“WHATEVER YOU SAY, SAY IT WITH CONVICTION”
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
N Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu
Mere recovery of currency notes from public servant does not constitute offences under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act – 3 February 2021
The Supreme Court observed that mere recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to establish an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Court held that to prove the offence, it must be established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
Surender Kumar Singhal & Ors v. Arun Kumar Bhalotia & Ors
Jurisdictional objection under Section 16 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act has to be raised at inception with sense of alacrity – 25 March 2021
The Delhi High Court observed that jurisdictional objections under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act must be raised at the earliest possible stage.
The Court further stated that such objections should be decided by the arbitral tribunal with urgency and promptness.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
COMPETITION & UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE
Competition Commission of India directs probe into WhatsApp privacy policy
CCI terms new WhatsApp policy ‘exploitative’ – 24 March 2021
The Competition Commission of India launched an investigation into WhatsApp’s new privacy policy while observing prima facie contravention of the Competition Act.
The CCI noted that the policy update reflected exploitative and exclusionary conduct and directed the Director General to conduct an investigation within 60 days.
The Order can be accessed at:
View Details
Air Cargo Agents Association of India v. International Air Transport Association
CCI closes a nine-year-old case against IATA – 31 March 2021
The Competition Commission of India closed a long-pending case against the International Air Transport Association after finding no violation of competition laws.
The allegations related to anti-competitive practices concerning cargo agency conferences and cargo settlement systems.
The Order can be accessed at:
View Details
CORPORATE
M/S A G Construction Co v. Food Corporation of India and Ors
Partner can’t call firm’s experience as his – 10 February 2021
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that experience gained jointly by a partnership firm cannot be independently claimed by one of its partners.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
M/s Kripa Cashew Exports v. M/s Royals International Trade and Allied Products Pvt Ltd
Only debts covered under definition of ‘Operational Debt’ can file application under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – 18 March 2021
The NCLT Kochi Bench ruled that only debts qualifying as operational debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code can form the basis of an application under Section 9.
The Tribunal clarified that the claim must satisfy the definitions of claim, debt, and operational debt under the IBC.
The Order can be accessed at:
View Details
Sesh Nath Singh & Anr v. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd and Anr
Section 14 Limitation Act applies to application under Section 7 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – 22 March 2021
The Supreme Court held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act applies to proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
The Court observed that time spent pursuing remedies before an incorrect forum can be excluded while computing limitation.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
Laxmi Pat Surana v. Union Bank Of India
Principal Borrower need not be ‘Corporate Person’ for Insolvency Process to be initiated against Corporate Guarantor – 26 March 2021
The Supreme Court ruled that insolvency proceedings can be initiated against a corporate guarantor even if the principal borrower is not a corporate person.
The Court observed that the liability of the guarantor is coextensive with that of the principal borrower under Section 128 of the Contract Act.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Toman Lal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Phone tapping violates Article 21 unless permitted by Procedure Established by Law – 26 March 2021
The Chhattisgarh High Court observed that telephonic interception and recorded conversations cannot be relied upon unless proper legal procedures are followed.
The Court noted that no departmental enquiry was conducted and proper verification of electronic evidence under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act was not carried out.
The Court further observed that dismissal orders based solely on unverified recorded conversations violated procedural safeguards.
The Order can be accessed at:
View Details
