It was observed, ‘the freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to practice any profession or carry on any trade, business or occupation over the medium of internet enjoys constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g)’. This judgment establishes that the internet serves as an important medium through which the fundamental rights to free expression and occupation is actualized.
In a series of two judgments, the Bench comprising Justice Chandrachud and Justice Rastogi cemented female Armed Forces officers’ right to Permanent Commission (PC). The Bench held that women in the Army have the same right to PC as their male counterparts. It did the same for women in the Navy. Both judgments emphasized that the Armed Forces must strive to do away with discriminatory mind-sets about a woman’s role in society.
In an important judgment as to interaction between the 1804 and 2013 land acquisition legislation, a five-judge Bench led by Justice Arun Mishra clarified ambiguities around when acquisition proceedings can lapse on 4 March. Significantly, he held that the State’s failure to deposit compensation in a landowner’s account was not sufficient to lapse proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. This case had previously garnered public attention for the questions it raised about precedent and recusal.
A three-judge Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra ruled that a Hindu woman’s right to be a joint heir to the ancestral property is by birth and does not depend on whether her father was alive or not when the law was enacted in 2005. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 gave Hindu women the right to be coparceners or joint legal heirs in the same way a male heir does.
The Supreme Court has ordered political parties to publish the entire criminal history of their candidates for Assembly and Lok Sabha elections along with the reasons that forced them to field suspected criminals.
In Re: Guidelines For Court Functioning Through Video Conferencing During Covid-19 Pandemic: Considering the current COVID-19 epidemic, the Court had recognised the need for video conferencing in courts across India.
The moot question before the NCLAT was whether any dues could be set-off during the period of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) when moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC was in operation? The NCLAT read through Section 238 of the IBC which provided that the provisions of the IBC would override other laws inconsistent to the IBC. Therefore, the NCLAT concluded that accounting conventions could not supersede any express provisions of the IBC. Even if there is a contrary provision that a party could take shelter under, the IBC’s moratorium mechanism will override it.
The question that arose before the Supreme Court was whether the scheme of the Code contemplates that the sum forming part of the resolution plan should match the liquidation value of the corporate debtor. The Supreme Court held that there is no provision in the Code, or regulations which prescribe that the bid of any resolution applicant must match the liquidation value arrived at, in the manner provided in Clause 35 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the proceedings for winding up of a company are proceedings in rem to which the entire body of creditors is a party. The proceeding might have been initiated by one or more creditors, but by a deeming fiction the petition is treated as a joint petition. The official liquidator acts for and on behalf of the entire body of creditors. Therefore, the word “party” appearing in the 5th proviso to Section 434 (1) (c) of the Companies Act, 2013 cannot be construed to mean only the single petitioning creditor or the company or the official liquidator. The words “party or parties” would take within its fold any creditor of the company in liquidation
The Allahabad HC in its judgement has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 164(2) of the Companies Act 2013 which states about the director whose company has not filed financial statement or annual returns for a total period of three financial years shall be disqualified from holding the position for a total period for five years. The financial year for this purpose will have effect only from the year 2014 -2015. It was taken into consideration that the provision is in alignment with Article 19 of the constitution and was created to include good governance policy and limited prohibition shall be applied towards a director who has failed to comply with the statutory provision of the Act. The court also took the Gujarat High Court Ruling in the case of Gaurang Balvantal Shah vs. Union of India
Supreme Court in its judgment has set aside the NCLT order directing the freezing of assets of Punjab National Bank (PNB) former Managing Director and CEO Usha Ananthasubramanian for allegedly not taking preventive steps to prevent the fraud perpetrated by Nirav Modi. It was observed by the Court that Section 337 refers to penalty for frauds by an officer of the company in which mismanagement has taken place and Section 339 refers to any business of the company which has been carried on with intent to defraud creditors of that company.
The Hon’ble Supreme court has put a stay on NCLAT judgment which had ruled that Cyrus Mistry was illegally ousted from Tata Sons and the actions were oppressive to minority shareholders. As per the Apex court, the judgment’s first impression is not good, and relief was given to Cyrus Mistry which was not prayed for. Currently, the hearing is under way as on December 9, 2020.
Major thrust of the Amendment Act is decriminalisation of the Companies Act, 2013 and lightening rigour of penalties.
Key Highlights:
– Besides relaxation of CSR law, remuneration to non-executive directors in case of inadequate profits, producer organisations periodic financial results by non-listed companies, etc. has been provided.
– It allows direct listing of Indian companies on foreign stock exchanges.
– It revokes the criminal provisions added to the Companies Act for violations of provisions of corporate social responsibility rules.
– 48 sections of the Companies Act, 2013 will be amended to decriminalise various offences.
– 17 provisions in the Companies Act, 2013, have also been amended which paves way for easy and use friendly fulfilment of statutory compliances.
The centre through its notification stated that contribution to PM CARES Fund shall now be considered as Corporate Social Responsibility of companies. The notification came into force on March 28,2020. Any contributions made shall be voluntary in nature and shall not be provided with any budgetary support though the donations made to the PM CARES Fund shall qualify for 80G benefits which includes 100% exemption under the Income tax Act, 1961
The ministry of Corporate affairs through its notification provided for the takeover of minority shareholders by majority shareholders in a unlisted company with the help of a scheme of arrangement originally placed before NCLT through the section 230(11) and Section 230(12) of the Companies Act,2013. Section 230(12) allows an individual aggrieved with a takeover offer to make an application to the NCLT.
The court held that arbitration clause can be waived by a party under dual circumstances- one by filing a statement of defence or submitting to jurisdiction and secondly, by unduly delaying the filing of the application under Section 8 by not filing the same till the date by which the statement of defence could have been filed. The limitation period for filing of written statement as prescribed in the CPC, 1908 as well as Commercial Courts Act, 2015 would be applicable for filing of an application under Section 8.
The Court reiterated that an injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act could not be granted to revive or restore a contract which is specifically determinable in nature, and has been duly terminated by one party to the contract.
The Court held that there was no bar in law for an arbitral tribunal to pass an order in a subsequent application filed before it under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, in variation of an order passed in the original Section 17 application, if it could be demonstrated that material subsequent developments had occurred in the interregnum.
The Court held that provisions of Article 136 of the Limitation Act would apply to an enforcement petition. Further, it was held that the arbitral tribunal, once vested with jurisdiction by the parties to adjudicate their inter se disputes has the right to make both right and wrong decisions as these are errors which fall within their jurisdiction. The Court observed that perusal of Section 48 of the 1996 Act shows that ground of objections available to a party against whom the foreign award is sought to be enforced does not pertain to the merits of the dispute.
The Court observed that while passing orders under Section 9, the Court is required to satisfy itself that (i) the applicant, before it, manifestly intends to initiate arbitral proceedings, (ii) the criteria for grant of interim injunction, which apply to Order 39 of the CPC, stands satisfied, and (iii) circumstances also exist, which renders the requirement of ordering interim measures an emergent necessity, which cannot await a Section 17 proceeding, before the arbitrator, or arbitral tribunal.
The Gujarat High Court held that the orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal cannot be challenged in writ jurisdiction as the Arbitration Act, 1996 is a special Act and a self-contained code.
The Delhi High Court held that the scope of power of a court under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act is not limited to parties to an arbitration agreement and the court can also issue interim directions even against a third party. Further, the court while observing that the distinction between the powers under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act and Section 17 of the Arbitration Act has a clear rationale, held that, an arbitrator is a creature of the contract between the parties and therefore, cannot venture outside the contract to issue directions to parties who are non-parties to the arbitration agreement, however, the same limitation is not applicable to a court exercising its powers under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act.
The Court observed that the countrywide lockdown was prima facie in the nature of force majeure. Such lockdown was unprecedented and was incapable of being predicted either by the respondent or by the petitioner.
Deals with very important case of arbitrability of transactions based on fraud and their enforcement. This case involves international transaction and overruled multiple old cases.
Landmark case involving govt as party. Includes subject such as enforcement of foreign awards and adjudication on public policy defense against enforcement.
Vodafone International Holdings B.V. won a lengthy dispute with the Indian government over a retroactive tax provision when the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, Netherlands, ruled that an amendment to domestic Indian tax laws was in violation of an agreement between India and the Netherlands. The arbitral award rendered in this case finds the Indian government in the violation of the FET standard under Article 4(1) of the India-Netherlands BIT.
A tribunal in Singapore restrained Future Group and Reliance Industries Limited from proceeding with a Rs 24,713-crore deal signed in August for Future Retail to sell its retail, wholesale, logistics and warehousing units to Reliance Retail and Fashion style. The emergency order by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) came on a plea from global e-commerce giant Amazon.
In a reference dealing with the interpretation of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 that deals with admissibility of electronic records, the Court has held that the certificate required under Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record, as correctly held in by the 3-judge bench in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473, and incorrectly “clarified” by a division bench in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 2 SCC 801. The Court further clarified that the required certificate under Section 65B(4) is unnecessary if the original document itself is produced.
Judgment deciding second appeal without formulation of substantial question law not valid and mere reference to the ground mentioned in Memorandum of Second Appeal cannot satisfy the mandate of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
Held that presentation of the plaint in a court contrary to the exclusion clause could not be said to be proper presentation before the court having jurisdiction in the matter.
Laid down comprehensive guidelines to govern payment of maintenance in matrimonial cases.
An unmarried Hindu daughter can claim maintenance from her father till she is married relying on Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956, provided she pleads and proves that she is unable to maintain herself, for enforcement of which right her application/suit must be under Section 20 of Act, 1956.
