ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

• Ravi Setia v. Madan Lal & Ors.
  Specific Relief- Mere Extension of Time For Deposit Will Not Absolve Plaintiff Of Obligation To Prove Readiness & Willingness-4 October 2019 [Supreme Court Judgment]
  The Supreme Court has held that mere extension of time for deposit of balance sale consideration will not absolve the plaintiff of obligation to prove readiness and willingness to perform his part in an agreement for sale.
  The Judgement can be accessed at:
  https://sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2009/13945/13945_2009_13_1501_17297_Judgement_04-Oct2019.pdf
• Nusli Neville Wadia v. Ivory Properties & Ors.
  Supreme Court explains scope of “jurisdiction” under Section 9A of Code of Civil Procedure as applicable to Maharashtra-4 October 2019 [Supreme Court Judgment]
  The Supreme Court has explained the scope of the term “jurisdiction” under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as applicable to the State of Maharashtra. In the process, the Court affirmed the decision in Eknath Salunkhe v. Baburav Vishnu Javalkar in which it was held that word jurisdiction in Section 9A is used in a narrow sense as to maintainability, only on the question of inherent jurisdiction and does not contemplate issues of limitation. Thus, the Court overruled the decision in Foreshore Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. Praveen D. Desai (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others in which the Court had held that word jurisdiction in Section 9A is used in a broader sense and the question of limitation is synonym with jurisdiction, and if raised, the Court has to try it as a preliminary issue under Section 9A as applicable to the State of Maharashtra.
  The Judgement can be accessed at:
  https://sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2013/31835/31835_2013_4_1501_17289_Judgement_04-Oct2019.pdf

CORPORATE

• Lagadapati Ramesh v. Ramanathan Bhuvaneshwari
  NCLT cannot straight away direct probe into affairs of Corporate Debtor by SFIO-20 September 2019. [NCLAT Order)
  The NCLAT has held that the Adjudicating Authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016 i.e. National Company Law Tribunal has no power to straightaway order an investigation to be conducted into the affairs of a Corporate Debtor by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office in terms of Section 213 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Appellate Tribunal has clarified that the Adjudicating Authority can, after giving notice to the promoters etc of the Corporate Debtor and following the procedure as laid down in Section 213, refer the matter to the Central Government for investigation by the Inspector or Inspectors if prima facie case is made out. On such investigation, if any actionable material is made out and the Central Government feels that the matter requires investigation through SFIO, it may refer the matter to SFIO for investigation, the Appellate Tribunal has stated.
  The Order can be accessed at:
  https://nclat.nic.in/Useradmin/upload/13681712675d91a1bf4b1d2.pdf
  
• Action Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd. v. Shyam Metalics & Energy Limited & Ors.
  Winding Up Order is not irrevocable; Proceedings can be transferred later to NCLT under IBC-10 October 2019 [Delhi High Court Judgment]
  Delhi High Court has held that a winding up order passed by a Company Judge is not irrevocable and the proceedings can be later transferred to NCLT under IBC if the same is in the interest of the company and the creditors.
  The Judgement can be accessed at:
  http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/VSA/judgement/10-10-2019/VSA10102019COA112019.pdf
• Om Prakash Bhatt v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
  No Vicarious Liability under Criminal Law unless it is a part of the Statute; Bombay HC sets aside Summons issued to Directors of HUL-23 September 2019 [Bombay High Court Judgment]
  The Bombay High Court has held that there no vicarious liability in criminal law unless the statute takes it within its fold and set aside summons issued by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ballard Pier against Hindustan Unilever Limited and its Directors, for alleged non-compliance of certain provisions of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishment Act, 1948.
  The Judgement can be accessed at:
  https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-365515.pdf

COMPETITION LAW

• CCI approves Kora Master Fund LP investment of up to 10% ($75 million) in Edelweiss Securities Limited under sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Act-16 October 2019 [PIB Release]
  The Competition Commission of India has approved Kora Master Fund LP investment of up to 10% ($75 million) in Edelweiss Securities Limited under sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Competition Act, 2002.
  The summary of the Proposed Combination can be accessed at:
  https://www.cci.gov.in/sites/default/files/notice_order_summary_doc/C-2019-08-681.pdf

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

• Udaru Sarvotama Reddy v. State Bank of India & Ors.
  SBI to pay Rs. 1 Lakh to customer for wrongly debiting his Account despite failure of ATM Transaction-26 September 2019 [District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Order]
  The State Bank of India had been ordered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Hyderabad to pay compensation and litigation cost equal to Rs. 1,00,000 to one of its customers as his account got debited even on failure of his ATM transaction.
  The Order can be accessed at:
  https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-365369.pdf
• Subodh Gupta v. Herdsceneand & Ors.
  Delhi HC now directs Facebook to reveal identity of person behind anonymous sexual harassment allegations against Subodh Gupta-30 September 2019 [Delhi high court Order]
  Noting that Instagram has not submitted the particulars of the person behind an account which made series of anonymous sexual harassment allegations against artist Subodh Gupta, the Delhi High Court has now reportedly directed the owner of the social media platform, Facebook Inc to furnish such details to it in a sealed cover.
  The Order can be accessed at:
  http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=248035&yr=2019
• Ritesh Properties & Industries Ltd. v. Youtube LLC & Ors.
  None can be condemned publicly for sexual harassment without having an opportunity to defend-9 October 2019 [Delhi High Court Order]
  While expressing its opinion on instances of ex parte orders of injunction in cases pertaining to “character assassination” by unknown/anonymous persons on grounds of sexual harassment, the Delhi High Court has remarked that none can be condemned publicly without having an opportunity to defend him/her self.
  The Order can be accessed at:
  http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/RSE/judgement/12-10-2019/RSE09102019S5182019.pdf