“HE THAT LOVES THE LAW WILL GET HIS FILL OF IT.”
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
SJ Biz Solution Pvt Ltd v. M/s Sany Heavy Industry India
Only the High Court having territorial jurisdiction over chosen arbitration seat can entertain Section 11 petition – 1 October 2020
The Orissa High Court held that when parties agree upon a specific place of arbitration, only the High Court exercising territorial jurisdiction over that place can entertain applications under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Court relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Limited and observed that party autonomy under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act must be respected.
The Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable for lack of territorial jurisdiction.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
COMPETITION & UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE
Competition Commission of India approves acquisition of shares in CG Power and Industrial Solutions Limited by Tube Investments of India Limited
CCI approves acquisition of controlling stake in CG Power – 14 October 2020
The Competition Commission of India approved acquisition of more than 50% equity share capital of CG Power and Industrial Solutions Limited by Tube Investments of India Limited.
The Release can be accessed at:
View Details
Competition Commission of India approves acquisition of solar energy generation assets of Adani Green Energy Ten Limited by Adani Green Energy Twenty-Three Ltd
CCI approves solar energy asset acquisition under Competition Act – 14 October 2020
The Competition Commission of India approved acquisition of solar energy generation assets of Adani Green Energy Ten Limited by Adani Green Energy Twenty-Three Ltd under Section 31(1) of the Competition Act, 2002.
The acquiring entity was noted to be a joint venture controlled by Total Solar Singapore Pte. Ltd. and Adani Green Energy Limited.
The Release can be accessed at:
View Details
CORPORATE
Anup Sushil Dubey v. National Agriculture Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd
Lease rentals from cold storage operations qualify as ‘Operational Debt’ – 7 October 2020
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal held that lease rentals arising out of use and occupation of a cold storage unit constitute operational debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
The Judgment can be accessed at:
View Details
Kridhan Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. Venkatesan Sankaranarayan & Ors
Liquidation of Corporate Debtor should be a matter of last resort – 9 October 2020
The Supreme Court observed that the objective of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is resolution of corporate insolvency and not mere recovery of money.
The Court emphasized that liquidation should always be treated as a last resort after all efforts for revival are exhausted.
The Order can be accessed at:
View Details
Madhusudan Tantia v. Amit Choraria & Foseco India Limited
Revised ₹1 crore insolvency threshold applies prospectively – 12 October 2020
The NCLAT held that the revised default threshold of ₹1 crore for initiation of corporate insolvency proceedings applies prospectively from March 24, 2020.
The Tribunal clarified that the revised threshold does not apply retrospectively to defaults committed before the notification date.
The Judgment can be accessed at:
View Details
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Amit M Nair v. State of Gujarat
Gujarat High Court calls for legal reforms to address online gambling – 29 September 2020
The Gujarat High Court directed the State Government to take action against online gambling in accordance with law.
The Court highlighted the need to amend the Gambling Act of 1887 to specifically include online gambling activities within its scope.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
JURISDICTION
Interdigital Technology v. Xiaomi Corporation & Ors
Delhi High Court restrains Xiaomi from enforcing Wuhan Court anti-suit injunction – 9 October 2020
The Delhi High Court restrained Xiaomi from enforcing an anti-suit injunction order issued by the Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court against Interdigital Technology Corporation.
The Court observed that the Wuhan Court order directly interfered with the jurisdiction of Indian courts and violated public policy.
The High Court further held that no foreign court can prohibit an Indian court from exercising jurisdiction lawfully vested in it.
The Order can be accessed at:
View Details
