Vikram Nath

Supreme Court directs NCLT to Reconsider Insolvency Application: M/S Wizaman Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kedrion Biopharma Inc. (2022)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Dinesh Maheshwari, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Operational Debt, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court directs NCLT to Reconsider Insolvency Application: M/S Wizaman Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kedrion Biopharma Inc. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) was correct in admitting additional documents at the appellate stage without giving the corporate debtor an opportunity to respond, in an application under Section 9 of the […]

Supreme Court directs NCLT to Reconsider Insolvency Application: M/S Wizaman Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kedrion Biopharma Inc. (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles jurisdiction of Consumer Forums in Telecom Disputes: Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd. vs. Ajay Kumar Agarwal (2022) INSC 123 (16 February 2022)

/ Arbitration, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 11, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 2(o), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 3, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 with Section 3(6), Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 with Section 7B, Judges, Surya Kant, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Settles Jurisdiction of Consumer Forums in Telecom Disputes Date of the Judgment: 16 February 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 123 Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, Surya Kant, J, Vikram Nath, J Can a consumer forum hear a complaint against a telecom company, or is arbitration the only option? The Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court settles jurisdiction of Consumer Forums in Telecom Disputes: Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd. vs. Ajay Kumar Agarwal (2022) INSC 123 (16 February 2022) Read Post »

Premature Release Policy: Supreme Court Orders Reconsideration in Sharafat Ali Case (10 February 2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, Surya Kant, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Orders Reconsideration of Premature Release: Sharafat Ali vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) Date of the Judgment: 10 February 2022 Citation: Not Available Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J., Surya Kant, J., and Vikram Nath, J. Can a state government reject a premature release application based on a general apprehension of resentment from

Premature Release Policy: Supreme Court Orders Reconsideration in Sharafat Ali Case (10 February 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Fresh Review of Insolvency Claim: M/S Wizaman Impex vs. Kedrion Biopharma (2022)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Dinesh Maheshwari, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Operational Debt, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Directs Fresh Review of Insolvency Claim: M/S Wizaman Impex vs. Kedrion Biopharma (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) was correct in admitting additional documents at the appellate stage without giving the corporate debtor an opportunity to respond, and whether the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and

Supreme Court Directs Fresh Review of Insolvency Claim: M/S Wizaman Impex vs. Kedrion Biopharma (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Fresh Review of Insolvency Application: M/S Wizman Impex vs. Kedrion Biopharma (2022)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Dinesh Maheshwari, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Operational Creditor, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Orders Fresh Review of Insolvency Application: M/S Wizman Impex vs. Kedrion Biopharma (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) was correct in admitting additional documents at the appellate stage without providing an opportunity for response to the corporate debtor. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: M/S Wizman Impex Pvt.

Supreme Court Orders Fresh Review of Insolvency Application: M/S Wizman Impex vs. Kedrion Biopharma (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Operational Creditor Definition under IBC: Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. vs. Hitro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2022)

/ Companies Act, 2013, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 4, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 5(21), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Judges, Memorandum of Association, Operational Creditor, Surya Kant, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Clarifies Operational Creditor Definition under IBC: Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. vs. Hitro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a party that receives goods or services can be considered an operational creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: M/s Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited vs.

Supreme Court Clarifies Operational Creditor Definition under IBC: Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. vs. Hitro Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Citing Contradictory Evidence: Subhash vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 161, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 148, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, Surya Kant, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Citing Contradictory Evidence: Subhash vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the accused can be convicted based on contradictory witness testimonies and inconsistencies in medical evidence. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Subhash vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Judgment Date: February 1, 2022 Date of the

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Citing Contradictory Evidence: Subhash vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court allows suit by unregistered firm: Shiv Developers vs. Aksharay Developers (2022)

/ Civil Law, Contract Law, Dinesh Maheshwari, Effect of Non-Registration, Indian Partnership Act, 1932, Indian Partnership Act, 1932 with Section 69, Judges, Property Law, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Allows Suit by Unregistered Firm: Shiv Developers vs. Aksharay Developers (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a suit filed by an unregistered partnership firm is barred under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, when the suit is not for enforcement of a right arising from a contract related to the firm’s business. CASE

Supreme Court allows suit by unregistered firm: Shiv Developers vs. Aksharay Developers (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act in cases involving unregistered firms: Shiv Developers vs. Aksharay Developers (31 January 2022)

/ Dinesh Maheshwari, Effect of Non-Registration, Indian Partnership Act, 1932, Indian Partnership Act, 1932 with Section 69, Judges, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Clarifies Section 69 of Partnership Act in Shiv Developers vs. Aksharay Developers (2022) Date of the Judgment: 31 January 2022 Citation: 2022 INSC 119 Judges: Dinesh Maheshwari, J. and Vikram Nath, J. Can an unregistered partnership firm seek legal recourse against a third party for a transaction not directly related to its core

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act in cases involving unregistered firms: Shiv Developers vs. Aksharay Developers (31 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Suit by Unregistered Firm: Shiv Developers vs. Aksharay Developers (2022)

/ Civil Law, Civil Suit, Dinesh Maheshwari, Indian Partnership Act, 1932, Indian Partnership Act, 1932 with Section 69(2), Judges, Property Law, Unregistered Partnership Firm, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Allows Suit by Unregistered Firm: Shiv Developers vs. Aksharay Developers (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an unregistered partnership firm can maintain a suit against a third party for a transaction not related to its regular business. CASE TYPE: Civil Law – Partnership Case Name: Shiv Developers Through Its Partner Sunilbhai Somabhai Ajmeri vs. Aksharay

Supreme Court Allows Suit by Unregistered Firm: Shiv Developers vs. Aksharay Developers (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Tender Disqualification: Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Resoursys Telecom & Ors. (2022)

/ Contract Law, Customs Act, 1950, Customs Act, 1950 with Section 151A, Dinesh Maheshwari, Interpretation of Contracts, Judges, Tender Process, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Upholds Tender Disqualification: Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Resoursys Telecom & Ors. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a tender inviting authority’s interpretation of “same or similar category products” in a tender document can be challenged in court. CASE TYPE: Contract Law, Tender Process Case Name: M/s Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Resoursys Telecom

Supreme Court Upholds Tender Disqualification: Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Resoursys Telecom & Ors. (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Quashes Conviction under Section 498A IPC in Matrimonial Dispute After Settlement: Rajendra Bhagat vs. State of Jharkhand (2022) INSC 1

/ Dinesh Maheshwari, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 498A, Judges, Offences Against Marriage, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Quashes Conviction in 498A IPC Case After Marital Settlement Date of the Judgment: 3 January 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 1 Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath Can a conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 be quashed after a couple resolves their marital disputes

Supreme Court Quashes Conviction under Section 498A IPC in Matrimonial Dispute After Settlement: Rajendra Bhagat vs. State of Jharkhand (2022) INSC 1 Read Post »

Scroll to Top