Image by Freepik Today India marks the 74th year since it adopted the Constitution and identified itself as a “Republic”! This day celebrates the ability of our nation, bogged by colonial setup, to overcome the past and establish itself as the largest democracy in the world with perhaps the most diverse population. In a very... Continue Reading.
In this post our SpicyIP intern, Gaurangi Kapoor writes on the recently launched e-SCR platform, highlighting its key features. Gaurangi completed her LLM in IP and Technology law from Jindal Global Law School in 2022. Her current areas of interest are copyright, design and artificial intelligence. Access to any Supreme Court Case: Just a Few... Continue Reading.
We’re pleased to bring to our readers a guest post by Akshat Agrawal on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kaushal Kishor v. State of U.P. Akshat is an LLM student at Berkeley Law specialising in IP policy. He is a graduate of Jindal Global Law School and has previously clerked at the Delhi High Court.... Continue Reading.
Table of Contents hide Background The diversity of India is very typical. From the times of the Indus Valley civilisation to modern-day India, the subcontinent witnessed an explosion of cultures, religions, and languages. Various rulers and kingdoms came and ruled the subcontinent, making significant changes thereby. But, like every other civilisation of the world, what... Continue Reading.
Tuesday November 8, 2022. BY | Arbitration and Conciliation The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its landmark judgment dated 31st October 2022 clarified that the Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSMED Act, 2006”) is a special law. It has an effect overriding the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”).... Continue Reading.
Monday October 31, 2022. BY Mr. Chitrang Gamot and Ms.Nidhi Singh | Blog The Hon’ble Supreme Court recently held that the order passed by Industrial Tribunal. is binding. The views of Industrial Tribunal being higher forum attains finality and no contrary view can be taken by the Labour Court to such findings. In the present... Continue Reading.
Friday September 23, 2022. BY Madhura Rane, Umang Shirodariya | Insolvency & Bankruptcy The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Tech Sharp Engineers Private Limited v. Sanghvi Movers Limited (Civil Appeal No. 296 of 2020), on September 19, 2022, held “a claim may not be barred by limitation, it is the remedy for realisation of such claim... Continue Reading.
Findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: The Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that timeline stipulated under Regulation 12 of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 for submission of claims is directory and not mandatory, and thereby rejected the view of the Hon’ble NCLT and NCLAT and held that such a rejection on mere delay was unsustainable in law. After perusal of Sections 30(2), 31(1) and 61(3) of the IBC and by relying on Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd, and Ebix Singapore Private Limited v. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Limited and Anr., the Hon’ble Supreme Court established that the mandatory requirement under Section 30(2) of the IBC, is a condition precedent for approval of a Resolution Plan. As such, a Resolution Plan which is not in conformity with Section 30(2) cannot be approved and may be rejected using discretionary powers of the Adjudicating Authority derived from Section 31(2) after conscious application of mind to facts and circumstances at hand. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, threw light on the well settled principle of interpretation of statues and reiterated that the expression “may”, if circumstances so demand can be construed as “shall”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vehemently condemned a Resolution Plan that does not take into consideration statutory dues payable to the State or any legal authority by stating that: “52. If the Resolution Plan ignores the statutory demands payable to any State Government or a Legal authority, altogether, the Adjudicating Authority is bound to reject the Resolution Plan. …54. In our considered view, the Committee of Creditors, which might include financial institutions and other financial creditors, cannot secure their own dues at the cost of statutory dues owed to any Government or Read More... Continue Reading.
While underscoring that the preventive detention law “strikes hard on the freedom and liberty of an individual, and cannot be exercised in a routine manner”, the Supreme Court in an extremely laudable, learned, landmark and latest judgment titled Shaik Nazneen vs The State of Telangana... Continue Reading.
Monday June 6, 2022. BY | Insolvency & Bankruptcy A Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and A.S. Bopanna, in Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. A. Balakrishna and Anr (Civil Appeal No. 689 of 2021), affirmed the view taken in Dena Bank v. C. Shivakumar Reddy ((2021) 10 SCC 330), and... Continue Reading.