Election Commission (EC)
[Explained] Election Commission allows Eknath Shinde faction to retain Shiv Sena symbol ‘Bows and Arrows’
The coram comprising of Rajiv Kumar (Chief Election Commissioner), Anup Chandra Pandey (Election Commissioner) and Arun Goel (Election Commissioner) held that party name ‘Shiv Sena’ and the party Symbol ‘Bow and Arrow’ was to be retained by the Eknath Shinde faction and the name of ‘Balasahebanchi Shiv Sena’ and symbol of ‘two swords and shield’ which was allotted to the Eknath Shinde faction itself by way of an interim order was frozen with immediate effect. The same decision was challenged by the Uddhav Thackeray led group before the Supreme Court on 20-02-2023.
[Eknath Rao Sambhaji Shinde v. Uddhav ji Thackeray, No. 56/01/Dispute/PPS-II/2022/Vol-IV, decided on 17-02-2023]
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)
In view of the moratorium declared by NCLT, all the proceedings in Court, Tribunal cannot continue in view of Amendment to S. 178(6) IT Act: ITAT
The two-member bench of Pradip Kumar Kedia (Accountant Member), and Yogesh Kumar U.S. (Judicial Member) said that in view of moratorium declared by NCLT, all the proceedings in the Court of Law, Tribunal etc. cannot continue in view of Amendment to Section 178(6) of the IT Act, therefore, no useful purpose is going to be served in continuing the present proceedings.
[ACIT v ABW Infrastructure Ltd, Income Tax Appeal No. 2861/DEL/2018 (A.Y 2008-09), decided on 16-02-2023]
National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Failure of duty of care by ICU staff; NCDRC finds compensation granted by SCDRC to be just and adequate
In the matter of two appeals against the order of Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) granting compensation of Rs 10 lakhs to the patient for failure of duty of care by the medical staff, the Presiding Member, Dr. S.M. Kantikar dismissed both the appeals, finding the award just with adequate compensation. One of the appeals in the instant matter sought for setting aside the order of the SCDRC by the hospital, while the other one sought enhancement of compensation to Rs 50 lakhs by the patient.
[Medical Superintendent, Mata Chanan Devi Hospital v. Sunita Saxena, 2023 SCC OnLine NCDRC 47, decided on 10-02-2023]
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT)
NCLAT provides time-bound opportunity to Resolution Professional and CoC to revive Corporate Debtor
A Division Bench comprising of Ashok Bhushan*, J. and Barun Mitra (Technical Member) directed to keep the order of the Adjudicating Authority directing the liquidation of the Corporate Debtor in abeyance and provide one last effort for revival of Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal further directed that on the failure of same, the liquidation order shall stand revived.
[Govind Prasad Todi v. Satya Narayan Guddeti, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1125 of 2022, decided on 14-02-2023]
NCLAT stays Insolvency proceeding against Zee Entertainment Enterprise Ltd
While deciding an appeal filed by ZEEL against initiation of insolvency proceeding against them, a Division Bench comprising of Ashok Bhushan, J. and Barun Mitra (Technical Member) stayed the order passed by Adjudicating Authority directing the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) for the Zee Entertainment Enterprise Ltd (ZEEL).
[Punit Goenka v. Indusind Bank Ltd., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 232/2023, order dated 24-02-2023]
In what circumstances and conditions, Adjudicating Authority can send back a Resolution Plan to CoC for carrying out changes? NCLAT Answers
While deciding an appeal related to remission of Resolution Plan back to the CoC for reconsideration, the bench of Ashok Bhushan*, J. and Shreesha Merla (Technical Member) held that the Resolution Plan can be sent back to the CoC to review, if the Adjudicating Authority finds that on the given set of facts that parameters under S. 30(2)(e) IC have not been kept in view of the Plan.
[Noble Marine Metals Co WLL v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 653 of 2022, decided on 09-02-2023]
Whether Corporate Debtor can raise pre-existing dispute in reply to the petition filed under Section 9 IBC in case demand notice issued under Section 8 of IBC is not replied? NCLAT answers
In a case related to pre-existing dispute, a bench comprising of Ashok Bhushan, J. and Ms. Shreesha Merla* (Technical Member) held that the Corporate Debtor is not prevented from establishing by way of a reply and relevant documents, any Pre-Existing Dispute.
[Greymatter Entertainment (P) Ltd. v. Pro Sportify (P) Ltd., Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1043 of 2021, decided on 09-02-2023]
Deduction of TDS itself is not sufficient to conclude the transaction: NCLAT
A bench comprising of Rakesh Kumar Jain*, J. and Naresh Salecha (Technical Member) held that the appellant failed to prove that the amount reflected in the ledger account was paid by the respondent towards the part payment of the amount due i.e. debt and default hence, was unable to prove that the appellant is entitled to get the benefit to extend the period of limitation of three years.
[Gajendra Investment Ltd. v. Bleu Noir Infrastructure Development (P) Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine NCLAT 38, decided on 12-01-2023]
Debt and default are sine qua non and only condition for admitting S. 7 IBC application: NCLAT
The bench of Rakesh Kumar Jain*, J. and Dr. Alok Srivastava (Technical Member) held that establishing the debt and default is a sine-qua-non and the only condition for the purpose of admitting S. 7 IBC application.
[Shrem Residency (P) Ltd. v. Shraman Estates (P) Ltd., Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1336 of 2019, decided on 11-01-2023]
NCLAT| A mistake in demand notice does not make an application defective unless some prejudice is suffered resulting from such mistake
While dealing with a case related to mistake in demand notice, a bench comprising of Dr. Deepti Mukesh (Judicial Member) and Sameer Kakar (Technical Member) held that such a mistake will not make the application defective unless until some prejudice is suffered by the respondent because of such mistake.
[Credberg Advisors India (P) Ltd. v. Platinum Holdings (P) Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine NCLT 12, decided on 01-02-2023]
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal | Adjudicating Authority cannot direct Resolution Professional to pay lease amount during CIRP
While deciding the appeal, Rakesh Kumar Jain J. and Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), held that similar grant or right in explanation appended to Section 14(1)(d) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, must be read in respect of the licence, permit, registration, quota, concession, clearance but it cannot be read as the premium amount or lease rent.
[Sunil Kumar Agrawal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2023 SCC OnLine NCLAT 33, decided on 12-01-2023]
Nature of Financial Debt does not change on account of breach of consent terms | NCLAT
While adjudication an appeal challenging the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor, a bench comprising of Ashok Bhushan, J. and Barun Mitra (Technical Member) held that the nature of financial debt would not change on account of breach of the consent terms.
[Priyal Kantilal Patel v. IREP Credit Capital (P) Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine NCLAT 51, decided on 01-02-2023]
NCLAT | IBC overrides Limitation Act; Delay beyond period of 45 days cannot be condoned
While deciding an appeal filed with a delay of 25 days, a bench comprising of M. Venugopal, J. and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member) held that the delay is beyond the permissible limit of 45 Days as provided under S. 61 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and therefore the Tribunal does not have power to condone the same.
[Platinum Rent A Car (India) (P) Ltd. v. Quest Offices Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine NCLAT 53, order dated 12-01-2023]
NCLAT rejects application for initiation of CIRP for filing with fraudulent and malicious intent
While deciding the appeal, the bench of Ashok Bhushan J., and Barun Mitra (Technical Member), held that when applications under Section 65 of the Code, 2016 were allowed holding that initiation of proceedings under Section 10 of the Code, 2016 was done fraudulently and maliciously for purpose other than resolution of insolvency, rejection of the application under Section 10 of the Code, 2016 is consequent and inescapable.
[Wave Megacity Centre Private Limited v. Rakesh Taneja, 2023 SCC OnLine NCLAT 50, decided on 05-01-2023]
Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has put this report together.
