Category: Supreme Court

Wednesday March 1, 2023. BY Arbitration Team | Arbitration and Conciliation The Hon’ble Supreme Court (the SC) in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Afcons Gunanusa JV[1] settled law on applicability of the Fourth Schedule (“the Schedule”) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”)and in view of the same, imposed a ceiling

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

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

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.

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

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”).

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

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

                    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