Orders and Judgments Duration October 08-22, 2020

“He that loves the law will get his fill of it.”

SCOTTISH PROVERB

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

  • SJ Biz Solution Pvt Ltd v. M/s Sany Heavy Industry India
    When parties decide the place of Arbitration, only the High Court (HC) having territorial jurisdiction over that place can entertain application U/S11 of Arbitration Act-1 October 2020
    The Bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Raq was hearing an application led under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Petitioner- SJ Biz Solutions Pvt. Ltd. led an application (for short, ‘Act, 1996’) seeking appointment of an independent arbitrator to arbitrate the disputes between the Petitioner and the opposite party. Both the parties on various occasions decided that the dispute would be settled, however, the Petitioner didn't get the payment as promised by the opposite party. Notably, the Orissa High Court in the present matter, cited the ruling of the Supreme Court in BGS SGS Soma JV vs. NHPC Limited, (2020)4 SCC 234 as well, wherein the Supreme Court examined Sections 20 and 2(1)(e) of the Act of 1996, in the context of clause 67.3(vii) of the Agreement executed between the parties in that case which provided that "Arbitration proceedings shall be held at New Delhi/Faridabad, India". The counsel for the Petitioner submitted that even if the parties in clause 15 of the Dealership Agreement (Annexure-1) agreed that the place of arbitration shall be at 'Pune', the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present application led under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 is not excluded as the cause of action, wholly, or at least in part, has arisen in the territory of the State of Orissa. The counsel for the opposite party argued that Section 20 of the Act, 1996 has given the freedom to the parties to decide the place of arbitration. Further, it was contended that if the parties in the Agreement have chosen a particular place as the place of arbitration, only the High Court having territorial jurisdiction over that place would be competent to entertain and decide the application under section 11 for the appointment of the arbitrator. In view of the above discussion, the Orissa High court in the present matter held that it does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present Petition led under Section 11 (6) of the Act, 1996, which was accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
    https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122125891/

COMPETITION & UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE

  • Competition Commission of India (CCI) approves acquisition of shares in CG Power and Industrial Solutions Limited by Tube Investments of India Limited-14 October 2020
    The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has approved acquisition of shares in CG Power and Industrial Solutions Limited by Tube Investments of India Limited. The proposed combination envisages acquisition of more than 50% of the equity share capital of CG Power and Industrial Solutions Limited (CG Power) by Tube Investments of India Limited (TIIL).
    The Release can be accessed at:
    https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1664237
  • Competition Commission of India (CCI) approves acquisition of solar energy generation assets of Adani Green Energy Ten Limited by Adani Green Energy Twenty-Three Ltd-14 October 2020
    The Competition Commission of India (CCI) approves acquisition of solar energy generation assets of Adani Green Energy Ten Limited (AGE10L) by Adani Green Energy Twenty-Three Ltd (AGE23L), under Section 31(1) of the Competition Act, 2002. AGE23L is a joint venture jointly controlled by Total Solar Singapore Pte. Ltd. and Adani Green Energy Limited. AGE23L (through its subsidiaries) is engaged in the business of solar power generation in India.
    The Release can be accessed at:
    https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1664236

CORPORATE

  • Anup Sushil Dubey v. National Agriculture Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd
    Lease rentals arising out of use and occupation of a cold storage unit is an ‘Operational Debt’-7 October 2020
    The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi held that the lease rentals arising out of use and occupation of a cold storage unit is an ‘Operational Debt’.
    The Judgment can be accessed at:
    https://nclat.nic.in/Useradmin/upload/5487276125f7d8cc994789.pdf
  • Kridhan Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. Venkatesan Sankaranarayan & Ors
    Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor should be a matter of last resort-9 October 2020
    The Supreme Court (SC), in its order passed on October 9, observed that the aim under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) is to find resolution to corporate insolvency and liquidation of a corporate debtor must be seen as a matter of last resort. The object under the IBC is not merely the recovery of monies, the Supreme Court said.
    The Order can be accessed at:
    https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/20280/20280_2020_33_30_24319_Order_09-Oct-2020.pdf
  • Madhusudan Tantia v. Amit Choraria & Foseco India Limited
    Corporate insolvency | Default threshold of ₹1 crore to apply only prospectively-12 October 2020
    The revised default threshold of ₹ 1 crore for trigger of corporate insolvency applies prospectively from March 24 and not retrospectively, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has ruled.
    The Judgment can be accessed at:
    https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2020-10/2b35ef62-96fd-4c62-b0affd83717b8a9f/Madhusudan_Tantia_vs_Amit_Choraria.pdf

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

  • Amit M Nair v. State of Gujarat
    ‘Act against e-gambling, 1887 law needs change’- 29 September 2020
    The Gujarat High Court (HC) has told the state Government to act against online gambling in accordance with the law. The court highlighted the need to amend the Gambling Act, enacted in 1887, to include online gambling within its ambit.
    The Judgement can be accessed at:
    https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-382760.pdf

JURISDICTION

  • Interdigital Technology v. Xiaomi Corporation & Ors
    Delhi High Court (HC) restrains Xiaomi from enforcing Anti-Suit injunction order by Wuhan’s Court against Interdigital Technology Corporation-9 October 2020
    The Delhi High Court (HC), has, restrained Chinese electronics entity, Xiaomi from enforcing an anti-suit injunction order passed by Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court against Interdigital Technology Corporation. “The order of the Wuhan Court, directly negates the jurisdiction of this Court, and infringes the authority of this Court to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with the laws of this country”, the High Court observed in the order. The Plaintiff herein, Interdigital Technology Corporation, had moved the High Court against infringement of its Standard Essential Patents (SEP) by Xiaomi. It was alleged that the Chinese company had been using its patented technology without entering into a licensing Agreement. The Wuhan Court restrained the Interdigital from filing lawsuits before any courts in either China or any other countries and regions requesting to adjudicate the royalty rate of the royalty disputes in terms of the 3G and 4G SEPs against Xiaomi. It also directed Interdigital Technology Corporation to immediately withdraw or suspend their application for any temporary injunction before the High Court of Delhi against Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Home Commercial Co., Ltd., and Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co., Ltd. as well as its affiliates in terms of the 3G and 4G SEPs involved in the case before Wuhan Court. Interdigital Technology Corporation then approached the Delhi High Court seeking an injunction against Xiaomi, restraining them from pursuing or enforcing the anti-suit injunction order. The High Court said that the operation of the Order of the Wuhan Court, would violate public policy in this county. The court also noticed that conditioning the continuance of the prosecution, by the plaintiffs, of the proceedings before it, with a penalty of about 1 crore per day, the Wuhan Court has effectively rendered it impossible for the plaintiff to continue to prosecute these proceedings. The Judge observed: “The inexorable sequitur is that this Court is also divested of the opportunity of adjudicating on the dispute, brought before it by the plaintiffs, which it has, otherwise, the jurisdiction to hear and decide. The order of the Wuhan Court, therefore, directly negates the jurisdiction of this Court, and infringes the authority of this Court to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with the laws of this country. It is not open to any Court to pass an order, prohibiting a court, in another country, to exercise jurisdiction lawfully vested in it. Any such decision would amount to a negation of jurisdiction, which cannot be countenanced.” The Court was of the opinion that in issuing an anti-enforcement injunction in case of Xiaomi, the court in India “does not interfere with the sovereign jurisdiction of a foreign judicial authority.” It emphasized, “It merely injuncts such enforcement, within its territories, of the order passed by the foreign judicial authority, by one of the parties before it, which divests the other party of a constitutional right, available to such other party under the laws of this country.”
    The Order can be accessed at:
    https://indiankanoon.org/doc/118671167/

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