Non-disclosure of every asset owned by an election candidate would not amount to a defect as to his nomination: SC

The Supreme Court (SC), while dealing with the issue of whether an election candidate’s nomination can be considered as defective on the ground of his failure to disclose information regarding certain assets owned by him, has held that “every defect in the nomination cannot straightaway be termed to be of such character as to render its acceptance improper…” The SC noted that an election can be held void on the ground of the defect in candidate’s nomination only if such non-disclosure has materially affected the outcome of the election.

Liquidator under IBC cannot cancel auction on the ground of expectation of higher price: SC

The Supreme Court (SC), in a case where the Liquidator acting under I&B Code, 2016 cancelled the auction on expectation of a higher price of the assets, has held that “such a cause of action would not only lead to incurring of avoidable expenses but also erode credibility of the auction process itself.” Earlier, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal had directed a fresh auction at the behest of the plea filed by one of the creditors.

CCI imposes Rs.10,00,000 penalty on Cummins Inc. for Gun-jumping

The Competition Commission of India (CCI), has imposed a penalty of Rs.10,00,000 on Cummins Inc. (Cummins) for Gun-jumping by not notifying Cummins’ acquisition of Meritor Inc. (Meritor). Cummins communicated its notice to CCI in November, 2022; however, the parties had already consummated the acquisition back in August, 2022. Cummins contended that, there has been a bona fide error in assessing the applicability of the De Minimis Exemption Notification issued under Section 54 of the Competition Act, 2002 (Act). However, CCI noted that penalty under Section 43A of the Act will get attracted, on failure to give notice, irrespective of it being inadvertent or intentional.

Person not named in F.I.R. can also be proceeded against during the trial: SC

The Supreme Court (SC) has held that under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., 1973 a person not named in the F.I.R. can also be proceeded against during the trial if there is sufficient evidence of his involvement and upon satisfaction of the Court to such an extent that is more than prima facie, as formed at the stage of a charge being framed, and short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction.

Rajasthan High Court quashed a government order discriminating against men in appointment to the Electricity Board

The Rajasthan High Court quashed a 1996 Order of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB), directing that only women would be appointed as lower division clerk under compassionate scheme in Electricity Board, stating that the policy of RSEB is based on gender discrimination and not on any rational having reasonable nexus with an object sought by the RSEB. Further, “ neither the legislature nor the Rule making Authority can make a law or a Rule, issue any guidelines/circulars/administrative instructions, which would be in violation of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.

CMA Blocks Microsoft-Activision Deal

The Competition & Markets Authority (CMA), UK, has denied the proposed acquisition of Activision-Blizzard by Microsoft Inc. as it raised competitive concerns in cloud gaming market in the UK. Microsoft committed to offer royalty-free access to CoD & other popular titles to certain cloud gaming providers & allowing consumers to stream titles on other cloud gaming providers. However, CMA noted that the remedy applies only to a defined set of Activision games, which can be streamed only in a defined set of cloud gaming services; thus requiring some degree of regulatory oversight by CMA. By contrast, preventing the merger would effectively allow market forces to continue to operate and develop cloud gaming without any regulatory intervention.

Assigning Reasons, for not Awarding Compound Interest under MSMED Act, a Must: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court (‘DHC’) affirmed the order of lower Court which had set aside an arbitral award for not awarding interest in terms of Section 15 and 16, which deal with liability of buyer to make payment and the rate at which the interest is payable respectively, of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (‘MSMED Act’), without giving any reason.