“LAW MUST BE STABLE AND YET IT CANNOT STAND STILL”
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Global Infonet Distribution Pvt Ltd v. Lenovo (India) Private Limited & Ors
Separate arbitration agreements may be referred to joint arbitration in composite transactions – Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court held that disputes arising from separate agreements containing different arbitration clauses may still be referred to a joint arbitration if the agreements form part of a composite transaction.
The Court clarified the scope of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in multi-agreement commercial disputes.
The Order can be accessed at:
View Details
Nevada Properties Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra And Another
Police cannot seize immovable property under Section 102 CrPC – Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that police officers are not empowered to seize immovable property under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Court distinguished seizure of immovable property from attachment proceedings and clarified that title documents relating to such property may however be seized during investigation.
The Bench observed that seizure of immovable property would ordinarily require dispossession, which is not contemplated under Section 102 CrPC.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
Chandana Das (Malakar) v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Rights of minority educational institutions are subject to reasonable regulation – Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that rights guaranteed to minority educational institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution are not absolute and remain subject to reasonable regulatory measures.
The Court observed that admission policies and institutional administration may be regulated in public interest while preserving minority rights.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
Hemkunwar Bai v. Sumersingh & Ors
Witnesses to sale deeds and wills need not necessarily know contents of document – Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that attesting witnesses to sale deeds or wills are not required to know the detailed contents of the documents they witness.
The Court clarified that attestation primarily concerns witnessing execution of the document by the concerned parties.
The Order can be accessed at:
View Details
CORPORATE
PMT Machines Ltd v. The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi
IBC prevails over PMLA in insolvency resolution matters – PMLA Appellate Tribunal
The Appellate Tribunal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act held that provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code would prevail in matters concerning insolvency resolution of corporate debtors.
The Tribunal ordered release of properties attached by the Enforcement Directorate after finding no direct nexus with alleged criminal activities.
The Bench observed that continuation of attachment proceedings would obstruct timely insolvency resolution under the IBC.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd & Anr
Section 7 IBC applications governed by Article 137 of Limitation Act – Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that applications filed under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code are governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act for computation of limitation periods.
The Court clarified that the limitation period would ordinarily begin from the date of default.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
Sagar Sharma & Anr. v. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Date of commencement of IBC irrelevant for computation of limitation – Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reiterated that the date on which the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code came into force cannot serve as the trigger point for limitation in insolvency applications.
The Court held that Article 137 of the Limitation Act applies to applications filed under the IBC.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
R. G. Steels v. Berrys Auto Ancillaries (P) Ltd.
Sole proprietary concern not entitled to initiate insolvency proceedings under IBC – NCLT
The National Company Law Tribunal held that a sole proprietary concern does not qualify as a “person” under Section 3(23) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
The Tribunal therefore ruled that such proprietary concerns are not entitled to independently initiate insolvency proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority.
The Order can be accessed at:
View Details
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Tower and Infrastructure Providers Association (TAIPA) v. Indore Smart City Development Limited and Ors.
Right of way for telecom infrastructure is a State subject – Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the Smart Poles Project implemented under the Smart City Mission and ruled that right of way for telecom infrastructure pertains to land, which falls within the State List under the Constitution.
The Court further held that unsuccessful bidders who participated with full knowledge of tender conditions cannot subsequently challenge the same after losing the bidding process.
The Bench imposed costs upon the petitioners for delaying a project considered to be of substantial public importance.
The Order can be accessed at:
View Details
Subodh Gupta v. Herdsceneand & Ors.
Delhi High Court directs Facebook to reveal identity behind anonymous allegations
The Delhi High Court directed Facebook to disclose identity details of the administrator operating an Instagram account that carried allegations against artist Subodh Gupta.
The Court also directed Facebook and Google to remove allegedly defamatory online content concerning the petitioner.
The Bench observed that unverified allegations cannot continue circulating in the public domain without legal recourse.
The Order can be accessed at:
View Details
Amrish Agarwal v. Venus Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd.
Delhi High Court issues directions on mandatory documents in trademark infringement suits
The Delhi High Court issued detailed procedural directions regarding documents that must mandatorily accompany plaints filed in trademark infringement matters.
The Court emphasized the necessity of filing supporting trademark records and legal proceedings certificates to facilitate proper adjudication.
The Order can be accessed at:
View Details
