1. Vijay Kumar Jain v. Standard Chartered Bank
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Sections 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, 60, 61, 62 - The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 - Regulations 19, 21, 24, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016 - Regulations 7 - National Company Law Appellate Tribunal - “information memorandum” - Committee of Creditors - Meeting of Committee of Creditors - Duties of Resolution Professional - Preparation of Information Memorandum - Submission of Resolution Plan - Approval of Resolution Plan - Adjudicating Authority for Corporate Persons - Appeals and Appellate Authority - Appeal to Supreme Court - Notice for meetings of the committee - Contents of the notice for meeting - Conduct of meeting - Fair value and Liquidation value - Mandatory contents of the resolution plan - Certificate of registration - Former members of the Board of Directors - Discussed.
A resolution plan which has been approved or rejected by an order of the Adjudicating Authority, has to be sent to “participants” which would include members of the erstwhile Board of Directors – vide Regulation 39(5) of the CIRP Regulations. Obviously, such copy can only be sent to participants because they 35 are vitally interested in the outcome of such resolution plan, and may, as persons aggrieved, file an appeal from the Adjudicating Authority’s order to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 61 of the Code. Quite apart from this, Section 60(5)(c) is also very wide, and a member of the erstwhile Board of Directors also has an independent right to approach the Adjudicating Authority, which must then hear such person before it is satisfied that such resolution plan can pass muster under Section 31 of the Code.
It is also important to note that every participant is entitled to a notice of every meeting of the committee of creditors. Such notice of meeting must contain an agenda of the meeting, together with the copies of all documents relevant for matters to be discussed and the issues to be voted upon at the meeting vide Regulation 21(3)(iii). Obviously, resolution plans are “matters to be discussed” at such meetings, and the erstwhile Board of Directors are “participants” who will discuss these issues. The expression “documents” is a wide expression which would certainly include resolution plans.
Citations : JT 2019 (2) SC 583 : 2019 (2) SCALE 352
Case Number : C.A. No. 8430 of 2018 31-01-2019
Case Number : C.A. No. 8430 of 2018 31-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : A. Venayagam Balan
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman
2. Mahadev P. Kambekar v. Shree Krishna Woolen Mills
The Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 - Section 41 - Counter claim is not maintainable - Whether it is a suit between the licensor and the licensee or between the landlord and the tenant, such types of suits fall under Section 41 of the Small Cause Courts Act and are, therefore, cognizable by the Courts of Small Causes.
Citations : 2019 (2) SCALE 345
Case Number : C.A. No. 5753 - 5754 of 2011 31-01-2019
Case Number : C.A. No. 5753 - 5754 of 2011 31-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : E.C. Agrawala
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subash Reddy
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
3. N. Sankaranarayanan v. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board
Constitution of India - Article 226 and 227 - A dispute inter se private parties of the nature could not be allowed to be raised in the writ petition for seeking issuance of mandamus against the State and its authorities in relation to the properties in question.
No writ petition can be entertained for issuance of any writ against any private individual in respect of any private property dispute. The remedy in such case lies in civil Courts. The questions such as, who is the owner of the land in question, whether the land in question was let out and, if so, when, why and for what purpose, who had the right to let out the said land, what was the arrangements, if any, made in the memorandum of settlement in relation to the land in question inter se members of the family, whether it was breached or not and, if so, by whom, what activities are being carried on the said land and, if so, by whom, whether such activities are legal or illegal etc. are not the questions which can be raised by any private individual against other private individual in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The parties, therefore, will be at liberty to take recourse to all judicial remedies, as may be available to them in law, for adjudication of their respective grievances in appropriate judicial forum against each other. Similarly, it is for the State authorities to see as to whether any person(s) has/have contravened or/and is/are contravening any provision(s) of any Act or Rules or Regulations or Statutory Schemes in any manner while using the properties and, if so, what action is called for qua such persons and against the activities carried on by such person(s) in law.
No writ petition can be entertained for issuance of any writ against any private individual in respect of any private property dispute. The remedy in such case lies in civil Courts. The questions such as, who is the owner of the land in question, whether the land in question was let out and, if so, when, why and for what purpose, who had the right to let out the said land, what was the arrangements, if any, made in the memorandum of settlement in relation to the land in question inter se members of the family, whether it was breached or not and, if so, by whom, what activities are being carried on the said land and, if so, by whom, whether such activities are legal or illegal etc. are not the questions which can be raised by any private individual against other private individual in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The parties, therefore, will be at liberty to take recourse to all judicial remedies, as may be available to them in law, for adjudication of their respective grievances in appropriate judicial forum against each other. Similarly, it is for the State authorities to see as to whether any person(s) has/have contravened or/and is/are contravening any provision(s) of any Act or Rules or Regulations or Statutory Schemes in any manner while using the properties and, if so, what action is called for qua such persons and against the activities carried on by such person(s) in law.
Citations : JT 2019 (1) SC 607 : 2019 (2) SCALE 341
Case Number : C.A. No. 7390 - 7391 of 2009 31-01-2019
Case Number : C.A. No. 7390 - 7391 of 2009 31-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Prabha Swami
Respondent's Advocate : S. Rajappa
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
4. Rajendra Lalitkumar Agrawal v. Ratna Ashok Muranjan
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Substantial Question of Law - Interpretation of any terms and conditions of a document constitutes a substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code. It is more so when both the parties admit the document.
Citations : JT 2019 (2) SC 93 : 2019 (2) SCALE 338
Case Number : C.A. No. 1331 of 2019 31-01-2019
Case Number : C.A. No. 1331 of 2019 31-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Bharti Tyagi
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
5. Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export
Land Law - Mutation in the Revenue Records pertaining to any Land - What is its legal value while deciding the rights of the parties - Mutation of a land in the revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over such land nor it has any presumptive value on the title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question.
Citations : JT 2019 (2) SC 92 : 2019 (2) SCALE 336
Case Number : C.A. No. 1330 of 2019 31-01-2019
Case Number : C.A. No. 1330 of 2019 31-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : E.C. Agrawala
Respondent's Advocate : Asha Gopalan Nair
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subash Reddy
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
In deciding the question whether requisite leave should or should not be granted, the High Court must apply its mind, consider whether a prima facie case has been made out or arguable points have been raised and not whether the order of acquittal would or would be set aside. It cannot be laid down as an abstract proposition of law of universal application that each and every petition seeking leave to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal recorded by a trial court must be allowed by the appellate court and every appeal must be admitted and decided on merits.
Referred : State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar, (2008) 9 SCC 475
Citations : 2019 (2) SCALE 775
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 799 of 2010 31-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar
Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 138 of 2010 31-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Charu Mathur
Respondent's Advocate : R. Gopalakrishnan
Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi
6. The State of Maharashtra v. Shankar Ganapati Rahatol
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 (3) - The Indian Penal Code, 186- Sections 143, 147, 323 read with 149, 325 and Sections 143, 147, 307, 324, 427, 504, 395, 325, 337, 452 read with 149, 325 - The Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Section 135 - Cross Complaint - Acquittal - High Court declined leave to appeal - Hence this appeal by the State - The reason for rejecting the application for leave to appeal run contrary to evidence on record - Prima facie, a case is made out by the State for grant of leave to prefer appeal against the judgment and order.In deciding the question whether requisite leave should or should not be granted, the High Court must apply its mind, consider whether a prima facie case has been made out or arguable points have been raised and not whether the order of acquittal would or would be set aside. It cannot be laid down as an abstract proposition of law of universal application that each and every petition seeking leave to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal recorded by a trial court must be allowed by the appellate court and every appeal must be admitted and decided on merits.
Referred : State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar, (2008) 9 SCC 475
Citations : 2019 (2) SCALE 775
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 799 of 2010 31-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar
Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
7. Kalua @ Koshal Kishore v. The State of Rajasthan
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 read with Section 34 - Upon appreciation of evidence of the eye-witnesses and other materials adduced by the prosecution, the Trial Court as well as the High Court recorded the concurrent findings that the evidence of PW-9 and PW-12 are unassailable and do not find any ground warranting interference with the concurrent findings of the Trial court and the High Court.Case Number : Crl.A. No. 138 of 2010 31-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Charu Mathur
Respondent's Advocate : R. Gopalakrishnan
Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi
8. Cantonment Board v. Gajraj Singh
The Cantonment Act, 1924 - Section 60 - Jurisdiction and Authority of the Cantonment Board to impose and levy toll tax - Following the enactment of Cantonment Act, 2006 the Cantonment Board would be authorized to impose the levy as per Section 67(e) of the Cantonment Act, 2006.
Citations : 2019 (2) SCALE 442
Case Number : C.A. No. 2541 of 2006 31-01-2019
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi
For Parties: Mr. Aman Lekhi, ASG [N/P] Mrs. Rekha Pandey, AOR Ms. Smriti Kumari, Adv. Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, AOR Mr. N. Sai Vinod, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Baijal, Adv. Mr. Divyanshu Rai, Adv. Mr. Naveen Hegde, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, AOR Mr. N. Sai Vinod, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Baijal, Adv. Mr. Divyanshu Rai, Adv. Mr. Naveen Hegde, Adv. Mrs. Rani Chhabra, AOR Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, AOR Mr. Aman Lekhi, ASG [N/P] Mr. A. K. Sanghi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukul Singh, Adv. Mr. V. Balaji, Adv. Mr. A.K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Ms. Neetica Sharma, Adv. for M/s M. V. Kini & Associates, AOR Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, AOR Mr. Punya Garg, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Jain, Adv. Ms. Anusha Agarwal, Adv.
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi
For Parties: Mr. Aman Lekhi, ASG [N/P] Mrs. Rekha Pandey, AOR Ms. Smriti Kumari, Adv. Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, AOR Mr. N. Sai Vinod, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Baijal, Adv. Mr. Divyanshu Rai, Adv. Mr. Naveen Hegde, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, AOR Mr. N. Sai Vinod, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Baijal, Adv. Mr. Divyanshu Rai, Adv. Mr. Naveen Hegde, Adv. Mrs. Rani Chhabra, AOR Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, AOR Mr. Aman Lekhi, ASG [N/P] Mr. A. K. Sanghi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukul Singh, Adv. Mr. V. Balaji, Adv. Mr. A.K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Ms. Neetica Sharma, Adv. for M/s M. V. Kini & Associates, AOR Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, AOR Mr. Punya Garg, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Jain, Adv. Ms. Anusha Agarwal, Adv.