of any allegation of fraud or bias in the decisions of the liquidator, we cannot order a roving inquiry just on the basis of perceived loss of employment of the workers on account of a business decision taken by the liquidator”. It noted that action of the public servant enjoys protection under section 233 of the Code.
    The Order can be accessed at:
  • Kapil Wadhawan v. The Administrator, Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited’ Promoters can make a settlement proposal when the company is in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”)-19May 2021 The Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) did not take up the settlement offer for consideration, which was made by the promoter of DHFL. The NCLT noted that the offer made by the promoter is substantially higher than what is being offered by the winning bidder. Hence, it asked the CoC to put the offer up for consideration, decision and voting within the next 10 days.
    The tribunal also observed that while promoters are barred from submitting a resolution plan under Section 29 A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), Wadhawan has submitted a one-time settlement offer and there is no express legal bar against such a submission.
    “The contention that no promoter of a company in CIRP, on account of his alleged culpability for the financial health or lack thereof of the corporate debtor, ought to be permitted to submit a settlement proposal is entirely misconceived. Indeed, only a promoter or a stakeholder in the company undergoing CIRP would be in a position to submit a settlement proposal,” the tribunal said.
    The Order can be accessed at: Housing Finance Corporation Limited IA 24312020 in CP IB 42582019 NCLT ON 19.05.2021 FINAL ORDER.pdf
  • Regional Provident Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Vandana Gard and Ors.‘ Creditors can’t initiate proceedings to recover claims which are not part of approved Resolution Plan under IBC -12 May 2021“The Appellants claim about Provident Fund dues amounting to ₹1,95,01,301/-, which was earlier raised at the time of initiation of CIRP and was later admitted, stood frozen and will be binding (Emphasis supplied) on all the Stakeholders, including the Central Government. After approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority, all such claims that are not part of the resolution plan shall stand extinguished. No person is entitled to initiate or continue any proceeding regarding a claim that is not part of the resolution plan,” the NCLAT said.
    It held that no proceedings in respect of such dues for the period prior to the date on which the Adjudicating Authority grants its approval under Section 31 could be continued.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • India Resurgence Arc Private Ltd. v. M/s Amit Metaliks Ltd. and Anr. Resolution Plan cannot be challenged by Secured Creditor- 13 May 2021It was contended in the appeal that the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) couldn’t have approved the resolution plan which failed to consider the priority and value of security interest of the creditors. The Court observed that, “Once it is found that all the mandatory requirements have been duly complied with and taken care of, the process of judicial review cannot be stretched to carry out quantitative analysis qua a particular creditor or any stakeholder, who may carry his own dissatisfaction. In other words, in the scheme of IBC, every dissatisfaction does not partake the character of a legal grievance and cannot be taken up as a ground of appeal”.
    The Supreme Court held that the Resolution Plan approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot be challenged by a dissenting secured creditorson grounds of higher amount payable on security interest as it will lead to an inequitable scenario.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:


  • Jagjeet Singh v. The State of Punjab
    Hacking, Data Theft attract offences under IPC also, and not just the Information Technology Act-18 May 2021
    The FIR in consideration had allegations of theft of software, illegal copying of database and source code etc.It had been urged that the allegations pertain to alleged theft of software and at best may amount to offences under the IT Act under its Sections 43 and 66, which are bailable offences. It had been advanced by the council that the FIR has invoked the provisions of the IPC to deprive the petitioner of his statutory right to bail, it had been advanced.
    The Supreme Court has remarked that in a case of hacking and data theft, in addition to penal provisions of the IT Act, offences under the IPC would also be attracted and that the IT Act would not exclude the applicability of the IPC. Hence, the SLP was rejected and it was held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
  • Bennet Coleman Co. Ltd. v. Whatsapp Inc and Ors.
    Circulation of e-papers violates copyright -21 May 2021
    The Delhi high court has restrained WhatsApp and Telegram from illegally circulating e-papers of The Times of India and sister publication Navbharat Times on their platform. It issued notice to the two apps along with certain individuals who are administrators of groups on their platforms while barring them from circulating e-papers for copyright violations.
    It has also issued notice to Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology for its response on the suit.
    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.