“JUSTICE DENIED ANYWHERE DIMINISHES JUSTICE EVERYWHERE.”
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Deccan Paper Mills Co Ltd v. Regency Mahavir Properties & Ors
Cancellation of written instruments under Specific Relief Act is arbitrable – 19 August 2020
The Supreme Court held that an action for cancellation of written instruments under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act is an action in personam and therefore arbitrable.
The Court clarified that such proceedings are restricted to parties to the instrument and persons claiming derivative title from them, and are not proceedings in rem.
The Court overruled earlier contrary observations in Alien Developers and held that cancellation under Section 31 does not bind the whole world.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
Avitel Post Studioz Limited & Ors v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Limited
Supreme Court lays down tests for ‘fraud exception’ to arbitrability – 19 August 2020
The Supreme Court clarified principles governing serious allegations of fraud in arbitration matters.
The Court held that allegations such as impersonation, diversion of funds and false representations between parties do not automatically render disputes non-arbitrable.
The Court observed that the arbitration clause remains independent and enforceable unless fraud directly affects the arbitration agreement itself.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
Government of India v. Vedanta Limited (Formerly Cairn India Ltd) & Ors
Supreme Court examines application of Malaysian law in foreign arbitral award – 24 August 2020
The Supreme Court appointed an amicus curiae to assist on issues relating to enforcement of a Malaysian arbitral award concerning Ravva oil fields.
The Court examined whether Malaysian courts were justified in applying Malaysian law despite the Production Sharing Contract being governed by Indian law.
The Court observed that Indian courts must independently determine whether enforcement of the foreign award violates Indian public policy.
The Order can be accessed at:
View Details
COMPETITION & UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE
Harshita Chawla v. WhatsApp Inc & Facebook Inc
CCI rejects complaint alleging misuse of dominance by WhatsApp Pay – 18 August 2020
The Competition Commission of India dismissed allegations that WhatsApp abused its dominant position to enter the digital payments market.
The Commission observed that WhatsApp Pay held less than one percent market share in the UPI payments ecosystem and there was no evidence of coercion or anti-competitive conduct.
The CCI further stated that users remained free to choose among several competing UPI-enabled payment applications.
The Order can be accessed at:
View Details
CORPORATE
Cygnus Investments and Finance Pvt Ltd & Anr v. The Union of India & Ors
Calcutta High Court strikes down NCLT order mandating financial information utility records – 18 August 2020
The Calcutta High Court struck down an NCLT order that made filing of Information Utility records mandatory before initiating insolvency proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC.
The Court observed that the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code permits reliance on multiple forms of evidence to establish financial debt and default.
The Court clarified that submission of information to Information Utilities is not mandatory for all financial creditors.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
Mrs Rita Kapur v. Invest Care Real Estate LLP and Others
No corporate insolvency proceedings once debt is converted into capital – 2 September 2020
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal held that insolvency proceedings cannot be initiated on the basis of debt converted into equity or capital.
The Tribunal observed that investments do not automatically qualify as financial debt under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Halvi K S v. The State of Kerala and Others
Kerala High Court dismisses PIL seeking restrictions on media trials – 20 August 2020
The Kerala High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking formulation of guidelines to restrict media trials in matters of public interest.
The Court declined to interfere with media reporting through judicial guidelines in the absence of specific legal violations.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd & Anr v. Amul Franchise.in & Ors
Delhi High Court grants legal protection to Amul against fraudulent websites – 28 August 2020
The Delhi High Court issued a blanket injunction restraining domain registrars from selling domain names containing “Amul” as prefix or suffix.
The order followed complaints regarding fraudulent websites impersonating Amul and offering fake jobs, dealership and franchise opportunities.
The Court restrained registrars including GoDaddy, NameCheap and BigRock from allowing such deceptive domain registrations.
Netflix Entertainment Services India LLP v. Sahara India & Ors
Supreme Court declines plea against restraint on Netflix series – 2 September 2020
The Supreme Court refused to entertain Netflix’s plea challenging a lower court order restraining use of Sahara Group chief Subrata Roy’s name in the web series “Bad Boy Billionaires”.
The Court questioned Netflix for directly approaching the Supreme Court against the lower court order.
The Order can be accessed at:
View Details
CONTRACTS
Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and Ors v. DLF Southern Homes Pvt Ltd
Flat buyers entitled to reasonable compensation for delay in possession – Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that failure by a developer to hand over possession within the stipulated contractual period amounts to deficiency in service.
The Court observed that consumer forums can award just and reasonable compensation irrespective of restrictive clauses contained in builder agreements.
The Court also noted the one-sided nature of apartment buyer agreements drafted primarily to protect builders.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
PROPERTY
Nazir Mohamed v. J Kamala and Others
Presumption that possession follows title applies only in absence of proof of possession – Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that the presumption based on the principle “possession follows title” arises only where there is no clear proof of possession by another person.
The Court clarified that a plaintiff seeking possession must independently establish entitlement and compliance with limitation laws.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
MOTOR VEHICLES
State of M P v. Rakesh Sethi
State Governments can charge fees for special vehicle registration numbers – Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that State Governments are empowered to prescribe fees for reserving special or distinctive motor vehicle registration numbers.
The Court observed that assignment of distinctive registration marks constitutes a separate service for which prescribed fees may lawfully be collected.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
