NEW DELHI | MUMBAI | KOLKATA | HYDERABAD | COIMBATORE | AHMEDABAD | CHANDIGARH | ALLAHABAD | JAIPUR
   
 
     
   
 

Judgements

Leading Judgements in Labour Laws:
Leading Judgements in Insolvency and Bankruptcy:
  • Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India - In this case, the Supreme Court held that once the CIRP is triggered, the proceeding becomes a proceeding in rem, that is, collective proceeding, which cannot be terminated by an individual creditor. However, the Supreme Court clarified that in cases where the committee of creditors is not constituted at the time of settlement, a party can approach the NCLT directly under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, with an application for withdrawal or settlement.
  • ArcelorMittal India Pvt Ltd v. Satish Kumar Gupta - An important ruling, wherein the Supreme Court, while clarifying its view on Section 29A of the IBC, 2016, interestingly, also held that the time spent by parties in litigation could be excluded from the (earlier) mandatory timeline of 270 days to complete the resolution proceedings.
 Leading Judgements in Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
    • G. J. Raja v. Tejraj Surana - The Supreme Court ruled in this case, that Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which provides for payment of interim compensation for the complainant during the pendency of a case, does not have retrospective application.
    • Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi - In this case, the Supreme Court held that the amendment in Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, shall have retrospective effect. Post the recent amendment, under Section 148, the appellate court may direct the drawer in an appeal against conviction under section 138 to deposit before the appellate court a part of the fine or compensation as award by the trial court, which shall be a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation.
    • JIK Industries Limited v. Amarlal V Jumani - The Supreme Court has held that quashing of a complaint stands on a different footing and it can be ordered even without the consent of the complainant. However, compounding is altogether a different concept, and the same cannot be resorted to or applied by the Court; except with the consent of the complainant.
     
     
         
    182945 Times Visited