Alaya Legal

Orders and Judgments Duration June 23, 2019 – July 07, 2019

Home / Articles

Orders and Judgments Duration June 23, 2019 – July 07, 2019

“A RIGHT IS NOT WHAT SOMEONE GIVES YOU: IT’S WHAT NO ONE CAN TAKE FROM YOU.”

RAMSEY CLARK, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Chandan Gupta v. Supertech Limited

Builders cannot forfeit homebuyer money for cancellation due to project delay – NCDRC

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that builders cannot forfeit amounts paid by homebuyers when cancellation is sought because of unreasonable project delays.

The Commission directed Supertech to refund more than ₹1 crore to a buyer for delay in delivery of a residential property in Noida.

Vasavi Engineering College Parents Association v. State of Telangana and Others

Engineering college fee structure falls within TAFRC jurisdiction – Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that determination of engineering college fee structures falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Telangana Admissions and Fee Regulatory Committee (TAFRC).

The Court observed that High Courts cannot assume the role of appellate authorities over decisions taken by expert regulatory bodies.

The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details

ONGC Petro Additions Limited (OPaL) v. Tecnimont S.P.A and Another

Refusal to permit additional documents is not an interim award under Arbitration Act – Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court held that an arbitral tribunal’s refusal to permit production of additional documents does not amount to an “interim award”.

The Court clarified that such procedural orders cannot be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited v. Reynders Label Printing India Private Limited and Anr

Supreme Court declines to apply Group of Companies doctrine to foreign affiliate

The Supreme Court refused to implead a foreign company in arbitration proceedings by applying the “Group of Companies” doctrine.

The Court held that there was no clear intention shown through correspondence or contractual arrangements to bind the foreign affiliate to the arbitration agreement.

The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details

K. Chopra v. Registrar General Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court upholds mandatory filing of pleadings in English

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of rules requiring pleadings before the Court to be filed only in English.

The Court rejected challenges claiming inconsistency with the Delhi Official Languages Act, 2003.

The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details

Madhav Prasad Aggarwal & Anr v. Axis Bank Ltd & Anr

Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC can only be rejected in entirety – Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that a plaint cannot be partially rejected against certain defendants or specific portions alone.

The Court clarified that rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC must apply either to the entire plaint or not at all.

The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details

CORPORATE

Commissioner of Customs, (Preventive) West Bengal v. Ram Swarup Industries Ltd & Ors

Customs authorities cannot auction assets during insolvency moratorium – NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal dismissed a plea by customs authorities seeking auction of goods belonging to a company undergoing insolvency proceedings.

The Tribunal held that assets cannot be alienated during the moratorium period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details

Sudip Roy Choudhury v. JCIT (TDS)

Sudden resignation of accountant constitutes sufficient cause for TDS filing delay – ITAT

The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that delay in filing TDS returns caused by sudden resignation of the assessee’s accountant constituted sufficient cause.

The Tribunal granted relief considering the exceptional circumstances surrounding the default.

The Order can be accessed at:
View Details

Amira Pure Foods Private Limited v. Canara Bank and Ors

IBC moratorium does not remove DRAT powers to modify commissioner appointment – Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court held that moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC does not prevent the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal from recalling or modifying earlier orders appointing Court Commissioners.

The Court clarified limits of moratorium protections during insolvency proceedings.

The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details

M/s Urmila Devi Charitable Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)

Single doubtful donation cannot deny tax exemption to charitable trust – ITAT

The Delhi Bench of the ITAT held that tax exemption cannot be denied to a charitable trust merely because one donation received during a particular year is questioned.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence supporting allegations against the trust.

The Order can be accessed at:
View Details

Educomp Infrastructure & School Management Limited v. Mr Vinod Kumar Dandona & Ors

Unrelated parties not obligated to provide information under Section 19 IBC – NCLT

The National Company Law Tribunal held that Section 19 of the IBC obligates only persons connected with the corporate debtor or former management to cooperate with the Interim Resolution Professional.

The Tribunal clarified that unrelated third parties are not bound to furnish information under the provision.

The Order can be accessed at:
View Details

Rotomac Global Private Limited v. Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement

PMLA and IBC operate simultaneously without overriding each other – NCLAT

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal held that proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code can continue simultaneously.

The Tribunal clarified that neither statute overrides the other.

The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details

COMPETITION

Karni Communication Private Ltd & Karni Telnet Private Ltd v. Haicheng Vivo Mobile (India) Private Ltd

CCI dismisses anti-competitive practices complaint against Vivo distributor

The Competition Commission of India dismissed allegations that restrictions imposed by Vivo distributor Haicheng violated competition law.

The Commission observed that restrictions on online sales and distributor territories did not cause appreciable adverse effect on competition.

The Order can be accessed at:
View Details

Mr Nadie Jauhri v. Jalgaon District Medicine Dealers Association (JDMDA)

CCI penalises medicine dealers association for anti-competitive PIS charges

The Competition Commission of India imposed penalties on Jalgaon District Medicine Dealers Association and its office bearers for anti-competitive collection of Product Information Service charges.

The Commission held that mandatory PIS charges restricted supply of pharmaceutical products and violated Section 3 of the Competition Act.

The Order can be accessed at:
View Details

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Gopal Nagar Awasiya Welfare Association v. North MCD

No scientific evidence proving mobile towers hazardous to health – Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition challenging installation of a mobile tower in a residential locality.

The Court observed that no conclusive scientific evidence was produced showing that emissions from mobile towers are harmful to human health.

Advance Ruling Authority Kerala – Colortone Process Pvt Ltd

Printing images from digital media attracts 18% GST – AAR

The Kerala Advance Ruling Authority held that printing images from digital media attracts Goods and Services Tax at the rate of 18%.

The ruling clarified GST applicability on digital image printing services.

The Ruling can be accessed at:
View Details

PayPal India Operations PIL Matter

Delhi High Court seeks RBI and ED response regarding PayPal operations in India

The Delhi High Court issued notice to the RBI and PayPal in a PIL alleging unauthorized operation of PayPal Payments in India.

The petition alleged violations under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act and FEMA provisions.

Avatar

alayalegal

Most Recent Posts

Reach out

Category

Tags

Disclaimer

The Bar Council of India Rules do not permit law firms to solicit work or advertise. By clicking the ‘I Agree’ button, the Reader accepts that they are seeking information on their own accord. Alaya Legal shall in no way be responsible for any technical inaccuracies on this website, or for any actions taken or not taken based on the information contained herein or accessed through this website. Readers are advised to seek counsel from a qualified professional while dealing with specific issues.

By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as mentioned in this Cookie Policy .

The views appearing under various sections, including ‘Trending’, are solely those of the respective author. The author may be contacted by writing to Alaya Legal at contact@alayanew.instantlywebsite.com .

Nothing contained on this website shall be construed as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to obtain independent legal counsel for advice relating to their specific circumstances.