The Delhi High Court ruled that the moratorium granted by the NCLAT, staying the institution of suits and proceedings against the Corporate Debtor, after the resolution process was initiated against it under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, was akin to an order of moratorium passed under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
“The purpose of looking into the records of the lower fora in revision is principally to see whether any jurisdictional error or material irregularity has been committed, which has to be judged by seeing their orders in the light of the evidence and material placed before them i.e., the material which they were privy to when they passed their orders”
European Court of Justice (ECJ): In a far-reaching decision, the Bench of C. Lycourgos (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, S.
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Milind N. Jadhav and S.J. Kathawalla, JJ., refused to grant any ad-interim order in favour
Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Narula, J., refused to interfere in the interim arbitral award whereby the sole arbitrator had allowed certain claims of
by Dinesh Babu Eedi* and Manasa Tantravahi***
Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench of Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Jyotsna Rewal Dua, JJ., while allowing the present petition in
Bhumesh Verma, Managing Partner and Shashank Saurabh, Student Researcher, Corp Comm Legal
Cite as: (2020) PL (CL) March 80
‘Vigilantibus, non-dermientibus, jura subveniunt’ (the law helps those who are watchful and not those who are asleep) Delhi High Court: Vinod Goel, J.,
Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Pratibha M. Singh, J., allowed a petition filed by the Food Corporation of
Allahabad High Court: The petition had been filed before a Single Judge Bench comprising of Anjani Kumar Mishra, J., from the proceeding
Supreme Court: The Bench comprising of Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ., after hearing the learned counsels for the parties stated