Companies Act, 1956

Supreme Court Allows Secured Creditors to File Winding Up Petitions After DRT Decree: Swaraj Infrastructure vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank (29 January 2019)

/ Companies Act, 1956, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 434, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 439, Judges, Jurisdiction of DRT, Navin Sinha, Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 with Section 47, R.F. Nariman, Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 with Section 18, Winding Up

Supreme Court Allows Secured Creditors to File Winding Up Petitions After DRT Decree LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a secured creditor can initiate a winding-up petition against a company after obtaining a decree and recovery certificate from the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law, Company Law Case Name: Swaraj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kotak Mahindra […]

Supreme Court Allows Secured Creditors to File Winding Up Petitions After DRT Decree: Swaraj Infrastructure vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank (29 January 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the interplay between Winding-Up Petitions and IBC Proceedings: Forech India Ltd. vs. Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. (22 January 2019)

/ Companies Act, 1956, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 433, Companies Act, 2013, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 434, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 238, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, Navin Sinha, Rohinton F. Nariman, Winding-up

Supreme Court Clarifies the interplay between Winding-Up Petitions and IBC Proceedings: Forech India Ltd. vs. Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: The interplay between winding-up petitions filed under the Companies Act and insolvency proceedings initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Forech India Ltd. vs.

Supreme Court clarifies the interplay between Winding-Up Petitions and IBC Proceedings: Forech India Ltd. vs. Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. (22 January 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings against Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association: HPCA vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018)

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Companies Act, 1956, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 25, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 406, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Judges, Offences Relating to Property

Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings against Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association: HPCA vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether criminal proceedings initiated against the Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association (HPCA) and its members for alleged irregularities in land leases and conversion from a society to a company were justified. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name:

Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings against Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association: HPCA vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the definition of “Insider” under SEBI Regulations in Satyam Scam Case (14 May 2018)

/ Companies Act, 1956, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 246, Insider Trading, Judges, Navin Sinha, R.F. Nariman, Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 with Section 12A, Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 with Section 15G

Supreme Court Clarifies Insider Trading Definition in Satyam Scam Case LEGAL ISSUE: Definition of “Insider” under the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992. CASE TYPE: Securities Law/Insider Trading Case Name: Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju v. Securities and Exchange Board of India Judgment Date: 14 May 2018 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 14 May 2018 Citation:

Supreme Court clarifies the definition of “Insider” under SEBI Regulations in Satyam Scam Case (14 May 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award Against Non-Signatory: Cheran Properties vs. Kasturi & Sons (2018)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Arbitration Agreement, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 35, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 36, Companies Act, 1956, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 111, D.Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Judges, Rectification of Register

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award Against Non-Signatory: Cheran Properties vs. Kasturi & Sons (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitral award can be enforced against a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement, particularly a nominee of a party to the agreement. CASE TYPE: Arbitration and Company Law Case Name: Cheran Properties Limited vs. Kasturi and Sons Limited

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award Against Non-Signatory: Cheran Properties vs. Kasturi & Sons (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles deduction of lease equalization charges in income tax: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. (24 April 2018)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Companies Act, 1956, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 211, Deductions Under Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 145, Judges, R.K. Agrawal

Supreme Court Allows Lease Equalization Charges Deduction: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether lease equalization charges can be deducted from lease rental income under the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on a Guidance Note issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI). CASE TYPE: Income Tax

Supreme Court settles deduction of lease equalization charges in income tax: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. (24 April 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Interprets SEBI Takeover Regulations: Laurel Energetics vs. SEBI (2017)

/ Companies Act, 1956, Judges, R.F. Nariman, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011, SEBI Regulations, Securities Law, Takeover Regulations

Can inter se transfers of shares between promoters be exempt from open offer obligations under SEBI regulations if the target company is a result of a demerger? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment. The core issue revolved around whether the three-year promoter status should be calculated from the date

Supreme Court Interprets SEBI Takeover Regulations: Laurel Energetics vs. SEBI (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Company Law Board’s Power to Compound Offences: V.L.S. Finance Ltd. vs. Union of India (2013)

/ Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 621A(7), Companies Act, 1956, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 211(7), Companies Act, 1956 with Section 621A, Compounding of Offences, Judges, V.Gopala Gowda

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Company Law Board can compound offences punishable under Section 211(7) of the Companies Act, 1956 without the permission of the court when prosecution is pending. CASE TYPE: Company Law Case Name: V.L.S. Finance Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. Judgment Date: May 10, 2013 Introduction Date of the Judgment: May

Supreme Court Upholds Company Law Board’s Power to Compound Offences: V.L.S. Finance Ltd. vs. Union of India (2013) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the treatment of provision for doubtful debts under Section 115JA of the Income-tax Act in company taxation: Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Delhi vs. M/s HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd. (2008)

/ B. Sudershan Reddy, Companies Act, 1956, Income-tax Act, 1961, Income-tax Act, 1961 with Section 115JA, Judges, S.H. Kapadia

Introduction Date of the Judgment: September 23, 2008 The Supreme Court of India addressed a key question regarding the Income-tax Act: Can a provision for doubtful debts be added back to a company’s net profit when calculating its tax liability under Section 115JA? This case, Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Delhi vs. M/s HCL Comnet Systems

Supreme Court settles the treatment of provision for doubtful debts under Section 115JA of the Income-tax Act in company taxation: Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Delhi vs. M/s HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd. (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the definition of ‘Public Servant’ under the Prevention of Corruption Act: State of Punjab vs. Karnail Singh (2008)

/ Arijit Pasayat, Companies Act, 1956, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 617, J.M. Panchal, Judges, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 2(c)(ix), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 7

Introduction Date of the Judgment: September 22, 2008 Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.M. Panchal Does an employee of a cooperative bank, which receives financial aid from the State Government, fall within the definition of a “public servant” under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? This question was central to an appeal before the Supreme Court

Supreme Court clarifies the definition of ‘Public Servant’ under the Prevention of Corruption Act: State of Punjab vs. Karnail Singh (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court orders fresh consideration of oppression and mismanagement case: Vinod Kumar vs. M/S. Singmalon Equipment Pvt. Ltd. (2008)

/ Companies Act, 1956, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 397, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 398, Judges, Lokeshwar Singh Panta, R.V. Raveendran

Introduction Date of the Judgment: September 17, 2008 The Supreme Court of India addressed a dispute between a shareholder and the other shareholders of a company, concerning allegations of oppression and mismanagement. The central question revolves around whether the Company Law Board (CLB) and the High Court of Judicature at Madras properly evaluated the circumstances

Supreme Court orders fresh consideration of oppression and mismanagement case: Vinod Kumar vs. M/S. Singmalon Equipment Pvt. Ltd. (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies scope of mistake under Section 254(2) of Income Tax Act in Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (September 15, 2008)

/ Article 227, Constitution of India, C.K. Thakker, Companies Act, 1956, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 25, Constitutional Law, Exemption for Charitable Trusts, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 11, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 254, Judges, Lokeshwar Singh Panta

Date of the Judgment: September 15, 2008 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: C.K. Thakker, J., Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. Can the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal rectify an order if it fails to consider a decision from the High Court? The Supreme Court addressed this question in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax vs.

Supreme Court clarifies scope of mistake under Section 254(2) of Income Tax Act in Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (September 15, 2008) Read Post »

Scroll to Top