“MORAL PRINCIPLE IS THE FOUNDATION OF LAW.”
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Spentex Industries Ltd v. Louis Dreyfus Commodities India Pvt. Ltd
Arbitration venue cannot override exclusive jurisdiction agreed by parties – Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court held that merely specifying the venue of arbitration does not alter the intention of parties to vest exclusive jurisdiction in courts of a particular region.
The Court clarified principles governing jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
Read More
Shri Shashank Verma, Advocate v. Shri Atul Choudhary, Advocate
“Seat” and “Venue” of arbitration are not synonymous – Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court distinguished between the concepts of “seat” and “venue” in arbitration proceedings.
The Court observed that territorial jurisdiction may still arise based on cause of action even when arbitration venue is specified elsewhere.
The Order can be accessed at:
Read More
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd v. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola & Ors
Lawyer’s concession on mixed questions of fact and law not binding in appeal – Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that concessions made by lawyers on mixed questions of fact and law during arguments do not prevent parties from re-agitating those issues in appeal proceedings.
The Court protected substantive rights of litigants against unintended procedural concessions.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
Read More
Delhi Development Authority v. Virender Lal Bahri & Ors
Supreme Court refers interpretation of Section 24 Land Acquisition proviso to larger Bench
The Supreme Court referred to a larger Bench the issue of whether the proviso under Section 24 of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act applies to Section 24(1)(b) or Section 24(2).
The Court observed that interpreting the proviso under Section 24(2) may create legal anomalies.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd
Share capital transactions must be rigorously scrutinized – Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that assessees are under a legal obligation to satisfactorily prove genuineness of share capital and premium transactions.
The Court emphasized that unexplained share capital may be treated as unaccounted income.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
CORPORATE
Pramod Kumar Sharma v. IDBI Bank Limited
NCLT permits withdrawal from suspense account during CIRP
The Allahabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal permitted appropriation of amounts from a suspense account maintained by the bank despite ongoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process proceedings.
The Tribunal distinguished such accounts from ordinary corporate debtor accounts protected under moratorium provisions.
The Order can be accessed at:
Read More
Liberty House Group Pte. Ltd v. State Bank of India & Ors
IBC prevails over other civil and contractual laws – Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court upheld the supremacy of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code over conflicting contractual and civil law provisions.
The Court held that disputes governed by the IBC must primarily be adjudicated before NCLT and related authorities.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
COMPETITION
SoftBank – Delhivery Investment Approval Matter
CCI approves SoftBank acquisition of stake in Delhivery
The Competition Commission of India approved SoftBank’s acquisition of 22.44% stake in ecommerce logistics company Delhivery.
The approval also covered investment participation by Carlyle Group through preference shares.
The full article can be accessed at:
View Details
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Karnataka High Court Streaming Content Regulation Matter
Karnataka High Court issues notices regarding regulation of OTT platforms
The Karnataka High Court issued notices to streaming platforms including Netflix, YouTube, Hotstar and Amazon Prime in a PIL seeking regulation of online streaming content.
The petition requested creation of a censorship-style regulatory mechanism for digital content platforms.
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd v. Tata Communications Ltd
Quantum meruit claims unavailable where parties are governed by contract – Supreme Court
The Supreme Court clarified that claims under Section 70 of the Contract Act cannot be invoked when parties are already governed by a valid contract.
The Court held that quantum meruit principles apply only in quasi-contractual situations.
