MINI SUMMARY: An appeal was preferred before the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “NCLAT”) against an order dated 29.08.2017 passed by the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “NCLT”) in the case of Vijay Nirman Company Private Limited ( hereinafter referred to as, “the Respondent”) vs. Ksheeraabd… Read More Proceedings Pending under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Concialiation Act 1996 does not Constitute a ‘Dispute’ under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and Cannot Come in the Way of the Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process as Envisaged Under Section 9 of the Code.
Landmark Judgements 1. The Supreme Court of India, in Indira Jaising vs. Supreme Court of India, Through Secretary General and Others, has held that the designation of ‘Advocates’ as ‘Senior Advocates’ as provided for in Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, would pass the test of constitutionality and the endeavour should be to lay… Read More Lexis®India Newsletter • Issue 3 • February 2018
MINI SUMMARY: A Suit was filed by GMR Energy Limited (hereinafter referred to as “GMR”), before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi wherein GMR was seeking a permanent injunction against Doosan Power India Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the “Doosan Power”) to restrain it from instituting or continuing with the arbitration proceeding before the Singapore… Read More An Arbitral Tribunal has the Power to Pierce the Corporate Veil and there is no Bar on Indian Parties in Choosing a Foreign Seat of Arbitration
Landmark Judgements 1. The Supreme Court of India, in Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadia vs. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya (Deceased), Through LRs and Others, has held that there is no bar for filing the application under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC, even when the application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code was dismissed as not… Read More Lexis®India Newsletter • Issue 2 • January 2018
Landmark Judgements 1. The Supreme Court of India, in State of Maharashtra and Another vs. Kishor M. Gadhave Patil and Others, has held that the interest of justice would be fully met if the cancellation order is held to have been passed under to Rule 30(6) of Maharashtra Law Officers (Appointments, Conditions of Service and… Read More Lexis®India Newsletter • Issue 1 • January 2018
Mini Summary Appeals filed under Section 37(1)(a) of the Act in High Court- against impugned order of NCDRC dismissing reference under Section 8 of the Act- held not maintainable- as High Court not authorized to hear appeals from orders of NCDRC in exercise of its original jurisdiction. News Update: In the recent judgment of Emaar… Read More Appeal Under Section 37 (1) (A) Against Order of NCDRDC Not Maintainable In High Court.
Landmark Judgements 1. The Madras High Court, in A. Ranganayaki and Another vs. Chief Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003 and Another, has held that the learned Single Judge was not correct in dismissing the writ petition filed by the Appellants on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. [(2017) 8 MLJ… Read More Lexis®India Newsletter • Issue 24 • December 2017
Landmark Judgements 1. The Supreme Court of India, in Bijoy Sinha Roy (D) By Lr. vs. Biswanath Das and Others, has held that National Commission was justified in holding that decision to perform surgery may not by itself be held to be medical negligence. [(2017) 8 MLJ 171 : LNINDORD 2017 SC 14120] Read more 2.… Read More Lexis®India Newsletter – Issue 23 • December 2017
Landmark Judgements 1. The Supreme Court of India, in Raptakos, Brett and Co. Ltd. vs. Ganesh Property, has held that the possession of the Appellant-Company for the period under consideration, pursuant to orders passed by the High Court and this Court, cannot in any view be considered as illegal or unauthorized or that of a… Read More Lexis®India Newsletter • Issue 22 • November 2017
Mini Summary Appeal to the Supreme Court arose against the order of the High Court which had held that the Arbitral Tribunal can recall its own order given under Section 25(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996,-The Arbitral Tribunal had terminated the Arbitration proceedings after the Claimant failed to submit the Statement of Claim… Read More An Arbitral Tribunal has the Inherent Power to Recall Its Order of Termination in the Event of Default in Filing the Statement of Claim under Section 25(A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996