R.F. Nariman Archives

Supreme Court settles limitation for IBC applications: Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave vs. Asset Reconstruction Company (2019)

September 18, 2019 / Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency Law, Insolvency Law with Section 7, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 62, R. Subhash Reddy, R.F. Nariman, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for IBC Applications: Gaurav Dave vs. Asset Reconstruction Company (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of the Limitation Act to applications under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave vs. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. [Judgment Date]: 18 September 2019 Date […]

Supreme Court settles limitation for IBC applications: Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave vs. Asset Reconstruction Company (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Specific Performance Decree Despite Lack of Vakalatnama: Shree Chaitanya Constructions vs. Sudhir Poonamchand Parakh & Ors. (2019)

July 17, 2019 / Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 with Order III, Contract Act, Judges, R.F. Nariman, Sanjiv Khanna, Specific Performance, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Upholds Specific Performance Decree Despite Lack of Vakalatnama: Shree Chaitanya Constructions vs. Sudhir Poonamchand Parakh & Ors. (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a decree for specific performance can be set aside solely on the ground that the advocate who appeared on behalf of a party did not have a written Vakalatnama, especially when the

Supreme Court Upholds Specific Performance Decree Despite Lack of Vakalatnama: Shree Chaitanya Constructions vs. Sudhir Poonamchand Parakh & Ors. (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies reservation policy for ship recycling plots: R.K. Industries vs. S.C./S.T. Shipbreakers Association (2019)

July 16, 2019 / Constitutional Law, Judges, R.F. Nariman, Regulations, Regulations with Clause 5.4, Reservation Policy, Sanjiv Khanna, Ship Recycling Regulations, Surya Kant

Supreme Court clarifies reservation policy for ship recycling plots: R.K. Industries vs. S.C./S.T. Shipbreakers Association (2019) Date of the Judgment: July 16, 2019 Citation: 2019 INSC 717 Judges: R. F. Nariman, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J., Surya Kant, J. Can the reservation of plots for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) for ship recycling be

Supreme Court clarifies reservation policy for ship recycling plots: R.K. Industries vs. S.C./S.T. Shipbreakers Association (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Stay on Arbitration Awards Against Government: PAM Developments vs. State of West Bengal (2019)

July 12, 2019 / Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 36, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XLI Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XXVII Rule 8A, Enforcement of Arbitral Award, Judges, R.F. Nariman, Stay of Arbitral Award, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Clarifies Stay on Arbitration Awards Against Government: PAM Developments vs. State of West Bengal (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a government can obtain an unconditional stay on an arbitral award for payment of money, by using Order XXVII Rule 8A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), or whether the court should impose conditions

Supreme Court Clarifies Stay on Arbitration Awards Against Government: PAM Developments vs. State of West Bengal (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Specific Performance of Sale Agreement: R Lakshmikantham vs Devaraji (2019)

July 10, 2019 / Agreement to Sell, Contract Law, Judges, R.F. Nariman, Readiness and Willingness, Specific Performance, Surya Kant, Time is of the Essence, Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Supreme Court Upholds Specific Performance of Sale Agreement: R Lakshmikantham vs Devaraji (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether time was of the essence in a sale agreement and whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. CASE TYPE: Civil – Specific Performance of Contract Case Name: R Lakshmikantham vs Devaraji [Judgment

Supreme Court Upholds Specific Performance of Sale Agreement: R Lakshmikantham vs Devaraji (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Contractual Arbitration Fees: NHAI vs. Gayatri Jhansi Roadways (2019)

July 10, 2019 / Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 31, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 31A, Judges, R.F. Nariman, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Upholds Contractual Arbitration Fees: NHAI vs. Gayatri Jhansi Roadways (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the fee schedule for arbitrators can be determined by a prior agreement between the parties, or if it must follow the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, regardless of any agreement. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name:

Supreme Court Upholds Contractual Arbitration Fees: NHAI vs. Gayatri Jhansi Roadways (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Treatment of Subscription Receipts: Peerless General Finance vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2019)

July 9, 2019 / Accounting Practices, Capital Receipts, Companies Act, 1956, Companies Act, 1956 with violation of the Act, Income Tax Law, Judges, R.F. Nariman, RBI Circular of 1987, Reserve Bank of India Act, Reserve Bank of India Act with Directions, Revenue Receipts, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Clarifies Treatment of Subscription Receipts: Peerless General Finance vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether subscription receipts of a finance company should be treated as income or capital receipts for tax purposes. CASE TYPE: Income Tax Law. Case Name: The Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income

Supreme Court Clarifies Treatment of Subscription Receipts: Peerless General Finance vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the right to representation for wilful defaulters in banking cases (08 May 2019)

May 8, 2019 / Advocates Act, 1961, Advocates Act, 1961 with Section 30, Banking Law, Banking Law with RBI Circulars, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 19(1)(g), Fundamental Rights, Judges, R.F. Nariman, Vineet Saran, Wilful Defaulters

Supreme Court Clarifies Rights of Wilful Defaulters: Representation and Procedure LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a person declared a wilful defaulter by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is entitled to legal representation during the process. CASE TYPE: Banking Law, specifically concerning wilful defaulters. Case Name: State Bank of India vs. M/s. Jah Developers Pvt. Ltd. &

Supreme Court clarifies the right to representation for wilful defaulters in banking cases (08 May 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Contract Terms in Ssangyong vs. NHAI Price Adjustment Dispute: Civil Appeal No. 4779 of 2019 (08 May 2019)

May 8, 2019 / Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 18, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 24(3), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Breach of contract, Contract Law, Interpretation of Contract, Judges, R.F. Nariman, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Upholds Contract Terms in Ssangyong vs. NHAI Price Adjustment Dispute Date of the Judgment: 08 May 2019 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 4779 of 2019 Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., Vineet Saran, J. Can a government body unilaterally change a contract’s price adjustment formula? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a dispute between Ssangyong

Supreme Court Upholds Contract Terms in Ssangyong vs. NHAI Price Adjustment Dispute: Civil Appeal No. 4779 of 2019 (08 May 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Trade Unions to File Insolvency Petitions on Behalf of Workers: JK Jute Mill Mazdoor Morcha vs. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Ltd. (2019)

April 30, 2019 / Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 3(23), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 5(21), Judges, Operational Creditor, R.F. Nariman, Trade Union Registration, Trade Unions Act, 1926, Trade Unions Act, 1926 with Section 13, Trade Unions Act, 1926 with Section 15, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Allows Trade Unions to File Insolvency Petitions on Behalf of Workers (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a trade union can be considered an operational creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: JK Jute Mill Mazdoor Morcha vs. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Ltd. Judgment Date: April 30,

Supreme Court Allows Trade Unions to File Insolvency Petitions on Behalf of Workers: JK Jute Mill Mazdoor Morcha vs. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Ltd. (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Invalidates Compulsory Amalgamation under Section 396 of the Companies Act: 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. vs. Union of India (2019) INSC 441

April 30, 2019 / Amalgamation, Companies Act, 1956, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 396, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Fundamental Rights, Judges, R.F. Nariman, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Invalidates Compulsory Amalgamation under Section 396 of the Companies Act: 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. vs. Union of India (2019) INSC 441 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a compulsory amalgamation order under Section 396 of the Companies Act, 1956, is valid when it does not adequately compensate the transferor company and its shareholders, and when the

Supreme Court Invalidates Compulsory Amalgamation under Section 396 of the Companies Act: 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. vs. Union of India (2019) INSC 441 Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Waiver of Arbitrator Ineligibility under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act: Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. vs. United Telecoms Ltd. (2019)

April 16, 2019 / Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 12(5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 4, Arbitrator Ineligibility, Express and Implied Promises, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 9, Judges, R.F. Nariman, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Clarifies Waiver of Arbitrator Ineligibility under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act: Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. vs. United Telecoms Ltd. (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, specifically regarding the waiver of arbitrator ineligibility. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Bharat Broadband Network Limited vs. United

Supreme Court Clarifies Waiver of Arbitrator Ineligibility under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act: Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. vs. United Telecoms Ltd. (2019) Read Post »