“AMBITION WITHIN OUR PROFESSION CLEARLY HAS THE POTENTIAL TO TAKE ON AN ADDICTIVE NATURE.”
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
M/s Singal Udyog v. National Insurance Company Ltd & Ors
Consumer forums cannot decide merits after holding complaint barred by limitation – Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that once a Consumer Forum or Commission concludes that a complaint or appeal is barred by limitation, it cannot proceed to examine the merits of the matter.
The Court clarified that adjudication on merits after dismissal on limitation grounds would be legally unsustainable.
The Order can be accessed at:
View Details
Manik Lal Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Strict rules of evidence not mandatory in domestic enquiries – Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court reiterated that strict rules of evidence applicable in judicial proceedings are not required to be followed in domestic disciplinary enquiries.
The Court observed that findings in such enquiries are based on the principle of preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The Bench further held that disciplinary authorities may act so long as there exists some evidence supporting the charges.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
Pawan Kumar Yadav v. The State of Bihar
Environmental laws must be strictly implemented – Patna High Court
The Patna High Court observed that environmental laws require strict implementation in the modern world due to increasing ecological degradation.
The Court warned that non-compliance with environmental regulations is causing grave and irreversible consequences to nature.
The Bench emphasized that no laxity can be tolerated in enforcement of environmental protection measures.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
Dyna Technologies Pvt Ltd v. Crompton Greaves Ltd
Inadequate reasoning in arbitral award is ground for setting aside – Supreme Court
The Supreme Court set aside an arbitral award on the ground that it lacked adequate and intelligible reasoning.
The Court observed that an arbitral award passed without proper reasons becomes unintelligible and unsustainable in law.
The Bench examined the scope of Section 31(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which mandates that arbitral awards must disclose reasons supporting the conclusions reached.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
CORPORATE
T R Ravichandran, RP v. The Asst. Commissioner (ST)
Companies undergoing CIRP liable to pay taxes if run as going concern – NCLT
The National Company Law Tribunal held that companies undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process remain liable to pay taxes from the date of commencement of CIRP if the corporate debtor continues as a going concern.
The Tribunal clarified obligations of resolution professionals and corporate debtors regarding statutory tax liabilities during insolvency proceedings.
The Order can be accessed at:
View Details
Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd v. Tata Sons Ltd & Ors
NCLAT restores Cyrus Mistry as Executive Chairman of Tata Group
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal restored Cyrus Mistry as Executive Chairman of Tata Sons and set aside the decision of the NCLT Mumbai Bench upholding his removal.
The Appellate Tribunal granted Tata Sons four weeks’ time to challenge the decision before the Supreme Court.
The dispute arose from petitions filed by Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd and Sterling Investment Corporation challenging Mistry’s removal from the company.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
COMPETITION
CCI approves subscription of compulsorily convertible debentures of Piramal Enterprises by CDPQ
Competition Commission approves proposed investment in Piramal Enterprises
The Competition Commission of India approved subscription of compulsorily convertible debentures of Piramal Enterprises Limited by Canadian institutional investor Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec.
The proposed transaction would increase CDPQ’s equity shareholding in Piramal Enterprises from 3.68% to 8.99% upon conversion of the debentures.
The Release can be accessed at:
View Details
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
ORRA Fine Jewellery Private Limited v. TomTop Merchandise Private Limited & Ors
Bombay High Court restrains Chinese company from using ORRA trademark
The Bombay High Court granted interim injunction restraining a Chinese company and its Indian agent from selling jewellery products under the registered trademark “ORRA”.
The Court held that use of the mark amounted to trademark infringement and passing off against the established Indian jewellery brand.
The Order can be accessed at:
View Details
Google India Private Limited v. M/s Visakha Industries and Another
Google India cannot claim intermediary protection in pre-2009 defamation cases – Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that internet intermediaries such as Google India cannot claim protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act for defamatory content published prior to the 2009 amendment.
The Court directed that Google India must face trial in relation to publication of allegedly defamatory material.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
Tanul Thakur v. Union of India & Ors
Delhi High Court issues notice on plea challenging blocking of “Dowry Calculator” website
The Delhi High Court issued notice to the Central Government in a petition challenging blocking of the website “Dowry Calculator” under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act.
The petitioner argued that the website was intended as satire against dowry practices and that blocking it without notice violated principles of natural justice and freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a).
The Order can be accessed at:
View Details
Muncherji Nusserwanji Cama & Bombay Samachar Pvt Ltd v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr
Persons other than editor or publisher may be prosecuted for defamation if specific allegations exist – Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court held that individuals other than the reporter, editor, printer or publisher may also face defamation proceedings if the complaint contains specific allegations regarding their role.
The Court observed that prosecution can continue where allegations establish personal involvement, knowledge or intention relating to publication of defamatory material.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
