APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY (ATE)
Bureau of Energy Efficiency takes suo motu verification test on a sample refrigerator of Whirlpool India and found quality non-compliance; Appellate Tribunal for Electricity sets aside the order
A division bench of Ramesh Ranganathan (Chairperson) and Sandesh Kumar Sharma (Technical Member) set aside the order passed by Secretary, Bureau of Energy Efficiency (‘Bureau’) and held that since the first test report was deficient, inconsistent with the set standards and conducted without proper notice, it did not stand legal scrutiny, thus, directed to treat the second test report as the first test report with certain directions. Depending upon the result of further investigation, the Tribunal granted the Bureau the permission to act against Whirlpool of India Limited (‘appellant’) in accordance with law.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (CAT)
[DSSSB] CAT, Delhi directs State to constitute an expert body to examine the Answer Key for question paper for the post of Librarian
In an original application filed by the applicant seeking to quash the answer key for Questions No. 103, 124, 129, 139, 141, 147, 153, 154, 156, 161, 164, 182 & 197 for Question Paper for Post of Librarian used by Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) as incorrect and consequent result and appointments based on such impugned question paper as incorrect and the answer Key and to further direct the State to constitute an Independent Expert Body to examine the Answer Key and submit a report as to whether the impugned Answer Key used by DSSSB for all impugned questions is incorrect or not, Ashish Kalia, J., (Member) and Chhabilendra Roul, A., (Member) directed the State to constitute an expert body to examine the Answer Key for Question Paper for the post of Librarian and submit the copy of the report to the applicant.
CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION (CERC)
CERC| Imposition of Safeguard Duty on import is a ‘Change in Law’ event in Power Purchase Agreement
In a combined petition seeking declaration of imposition of safeguard duty on import of solar panels/modules as a ‘Change in Law’ event under the Power Purchase Agreement (‘PPA’), the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (‘CERC’) accepted the claim. The CERC Coram consisting of I.S. Jha, Arun Goyal and P.K. Singh granted relief over imposition of safeguard duty on the import of solar panels/modules holding the same as a ‘Change in Law’ event. The Commission also relieved the petitioners with respect to carrying cost during the specified period.
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (CESTAT)
‘Commissioner ought to have followed Supreme Court’s Ranbaxy Laboratories verdict’; CESTAT grants interest on delayed sanction of Refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules
In a service tax appeal filed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals) Raigad (‘The Commissioner’), which rejected the appeal filed by the appellant which had stated that the appellant shall not be eligible for interest on delay in sanction of refund, filed under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the bench of Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member), while allowing the appeal filed by the appellant held that refund under Rule 5 also being a refund under section 11B would squarely fall within the ambit of Section 11BB and interest is payable in case of delay in sanctioning the refund under Rule 5.
Service tax not payable for ‘deemed sales’; CESTAT sets aside the order passed by the Commissioner LTU, Delhi
The division bench of Dilip Gupta, (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical member) sets aside the order passed by the Commissioner LTU (Audit), New Delhi which confirmed the demand of service tax with interest and penalty for the reason that the appellant had received ‘supply of tangible goods for use’ (‘STGU’) service from foreign suppliers, for which service tax was to be paid by the appellant under reverse charge mechanism and held that service tax can’t be levied in transactions where the ‘right to use’ had been transferred along with the ‘possession and effective control’ of the machinery.
Cancelled Flat Bookings amount to non-performance of service; CESTAT directs Authorities to refund service tax to Builder
While dealing with the issue whether service tax should be refunded back to Credence Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. (‘appellant’) after the cancellation of two flats booked by the buyers, Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) held that the Commissioner (Appeals-III), GST and Central Excise, Mumbai (‘Adjudicating Authority’) was not justified in denying the refund and allowed the appeal preferred by the appellant.
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION (CIC)
Information under section 2(f) refers to material already available with public authorities; CIC reiterates
The complainant being dissatisfied with the information being provided by the Public Information Officer (‘PIO’), filed a second appeal under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act’) on the grounds of disclosure of incorrect information before the Central Information Commission (‘The Commission’) wherein the Information Commissioner, Heeralal Samariya held that“ ‘information’ as defined in the section 2(f) of the RTI Act , only refers to such material as is already available in the records of the public authority.”
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (NCLAT)
NCLAT sets aside clean chit to DLF in allegations of abuse of dominant position case; CCI to hear matter afresh
A bench comprising of Rakesh Kumar*, J., and Dr. Ashok Kumar Mishra (Technical Member) set aside the impugned order passed by Competition Commission of India (CCI) rejecting a complaint against DLF and its subsidiary for alleged abuse of the dominant position based on a second/supplementary report from Director General (DG) and directed to examine the matter with fresh consideration.
Whether CoC after approval a Resolution Plan can seek direction to consider a new Resolution Plan of a third party who was not a part of the CIRP Proceedings? NCLAT answers
A bench consisting of Anant Bijay Singh, J., and Shreesha Merla* (Technical Member) held that once the Resolution Plan is submitted for approval before the Adjudicating Authority, it is binding between the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA), unless there is any material irregularity or the same is against S. 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 .
NCLAT | Date of default cannot be strictly construed as the date of Non-Performing Assets
While deciding an application filed under S. 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 , a bench comprising of Anant Bijay Singh, J. and Shreesha Merla* (Technical Member) held that the ‘date of default’ cannot be strictly construed as the date of NPA and if the Corporate Debtor makes any acknowledgement of debt and default within the period of limitation, the said period of limitation shall be extended to a further period of three years.
NCLAT | Once the resolution plan is submitted for approval, it is binding between the Committee of Creditors and successful resolution applicant
While deciding the appeal, the bench of Anant Bijay Singh, J., and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), held that once the resolution Plan is submitted for approval, it is binding between the Committee of Creditors and the successful resolution applicant, unless there is any material irregularity or is against the provisions of Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 , the Adjudicating Authority cannot interfere in its limited jurisdiction.
No inconsistency between Section 33 IBC and Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944; NCLAT partly allows appeal
Partly allowing the appeal, a bench comprising of Ashok Bhushan*, J., Dr. Alok Srivastava (Technical Member) and Barun Mitra (Technical Member) held that there is no inconsistency between S. 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and S. 33(5) IBC and the respondent is only entitled for the refund of the amount of Rs.25,46,588/- and not of the amount of Rs.1,08,797/-.
NCLAT sets aside Section 7 IBC application; lets Section 9 application run its due course
By way of six connected appeals filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) against the order passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad bench (‘NCLT’), which closed the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) against the corporate debtor Sintex Plastics Technology Ltd. (‘Sintex Plastics’), a division bench of Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Alok Srivastava (Technical Member) set aside the application of withdrawal of Section 9 and consequently let CIRP run its course under the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’).
NCLAT cannot direct modifications of claims once the Resolution Plan is approved
A bench consisting of Anant Bijay Singh, J. and Shreesha Merla* (Technical Member) held that the Tribunal does not have residual equity-based jurisdiction to direct modifications of claims once the Resolution plan is approved.
Adjudicating Authority is obligated to give direction for liquidation only when CoC’s decision is in accordance with IBC: NCLAT
A bench consisting of Ashok Bhushan*, J. and Shreesha Merla (Technical Member) held that the obligation of the Adjudicating Authority to direct for liquidation shall rise only when decision of the CoC is in accordance with the IBC.
NCLAT refuses to grant interim relief to Google; directs to deposit 10% of ₹ 936 crore penalty
While deciding an appeal filed against the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) order imposing a penalty of ₹ 936.44 crore on the appellant, Google for abusing its dominant position through its Play Store policies, a bench consisting of Rakesh Kumar, J., and Dr. Alok Srivastava (Technical Member) refused to grant interim relief to the appellant regarding the status quo to remain till the appeal is finally heard.
Strong reason required to keep the application in abeyance; NCLAT dismisses appeal finding no error in Adjudicating Authority’s order
In an appeal filed by the appellant, an ex-Promoter of the Corporate Debtor challenging the order by the Adjudicating Authority, NCLT, a bench comprising of Ashok Bhushan*, J., and Barun Mitra (Technical Member) held that the Adjudicating Authority has not committed any error in rejecting the appellant’s application praying to keep the respondent’s application in abeyance.
Deduction of TDS and deposit in Form 16-A under Section 194-A of Income Tax Act proves the deduction was TDS relating to ‘Interest other than interest on securities’: NCLAT observes
Dismissing the appeal, the bench comprising of Ashok Bhushan*, J. and Barun Mitra (Technical Member) held that there is no error in the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and materials on record fully proved the ingredients of financial debt, thus establishing that there was loan agreement between the parties.
NCLAT| After closure of Challenge Process and consequent receipt of resolution plan, Adjudicating Authority cannot direct consideration of the revised plan submitted thereafter
While deciding the appeal, Ashok Bhushan J., and Barun Mitra (Technical Member), held that the Adjudicating Authority cannot interfere with the decision of CoC to vote on the resolution plan as it is the wisdom of CoC to take a decision in this regard.
Successful Auction Purchaser can withdraw from e-Auction; NCLAT upheld refund of EMD and first instalment
While partly allowing the appeal, a bench comprising of Ashok Bhushan*, J. and Barun Mitra (Technical Member) held that after attachment of the assets of the corporate debtor under PMLA Act, the Successful Auction Purchaser is not required to deposit the entire sale amount and the Adjudicating Authority can order for refund of EMD and first instalment but without interest.
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL (NGT)
Can lease be cancelled on the ground of ecological repercussion? NGT to determine the scope of its jurisdiction
The bench of Dinesh Kumar Singh and Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, JJ has agreed to hear the matter relating to National Green Tribunal’s (NGT) jurisdiction to decide if the lease granted to salt industries can be cancelled on the ground of ecological repercussion.
NGT: Petrol Pump near Veeranam Lake doesn’t violate CPCB’s 50 Meter guideline
The bench of Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J (Judicial Member) and Dr Satyagopal Korlapati (Expert Member), Southern Bench, has dismissed the application against the proposed petrol pump located within 50 meters from the Veeranam Lake citing compliance to the guidelines of CPCB.
NGT stays Notification of Ministry delegating the appraisal of Impact Assessment to Local Bodies
The Bench of Adarsh Kumar Goel, Sudhir Agarwal, Arun Kumar Tyagi, JJ and Prof. A. Senthil Vel (Expert Member), Principal Bench, disposed of the application and sustained the stay on the notification modifying the EIA regime in respect of construction projects with built up area more than 20,000 sq. meters to 50, 000 sq. meters and industrial sheds, educational institutions, hospitals and hostels for educational institutions more than 20,000 sq. meters upto 1,50,000 sq. meters.
NGT constitutes High Level Committee to combat Pollution in River Yamuna
The bench of Adarsh Kumar Goel, Sudhir Agarwal, Arun Kumar Tyagi, JJ. Prof. A. Senthil Vel and Dr. Afroz Admad has constituted High Level Committee headed by Lieutenant Governor, Delhi to combat unabated pollution in river Yamuna.
NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (NHRC)
NHRC calls for action against dilapidated condition of a District Child Protection Office in Chennai
In furtherance of a complaint registered with the National Human Rights Commission (‘NHRC’) related to dilapidated condition of District Child Protection Office, Royapuram, NHRC called several authorities concerned to act within four weeks. The Commission also transferred the said complaint to the State Human Rights Commission Tamil Nadu (‘SHRC’). The Authorities called for action in this matter include the District Magistrate, the Secretary for Tamil Nadu SHRC and the Chief Secretary under Government of Tamil Nadu.
UTTAR PRADESH REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY (UPRERA)
UPRERA interprets Section 2 (zk) of RERA Act; upholds Saya Cementation Ltd. as a Promoter in ‘Oh My God’ project
Rajesh Kumar Tyagi (Secretary) upheld the decision of the Arbitration Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) and accorded Saya Cementation Limited. (‘Saya Cementation’) the status of promoter in accordance with Section 2(zk) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (‘RERA Act’), by approving the proposal to transfer the majority rights and liabilities of the project ‘OH MY GOD’ to Saya Cementation jointly with the land-owning company Alisa Infratech Pvt. (‘Alisa Infratech’).