{"id":137291,"date":"2017-06-03T12:30:03","date_gmt":"2017-06-03T07:00:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=137291"},"modified":"2017-06-21T15:51:56","modified_gmt":"2017-06-21T10:21:56","slug":"2017-scc-vol-5-may-28-2017-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/03\/2017-scc-vol-5-may-28-2017-part-1\/","title":{"rendered":"2017 SCC Vol. 5 May 28, 2017 Part 1"},"content":{"rendered":"

Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction Regulations, 1987 \u2014 Regns. 19(4) and 19(5) \u2014 Refusal of registration of reference by Registrar of BIFR:<\/strong> The power of \u201cscrutiny\u201d cannot be understood to be vesting in Registrar and the other administrative authorities like the Secretary and the Chairman of BIFR, the power to adjudicate the question as to whether a company is an industrial company within the meaning of S. 3(e) r\/w Ss. 3(f) and 3(n) of SICA. Therefore, refusal of registration by the Registrar and Secretary\/Chairman of BIFR on such ground, is non est in law. [Bank of New York Mellon London Branch v. Zenith Infotech Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 1<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Competition Act, 2002 \u2014 Ss. 3 and 2(l) \u2014 Anticompetitive agreements \u2014 Enterprise\/Association of enterprises barred from entering into such agreements i.e. those falling within the ambit of S. 3:<\/strong> The expression \u201centerprise\u201d may refer to any entity, regardless of its legal status or the way in which it was financed and may include natural as well as legal persons. Any entity, regardless of its form, constitutes an \u201centerprise\u201d within the meaning of S. 3 of the Act when it engages in economic activity. Economic activity is central to concept of Competition Law. Hence, \u201centerprise\/association of enterprises\u201d must be found to be functionally involved in economic activity in relevant market, regardless of its form. Economic activity, as is generally understood, refers to any activity consisting of offering products in a market regardless of whether the activities are intended to earn a profit. An activity that has an exclusively social function and is based on the principle of solidarity is not likely to be treated as carrying on an economic activity so as to qualify the expressions used in S. 3. \u201cAgreement\u201d or \u201cconcerted practice\u201d is the means through which enterprise or association of enterprises or person or association of persons restrict competition. These concepts translate the objective of Competition Law to have economic operators determine their commercial policy independently. Competition Law is aimed at frowning upon the activities of those undertakings (whether natural persons or legal entities) who, while undertaking their economic activities, indulge in practices which effect the competition adversely or take advantage of their dominant position. Hence, entities claiming to be trade unions and acting solely in their capacity as trade unions would be beyond the purview of the Act. However, if even a trade union or its constituent member(s) act in such a way that they take economic decisions in similar or identical businesses to competing businesses in the relevant market, not acting only as a trade union simpliciter, then trade union\/its constituent members, would fall within \u201centerprise\/association of enterprises\u201d which attract umbrage of S. 3. In such cases, matter cannot be brushed aside by merely giving it a cloak of trade unionism. [Competition Commission of India v. Coordination Committee of Artistes and technicians of West Bengal Film & Television, (2017) 5 SCC 17<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Electricity Act, 2003 \u2014 S. 125 \u2014 Appeal to Supreme Court \u2014 Limitation:<\/strong> Delay beyond maximum statutory period of 60 days plus 60 days is non-condonable. Electricity Act, 2003 being a special legislation within meaning of S. 29(2) of Limitation Act, prescription with regard to limitation has to have binding effect and the same has to be followed regard being had to its mandatory nature. Hence, delay beyond said 120 days cannot even be condoned under Art. 142 of the Constitution. [ONGC v. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corpn. Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 42<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 \u2014 S. 427(1) \u2014 Person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment:<\/strong> Such subsequent term of imprisonment would normally commence at the expiration of imprisonment to which he was previously sentenced. Only in appropriate cases, considering facts of the case, can court make the sentence run concurrently with an earlier sentence imposed. Investiture of such discretion, presupposes that such discretion be exercised by court on sound judicial principles and not in a mechanical manner. Whether or not the discretion is to be exercised in directing sentences to run concurrently, would depend upon nature of offence\/offences and facts and circumstances of each case. [Anil Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2017) 5 SCC 53<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 \u2014 Ss. 6(1), 10(1), (2), (3), (5) & (6) \u2014 Appeal before Tribunal against orders declaring excess land by competent authority that were upheld by Tribunal in earlier litigation:<\/strong> G and M, daughters of BB (who died intestate in 1947) challenged proceedings issued under ULC Act declaring suit property as excess land after 8 yrs after said declaration and Tribunal reopened proceedings and held that G and M are entitled to one unit of land out of land owned by their father and set aside ULC proceedings. In civil appeal, Supreme Court held that Tribunal could not have reopened proceedings which had already terminated before it. [State of Gujarat v. Maliben Nathubhai, (2017) 5 SCC 57<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 \u2014 Or. 21 R. 1(3) \u2014 Permission for withdrawal of suit with liberty to file fresh suit \u2014 When can be granted:<\/strong> The power to allow withdrawal of suit is discretionary, and the principle under Or. 23 R. 1(3) CPC is founded on public policy to prevent institution of suit again and again on the same cause of action. Further, suit may be withdrawn with permission to bring a fresh suit only when court is satisfied that the suit must fail for reason of some formal defect or that there are other sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit. [V. Rajendran v. Annasamy Pandian, (2017) 5 SCC 63<\/a>]<\/p>\n

U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (13 of 1972) \u2014 Ss. 3(a), 3(g) and 12 \u2014 Devolution of tenancy on death of original tenant:<\/strong> The definition of \u201cfamily\u201d in S. 3(g) and its reference in S. 12 of the 1972 Act is not relevant for determination of question as to who would become tenant on death of original tenant. It is the word \u201cheir\u201d used in S. 3(a) of the 1972 Act which is relevant for said determination. Since the word \u201cheir\u201d is not defined in U.P. Rent Act, 1972, the said word has to be given the same meaning as would be applicable to the general law of succession. [Durga Prasad v. Narayan Ramchandaani, (2017) 5 SCC 69<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 \u2014 S. 166 \u2014 Compensation \u2014 Determination \u2014 Permanent disability \u2014 Proof of income:<\/strong> 45 year old house painter doing daily work\/piece-rated work made self-estimation of earning around Rs 15,000 to Rs 16,500 and no other evidence of income was available on record, it was held that for a casual worker, who goes from house to house and place to place doing his painting work it is difficult to get any evidence, since there is no employer. He does his daily work, sometimes piece-rated work as well, that is why he made a moderate self-estimation of his income of Rs 15,000 to Rs 16,500. [Shivakumar M. v. Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corpn., (2017) 5 SCC 79<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 \u2014 Ss. 166 and 168 \u2014 Compensation \u2014 Determination of \u2014 Permanent disability:<\/strong> Injured 29 yrs old claimant driver by profession had to remain hospitalised for four months and a leg had to be amputated and Courts below reduced disability of 90% as certified by doctor to 60% on ground that despite amputation of his left leg, remaining body of appellant was healthy. Condoning delay, held, with amputated leg appellant cannot pursue his livelihood as a driver or daily-wage labourer and accepting doctor\u2019s certificate appellant held to have sustained a 90% permanent disability. [Lal Singh Marabi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 82<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Government Grants, Largesse, Public Property and Premises \u2014 Resumption \u2014 Non-compliance with statutory requirements\/conditions of allotment\/directions of State Government, such as non-execution of lease deed by allottee:<\/strong> IDCO (the allotter) is a statutory authority and as per Act concerned it can act only on the basis of written lease deed and the execution of lease deed is necessary, and it is in public interest to prevent unauthorized leasing out of property on its behalf. Further, lease is required to be executed in a prescribed format in the shape of formal document which is sine qua non and in the absence thereof, it would not be permissible to hold that relationship of lessor and lessee came into being. [Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corpn. v. Mesco Kalinga Steel Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 86<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Income Tax Act, 1961 \u2014 S. 45 r\/w S. 2(14) \u2014 Gain from sale of assets of a dissolved firm, though as a going concern \u2014 Consideration of, as capital gain (and not capital receipt) in the hands of the original partners:<\/strong> The partnership firm stood dissolved on 6-12-1987 in terms of partnership deed but the winding-up court passed an order permitting the group of partners to continue the business as an interim arrangement till the completion of winding-up proceedings. Subsequently, the assets of the firm were put to sale in accordance with Cl. 16 of the partnership deed, though as a going concern; and outgoing partners (assessees herein) received their net share of the value of the assets of the firm out of the amount received by way of sale of the assets of the firm as per the partnership deed. It was held that the firm, after dissolution did not carry on business as an existing firm and a few ex-partners with controlling interest were allowed to continue the business activity in the interregnum as a stopgap arrangement. Further, the firm did not file income tax returns after the date of dissolution and it was this AOP which was filing the returns and getting the same assessed in that capacity and paying the income tax thereupon. Further, in the orders passed by the High Court from time to time, the firm had always been described as \u201cthe dissolved partnership firm\u201d. Thus, the assets which were sold ultimately on 20-11-1994 were of a dissolved partnership firm, though as a going concern. Further, once the asset of the firm that was sold is held to be the \u201ccapital asset\u201d, gain therefrom is to be treated as capital gain in the hands of the original partners within the meaning of S. 45 of the Act. [Vatsala Shenoy v. CIT, (2017) 5 SCC 104<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 \u2014 Ss. 100, 54 and Or. 20 R. 18 \u2014 Substantial question(s) of law \u2014 Whether involved:<\/strong> Having regard to nature of controversy and issues involved regarding inheritance and ownership based on interpretation of documents (exhibits), questions concerned did constitute substantial questions of law. [Sk. Bhikan v. Mehamoodabee, (2017) 5 SCC 127<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 \u2014 Generally:<\/strong> Position reviewed in different States, regarding implementation of the Act in respect of UGC, and various directions passed. [Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 131<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Service Law \u2014 Judiciary \u2014 Retirement\/Superannuation:<\/strong> As there were serious allegations of misconduct made against R-1, who was at the relevant point of time a District and Sessions Judge in the Bihar Higher Judicial Services was compulsorily retired in exercise of the powers vested with the Government on the recommendation made to that effect with the High Court of Judicature at Patna. The High Court, in terms of the impugned judgment, quashed the order of compulsory retirement. Supreme Court held that appellant High Court (on Administrative Side) is duty-bound to take appropriate disciplinary action against R-1 and he cannot be compulsorily retired with all retiral benefits. At the same time, officer who is to be retired on grounds of misconduct is entitled to claim that due process of law be followed. [High Court of Judicature at Patna v. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, (2017) 5 SCC 138<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Telegraph Act, 1885 \u2014 Ss. 10, 15 and 16 \u2014 Laying of electrical transmission lines by licensee\/deemed licensee under Electricity Act, 2003:<\/strong> Telegraph Act, 1885 provides for unobstructed access to lay down telegraph lines by telegraph authority. Power Grid Corpn., being Central transmission utility (CTU), is deemed licensee under S. 14 of 2003 Act and also treated as authority under 1885 Act. By virtue of S. 164 of 2003 Act, Power Grid Corpn. acquires all powers which are vested in a telegraph authority under 1885 Act including power to eliminate any obstruction in laying down of power transmission lines. As Power Grid Corpn. is given powers of telegraph authority, Rule 3 of 2006 Rules requiring prior consent of owner or occupier of building or land for construction of transmission towers or laying transmission lines ceases to apply in case of Power Grid Corpn. [Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 143<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Constitution of India \u2014 Arts. 136 and 226 \u2014 Infructuous litigation \u2014 Subsequent events \u2014 Consideration of:<\/strong> As cause of action no longer subsisting by virtue of subsequent events having direct bearing over controversy involved in the case, hence, appeal disposed of as infructuous. [Dinshaw Rusi Mehta v. State Of Maharashtra, (2017) 5 SCC 157<\/a>]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction Regulations, 1987 \u2014 Regns. 19(4) and 19(5) \u2014 Refusal of registration of reference by Registrar of <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":91,"featured_media":102451,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-137291","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casesreported","category-supremecourtcases"],"yoast_head":"\n2017 SCC Vol. 5 May 28, 2017 Part 1 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/03\/2017-scc-vol-5-may-28-2017-part-1\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"2017 SCC Vol. 5 May 28, 2017 Part 1\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction Regulations, 1987 \u2014 Regns. 19(4) and 19(5) \u2014 Refusal of registration of reference by Registrar of\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/03\/2017-scc-vol-5-may-28-2017-part-1\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2017-06-03T07:00:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-21T10:21:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Saba\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Saba\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/03\/2017-scc-vol-5-may-28-2017-part-1\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/03\/2017-scc-vol-5-may-28-2017-part-1\/\",\"name\":\"2017 SCC Vol. 5 May 28, 2017 Part 1 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/03\/2017-scc-vol-5-may-28-2017-part-1\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/03\/2017-scc-vol-5-may-28-2017-part-1\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2017-06-03T07:00:03+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-21T10:21:56+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/03\/2017-scc-vol-5-may-28-2017-part-1\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/03\/2017-scc-vol-5-may-28-2017-part-1\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/03\/2017-scc-vol-5-may-28-2017-part-1\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/03\/2017-scc-vol-5-may-28-2017-part-1\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"2017 SCC Vol. 5 May 28, 2017 Part 1\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\",\"name\":\"Saba\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Saba\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_2\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"2017 SCC Vol. 5 May 28, 2017 Part 1 | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/03\/2017-scc-vol-5-may-28-2017-part-1\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"2017 SCC Vol. 5 May 28, 2017 Part 1","og_description":"Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction Regulations, 1987 \u2014 Regns. 19(4) and 19(5) \u2014 Refusal of registration of reference by Registrar of","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/03\/2017-scc-vol-5-may-28-2017-part-1\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2017-06-03T07:00:03+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-21T10:21:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Saba","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Saba","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/03\/2017-scc-vol-5-may-28-2017-part-1\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/03\/2017-scc-vol-5-may-28-2017-part-1\/","name":"2017 SCC Vol. 5 May 28, 2017 Part 1 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/03\/2017-scc-vol-5-may-28-2017-part-1\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/03\/2017-scc-vol-5-may-28-2017-part-1\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","datePublished":"2017-06-03T07:00:03+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-21T10:21:56+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/03\/2017-scc-vol-5-may-28-2017-part-1\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/03\/2017-scc-vol-5-may-28-2017-part-1\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/03\/2017-scc-vol-5-may-28-2017-part-1\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/06\/03\/2017-scc-vol-5-may-28-2017-part-1\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"2017 SCC Vol. 5 May 28, 2017 Part 1"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785","name":"Saba","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Saba"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_2\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":174974,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/12\/11\/delhi-high-court-upholds-vires-s-4b-sick-industrial-companies-special-provisions-repeal-act-2003\/","url_meta":{"origin":137291,"position":0},"title":"Delhi High Court upholds the vires of S. 4(b) of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Repeal Act, 2003","author":"Saba","date":"December 11, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Sanjiv Khanna and Pratibha M. Singh, JJ dismissed a writ petition before it which challenged the constitutional validity of Section 4(b) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Repeal Act, 2003 (hereinafter the \u2018Repeal Act\u2019). The petitioner claimed to be engaged in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":54441,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/02\/no-proceedings-against-the-assets-of-the-company-can-be-taken-before-any-decision-is-taken-by-the-bifr\/","url_meta":{"origin":137291,"position":1},"title":"No proceedings against the assets of the company can be taken before any decision is taken by the BIFR","author":"Sucheta","date":"July 2, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court : While dealing with the issue relating to jurisdiction of BIFR in winding up proceedings, the Court held that winding up proceedings before the Company Court cannot continue after a reference has been registered by the BIFR and an enquiry has been initiated under Section 16 of the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":196170,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/05\/21\/sat-extension-provided-for-dilution-of-shareholding-not-to-be-construed-as-an-extension-for-compliance-with-mps-norms\/","url_meta":{"origin":137291,"position":2},"title":"SAT: Extension provided for dilution of shareholding not to be construed as an extension for compliance with MPS norms","author":"Saba","date":"May 21, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Securities Appellate Tribunal: The SAT has held that an extension provided by the Board of Industrial Finance Reconstruction (\u201cBIFR\u201d) to dilute shareholding of company executives is not an extension for compliance with Minimum Public Shareholding (\u201cMPS\u201d) norms unless expressly stated. The appellant company filed before BIFR which declared the appellant\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/appoointment.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/appoointment.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/appoointment.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/appoointment.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/appoointment.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":216778,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/07\/12\/bom-hc-statutory-disability-to-prosecute-accused-under-s-138-of-ni-act-is-not-removed-by-enforcement-of-sica-repeal-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":137291,"position":3},"title":"Bom HC | Statutory disability to prosecute accused under S. 138 of NI Act is not removed by enforcement of SICA Repeal Act","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 12, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court:\u00a0Rohit B. Deo, J. allowed a petition filed against the order of the trial court whereby it had issued process against the accused-petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 138\u00a0(dishonour of cheque)\u00a0of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused were a company registered under the Companies Act and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":285008,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/24\/period-of-suspension-of-legal-proceedings-is-excludable-in-computing-the-period-of-limitation-for-enforcement-of-right-in-terms-of-s-225-sica-supreme-court-legal-research-lega\/","url_meta":{"origin":137291,"position":4},"title":"Period of suspension of legal proceedings is excludable in computing limitation period for enforcement of right under Section 22(5), SICA: Supreme Court","author":"Apoorva","date":"February 24, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court held that the period of suspension of legal proceedings is excludable in computing the period of limitation for the enforcement of such right in terms of Section 22(5), SICA. Further, the dismissal of the application under Section 9, IBC on the ground of \u2018pre-existing dispute\u2019 cannot be held\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-526.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-526.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-526.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-526.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":100561,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/01\/23\/cases-reported-in-scc-2017-scc-vol-1-january-21-2017-part-3\/","url_meta":{"origin":137291,"position":5},"title":"Cases reported in SCC: 2017 SCC Vol. 1 January 21, 2017 Part 3","author":"Saba","date":"January 23, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Constitution of India \u2014 Art. 51-A(a) \u2014 Duty to respect ideals and institutions, the National Flag and National Anthem: Interim directions issued including clarifications, regarding what would constitute disrespect and abuse to National Anthem and directions to avoid such disrespect and abuse. [Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. Union of India,\u00a0(2017) 1\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137291","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/91"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=137291"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137291\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/102451"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=137291"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=137291"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=137291"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}