Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs A. Balakrishnan (Supreme Court) Facts- The present appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by NCLAT, thereby allowing the appeal filed by the respondent no. 1 – Director and reversing the order passed by NCLT, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was […]
SC held that Parties cannot rely upon the definitions of ‘terrorism’ in penal statutes since the Exclusion Clause contains an exhaustive definition.
SC held that when 90% or more of the creditors decide that it will be in the interest of all the stake¬holders to permit Settlement Plan filed by promoter of the Corporate Debtor and withdraw Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process as per Section 12A of IBC, 2016, NCLT or NCLAT cannot sit in appeal over such commercial wisdom of Committee of Creditors.
Safire Technologies Pvt. Ltd Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Supreme Court) An appeal against the order of NCLT shall be preferred within a period of 30 days from the date on which the order was passed by the NCLT. The Appellate Tribunal has the power to extend the period of limitation by another 15 days. […]
M. Ravindran Vs Intelligence Officer (Supreme Court of India) Can Default Bail be denied on filing of additional complaint subsequent to filing of Bail Application? In common legal parlance, the right to bail under the Proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) is commonly referred to as ‘default bail’ or […]
CIT LTU Vs Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (Supreme Court ) We have some reservations on the observation made in the impugned judgment that the Commissioner, while exercising the power of revision under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot examine an issue on merits. However, we are not inclined to issue […]
SC held Hindu Widow had pre-existing right to maintenance in suit property that had ripened into full ownership by virtue of Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
The MCI on the conduct of Respondent 1 leave no doubt in our mind that this is certainly a case of medical negligence leading to deficiency in his services. NCDRC, except referring to the general principles of law as laid down in the judgments of this Court has not attempted to draw its conclusion from the oral and documentary evidence available on record.
The short and interesting issue which arises in the present appeals is – whether conducting the arbitration proceedings at Delhi, owing to the appointment of a new arbitrator, would shift the ‘jurisdictional seat of arbitration’ from Panchkula in Haryana, the place fixed by the first arbitrator for the arbitration proceedings?
In view of the provisions of Section 14(1)(c) of the IBC, which have overriding effect over any other law, any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the Corporate Debtor in respect of its property including any action under the SARFAESI Act is prohibited. We are of the view that the appellant Bank could not have continued the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act once the CIRP was initiated and the moratorium was ordered.
