Category: Supreme Court

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

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

We’re pleased to bring you a guest post by our former blogger Aparajita Lath. Aparajita is a lawyer based in Bangalore. She works in a law firm that advises technology companies. The views expressed in this post are personal. Her previous posts on the blog can be viewed here and here. Supreme Court’s S. 63

Monday May 23, 2022. BY | Commercial/Corporate The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and JK Maheshwari held in a recent judgment that the Duomatic Principle is applicable even in the Indian context which states that ‘Strict adherence to a statutory requirement may be dispensed with if it is demonstrated otherwise on facts if

Wednesday May 4, 2022. BY | Arbitration and Conciliation The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna held, in a recent judgment Arbitral Tribunal (“Tribunal”) cannot pass an interim order under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the “Act”) for depositing an amount in the dispute, if the liability

Thursday April 28, 2022. BY | Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose in the recent Judgement held that: – the wages or salaries of only such workmen/employees, who worked during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”), shall be included in the CIRP costs; and –

Thursday April 14, 2022. BY | Blog The Supreme Court, in a recent judgement, delivered on 30th March 2022, noted that apart from the grounds mentioned in Section 34(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2013 (the “Act”), an arbitral award can be set aside only when it is vitiated by patent illegality, and not

We’re pleased to bring you a guest post by Sangita Sharma, looking at the Supreme Court’s order in the trademark infringement case Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. Vijaya Sai and Others. Sangita is a 3rd Year student at Gujarat National Law University and has written for us earlier here. Clarifying or Confusing the Quandary of