Author: kkslawoffices

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) while dealing with an appeal filed by the Corporate Debtor (CD) against the order admitting Company Petition passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur has held that, the CD cannot be absolved from its liability by taking the benefit of the fact that the Operational creditor (OC) has received the claim amount from its Insurer. The NCLAT further noted that, the CD is still liable pay the debt, since the OC is “under obligation to take proceeding to recover its dues & handover the amount to the Insurance Company.”

The Supreme Court while dealing with an appeal filed by the accused against the order of conviction passed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court, has held that, once the parties have come to the settlement & “the complainant has signed the deed accepting a particular amount in full & final settlement of the default amount”, the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 needs to be quashed.

The Supreme Court (SC) while dealing with the issue of whether, in a suit for setting aside of the Arbitral Award (AA), courts have the power to modify the AA, has held that courts acting under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act)would have no jurisdiction to modify the AA, unless, it is conflict with public policy; otherwise, it can only quash/set aside the AA. The SC further held that, since the Appellate Courts, have the power to adjudicate only on the grounds given under Section 34 of the A&C Act, the Appellate Court also cannot modify the AA under Section 37 of the A&C Act.

The Bombay High Court (BHC), in an appeal filed against the order of maintenance (Mahr), passed by the sessions court, granted to a muslim woman, who subsequently got remarried after the divorce, has held that “a divorced woman is entitled to a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance regardless of her remarriage.” The BHC further held that, Section 3(1)(a) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, dealing with grant of Mahr, does not absolve the husband of his duty to pay Mahr after the remarriage of the former-wife.

The Delhi High Court (DHC), while dealing with a suit for permanent injunction filed by Puma SE (Puma) against Indiamart Intermesh Ltd. (IndiaMart) from allowing third-party sellers to sell counterfeit Puma goods on IndiaMart’s website, has held that by allowing prospective sellers to select trademarks of Puma while registering themselves on IndiaMart’s websites, without any verification, IndiaMart “…aided commission of the unlawful act of counterfeiting…” and thus, IndiaMart cannot claim the benefit of “safe harbour principle” given under section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The DHC further restrained IndiaMart from providing any of the registered trademarks of Puma to prospective sellers while applying for registration in IndiaMart’s website.

The Supreme Court (SC), while dealing with issue of permissibility of mutual set-off of claims under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) has held that, the set-off of the dues payable by the Corporate Debtor for a period prior to the commencement of the CIRP cannot be made & is not permitted in law from the dues payable to the Corporate Debtor post the commencement of the CIRP, thus, no statutory set-off or insolvency set-off can be applicable in CIRP under Part II of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

The Supreme Court (SC) while dismissing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, has held that, parties cannot take the recourse of SLP to circumvent the bar of limitation, especially, when a statutory appeal lies in the case. The SC by taking note that, the assailed order was appealable under Section 62 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, dismissed the SLP.

The Delhi High Court (DHC), while dealing with the issue of grant of parole for a convict on the premise of right to procreation, went on to hold that right to procreation and parenthood “is a fundamental right of a convict protected under Article 21 of the Constitution”. The DHC further clarified that this right is not an absolute right, but depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and upon the consideration of “factors such as the prisoner’s parental status and age, a fair and just approach must be adopted to preserve the delicate equilibrium between individual rights and broader societal considerations.”

The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that the legal heirs’ legitimate claim to the securities, against the nominee, is not precluded by the non-obstante clause under Section 109A(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 and bye-law 9.11.7 of the Depositories Act, 1996 and opined that the vesting of securities in favour of the nominee “is for a limited purpose”, that is, to avoid confusion with regard to the legal formalities required to be undertaken upon the death of a shareholder. The SC further held that, succession laws cannot be overridden by the nomination process under the Companies Act, 1956 (pari materia Companies Act, 2013).

Google has entered into a settlement agreement with the US States and has agreed to pay US$700 million & to allow for greater competition in its app store – PlayStore. It has been alleged by plaintiff States, in the lawsuit, that Google has been exploiting its dominance in the PlayStore by overcharging consumers through unlawful restrictions on the distribution of apps on Android devices and unnecessary fees for in-app transactions. As a part of the settlement agreement, Google will simplify Android user’s ability to download apps directly from the developers.