AMBITION WITHIN OUR PROFESSION CLEARLY HAS THE POTENTIAL TO TAKE ON AN ADDICTIVE NATURE.
MIKE PAPANTINIO, AMERICAN LAWYER
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
- SSIPL Lifestyle Private Limited v. Vama Apparels (India) Private Limited & Anr
Sec.8 Arbitration and Conciliation Act applications are duly governed by Limitation Act: Delhi High Court (HC)
The Delhi High Court (HC) has held that the provision for filing written statements under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is governed by the law of limitation.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16K4Ns-FCcD3jdKW0oXKwSu2fWDgIm37f/view
CORPORATE
- K Virupaksha & Anr v. The State of Karnataka & Anr
Supreme Court (SC): Action taken by the Banks under the SARFAESI Act is neither unquestionable nor treated as sacrosanct
While quashing a case of fraud, the Supreme Court (SC) has observed that Action taken by the Banks under the SARFAESI Act is neither unquestionable nor treated as sacrosanct. The Supreme Court observed as under: We reiterate, the action taken by the Banks under the SARFAESI Act is neither unquestionable nor treated as sacrosanct under all circumstances but if there is discrepancy in the manner the Bank has proceeded it will always be open to assail it in the forum provided. Though in the instant case the application filed by the Complainant before the DRT has been dismissed and the Appeal No.523/2015 filed before the DRAT is also stated to be dismissed the appellants ought to have availed the remedy diligently. In that direction the further remedy by approaching the High Court to assail the order of DRT and DRAT is also available in appropriate cases. Instead the Petitioner after dismissal of the application before the DRT filed the impugned complaint which appears to be an intimidatory tactic and an afterthought which is an abuse of the process of law. In the matter of present nature if the grievance as put forth is taken note and if the same is allowed to be agitated through a complaint filed at this point in time and if the investigation is allowed to continue it would amount to permitting the jurisdictional police to redo the process which would be in the nature of reviewing the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench in the writ proceedings by the High Court and the orders passed by the competent Court under the SARFAESI Act which is neither desirable nor permissible and the banking system cannot be allowed to be held to ransom by such intimidation. Therefore, the present case is a fit case wherein the extraordinary power is necessary to be invoked and exercised”.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OZPnowNQbaw0T5tw_nx2JYO3wathO-ZC/view
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
- Zee Telefilms Ltd v. Suresh Productions
Supreme Court (SC) rules, no Civil Suit can be entertained unless there is a ‘Clear and unequivocal threat to Plaintiff’s Rights’,
The Supreme Court (SC) of India has observed that cause of action to a plaintiff to file a suit accrues when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe a right.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZZHVQX7RBQNipAloiQ1XhdGNE7n4V2_9/view
PROPERTY
- Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of India
Supreme Court (SC) on Virtual Currency: Since it has the capacity to replace real Money, it can’t be a mere Commodity, Reserve Bank of India (RBI) can regulate
The Supreme Court (SC), has allowed dealing in cryptocurrency, quashing an earlier ban imposed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on trading in virtual currencies such as Bitcoin. The Apex Court rejected the argument raised by the Petitioners that Virtual Currencies (VCs) were just goods/commodities which cannot be regarded as real money. It was contended that virtual currencies fell outside the regulatory framework of Reserve Bank of India.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PS9wypCdwVoDLFc7gLar2Fkdw-X3tQ_Q/view
