SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Schneider Electric withdraws appeal against SEBI’s Order; SAT directs it to comply with the order
In an appeal filed by Schneider Electric President System Limited (‘French company’), against the SEBI order dated 19-11-2021, wherein it was directed either to list the equity shares of the company on a stock exchange having nationwide terminals or delist the company following the procedure prescribed under the SEBI (Delisting of Equity Shares) Regulations, 2009 within the span of six months, the two-member Bench of Tarun Agarwala J., and Meera Swarup (Technical Member), while dismissing the petition as it was withdrawn by the French Company, directed the company to comply with the SEBI order. Read more
SAT, Mumbai dismisses appeal under S. 15T SEBI Act for not having filed by an ‘aggrieved person’
An appeal was filed by the appellant challenging the order of Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) dated 15-12-2022 whereby the representation in the matter of scheme of amalgamation/ arrangement between Indiabulls Real Estate Limited and Embassy Group Companies was decided. Justice Tarun Agarwala (Presiding Officer) and Meera Swarup (Technical Member) held that the appellant has no locus to file the appeal as he is not an aggrieved person for having approached an appropriate forum before the NCLT, Chandigarh it was no longer open to the appellant to pursue the same grievance before another forum, namely, before SEBI. Read more
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Operational Creditor cannot claim payment equal to Financial Creditor in Insolvency proceeding under IBC: NCLAT
A Division Bench comprising of Ashok Bhushan,* J., and Mr. Barun Mitra (Technical Member), held that the Resolution Plan approved by the Adjudicating Authority is not discriminative in the distribution of the proposed amount to the Operational Creditor vis-à-vis Financial Creditors because the Operational Creditor cannot claim equal payment to the Financial Creditors. Read more
In project wise insolvency, IRP/RP cannot seek unpaid Fees/Costs from members of CoCs of another project of Corporate Debtor: NCLAT
While upholding the NCLT’s order, a Division bench comprising of M. Venugopal, J., and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), held that in Project Wise Insolvency, the Interim Resolution Professional/Resolution Professional (IRP/RP) cannot seek any unpaid Fees/Costs from the members of the Committee of Creditors (CoCs) of another project of the Corporate Debtor. Read more
Liquidation| Successful Bidder of sale as going concern can only pray for necessary directions in accordance with the process document: NCLAT
In a landmark Judgment related to legal position on sale of a Corporate Debtor as a going concern with a clean slate, a Division bench comprising of Ashok Bhushan*, J., and Naresh Salecha (Technical Member), held that a Successful Bidder of sale as going Concern can pray for necessary reliefs/concessions which are commensurate and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the process document before of the Adjudicating Authority in the liquidation proceedings. Read more
Employees entitled to Provident Fund and Gratuity Fund dues even if funds not available with Liquidator: NCLAT
In a case related to approval of Resolution Plan without admitting full claim including provident fund and gratuity dues, a Division Bench comprising of M. Venugopal, J. and Ms. Shreesha Merla* (Technical Member), directed to include both Provident Fund and Gratuity Fund which is to be paid in full in the ‘Resolution Plan’. Read more
Corporate Debtor cannot constitute Committee of Creditors with a single Operational Creditor under IBC: NCLAT
A Division bench comprising of M. Venugopal, J., and Shreesha Merla* (Technical Member), held that there is no provision in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) for Corporate Debtor to constitute Committee of Creditors (CoC) with a single Operational Creditor. Read more
Application under Section 9 of the IBC is not maintainable in absence of strict proof of Debt and Default: NCLAT
A Division bench comprising of M. Venugopal,* J., and Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), held that an application filed under Section 9 of the IBC is not maintainable, when there exists any pre-existing dispute. Moreover, the Adjudicating Authority requires strict proof of ‘debt’ and ‘default’ to entertain Section 9 application. Read more
‘Arbitration Proceedings’ and ‘IBC Proceedings’ cannot go on together; NCLAT upholds NCLT’s order rejecting Section 9 application
While upholding the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, a Division bench comprising of M. Venugopal,* J., and Ms. Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), held that an appeal filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act, 1996) against an ex-parte arbitral award is a ‘pre-existing dispute’ and, therefore, a valid ground for the rejection of an application preferred under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). Read more
While admitting application under Section 7 of the IBC, existence of Debt and Default needs to be examined not ‘Quantum of Debt’: NCLAT
A Division bench comprising of M. Venugopal, J., and Shreesha Merla* (Technical Member), held that at the stage of admission of application under S. 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), the Adjudicating Authority only need to examined whether there is a Debt and Default not the exact ‘Quantum of Debt’. Read more
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
Illegal Sand Mining on Yamuna Banks| NGT directs HSPCB to take Disciplinary Action against Regional Officer for Negligence
In an application against illegal sand mining by Ultimate Group, Sonipat, Haryana (‘Project Proponent’), the three-member Bench of Sheo Kumar Singh (Chairperson), Arun Kumar Tyagi (Judicial Member) and Dr. A. Senthil Vel (Expert Member), directed the Haryana State Pollution Control Board (‘HSPCB’) to take immediate remedial action and to stop mining activity. The Tribunal also directed the Member Secretary, HSPCB, to take disciplinary action against the Regional Officer concerned for negligence in performing his duties and indirectly permitting illegal mining causing loss to the State exchequer. Read more
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NCDRC upholds Telangana SCDRC order fastening vicarious liability on hospital in medical negligence case
In two first appeals filed under Section 19 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by both the parties against order dated 4-11-2016 passed by Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘TSCDRC’), Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member modified the said order a bit while concurring with the findings of TSCDRC regarding vicarious liability of the hospital and quantum of compensation fixed by the Commission. Read more
[Mumbai Floods 2005] NCDRC dismisses Leela Hotel insurance claim of Rs 6 Crores
In a complaint under Section 21(a)(i) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by Hotel Leela venture (‘Leela Hotel’) seeking compensation for loss suffered during 26 July 2005 Mumbai floods on account of repudiation of claim under two insurance policies issued by New India Assurance (‘insurance company’), Subhash Chandra, Presiding Officer dismissed the said claim since Leela Hotel could not prove inclusion of Leela Galleria in the insured premises as per said policies. Read more
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (DCDRC)
District Consumer Court directs Qatar Airways to compensate a High Court Judge for denying him permission to board the plane despite having boarding pass
While deliberating over a consumer complaint filed in 2018 by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, (who was then a designated Senior Advocate in the Kerala High Court), against Qatar Airways for denying him permission to board the plane due to overbooking, despite having boarding pass for the flight; the Bench of D.B. Binu (President) and V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N (Members) directed Qatar Airways to pay a compensation of Rs. 7,00,000 (seven lakhs) to him as compensation for the losses, mental agony, hardship, and physical stress borne due to serious deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by Qatar Airways. Read more
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY
Relief for Tata Power | APTEL stays MERC’s tariff schedule for FY 2023-24
In an appeal filed, where the Appellant-Distribution Licensee complained of high aggregate revenue requirement (‘ARR’) fixed by the MERC and sought interim stay on the tariff hike by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (‘MERC’), Ramesh Ranganathan J. and Sandesh Kumar Sharma, Technical Member granted interim stay on the impugned order of the MERC. Read more
State Commissions cannot modify tariff adopted by Central Commission and adopt trade margin for ISTS power projects: APTEL
In an appeal filed by Solar Energy Corporation of India Limited (‘SECI’) challenging the order dated 19-03-2021 passed by the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (‘UPERC’), wherein UPERC gave approval for procurement of power, subject to protection of pooled tariff by making adjustment in the trading margin of SECI, the two-member bench of Ramesh Ranganathan, J. (Chairperson) and Sandesh Kumar Sharma* (Technical Member) held that the Trading margin shall be Rs. 0.07/ kWh as mutually agreed between SECI and Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (‘UPPCL’) under the Power Sale Agreement (‘PSA’). Further, it set aside the order dated 19-03-2021 of the UPERC, to this extent, accordingly. Read more
