2023 scc vol. 3 part 5

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 20, 2(1)(e) and 42 — Jurisdiction of Court: Determination of jurisdiction of Court, based on juridical seat of arbitration, explained. Principles reiterated regarding availability of power of parties to: (1) select, and (2) modify the juridical seat of arbitration, by mutual agreement and nature of such agreement as being akin to exclusive jurisdiction clause. [Inox Renewables Ltd. v. Jayesh Electricals Ltd., (2023) 3 SCC 733]

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Ss. 5(8) and 7 r/w Ss. 3(6), 3(8), 3(10), 3(11), 3(12) and 5(7) — “Financial debt” — Scope of — Interest free loans: Charging interest on debt/loan given is not mandatory, for being considered a “financial debt”. “Financial debt” means outstanding principal due in respect of a loan and would also include interest thereon, if any interest were payable thereon. If there is no interest payable on the loan, only the outstanding principal would qualify as “financial debt”. Moreover, definition of “financial debt” in S. 5(8) does not expressly exclude an interest free loan and “financial debt” would have to be construed to include interest free loans advanced to finance the business operations of a corporate body. [Orator Marketing (P) Ltd. v. Samtex Desinz (P) Ltd., (2023) 3 SCC 753]

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Ss. 5(8)(f) and 30 — Modification of resolution plan: Permissibility of modification of resolution plan, evaluated. [Anand Murti v. Soni Infratech (P) Ltd., (2023) 3 SCC 743]

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 — S. 15-A(a) (as amended w.e.f. 29-10-2002) — Penalty on failure to comply with summons: Imposition of penalty on failure to comply with summons, in accordance with amended S. 15-A(a), where fresh summons issued post amendment which constitute a fresh offence, valid. [DKG Buildcon (P) Ltd. v. SEBI, (2023) 3 SCC 689]

Service Law — Promotion — Norms/Principles/Rules applicable: Law clarified relating to vacancies arising prior to promulgation of the new Rules. whether to be filled as per the old Rules or the amended Rules. [State of H.P. v. Raj Kumar, (2023) 3 SCC 773]

Specific Relief Act, 1963 — S. 22 — Refund of contractual price/deposit/earnest money: Refund of contractual price/deposit/ earnest money is not permissible, where no such relief claimed by plaintiff in suit seeking specific performance of contract. The prayer clause is a sine qua non for grant of decree of refund of earnest money. [Desh Raj v. Rohtash Singh, (2023) 3 SCC 714]

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.