(1)
KAY BOUVET ENGINEERING LIMITED .....Appellant Vs.
OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent D.D
10/08/2021
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Insolvency – Operational Creditor's Application – Notice of Dispute – The Supreme Court considered the provisions under Section 9(5)(ii)(d) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – It was held that if a notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is a record of dispute in the information utility, the adjudicating authority must reject t...
(2)
DAVESH NAGALYA (DEAD) AND OTHERS .....Appellant Vs.
PRADEEP KUMAR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS .....Respondent D.D
10/08/2021
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Tenancy and Partnership – Dissolution upon Death – The Supreme Court examined the effect of the death of partners on the tenancy rights of a non-residential premises under Section 12(2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. It was held that with the death of both partners and in the absence of a clause permitting the continuation of the partn...
(3)
PARUBAI .....Appellant Vs.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .....Respondent D.D
10/08/2021
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Murder and Arson – Circumstantial Evidence – The appellant was accused of setting fire to a house, resulting in the death of three individuals. The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's unscathed exit from the house, presence of kerosene stains on the deceased's frock, and alleged motive arising from family disputes. The High Court affirmed ...
(4)
SUMAN CHADHA AND ANOTHER .....Appellant Vs.
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA .....Respondent D.D
09/08/2021
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Contempt of Court – Loan Repayment Defaults – The appellants, who guaranteed the repayment of a loan and offered immovable properties as security, failed to comply with court orders to deposit certain amounts, leading to their properties being classified as NPAs. The High Court found the appellants guilty of contempt for issuing post-dated cheques that were dishonored, not appearing in...
(5)
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER .....Appellant Vs.
ONKAR NATH DHAR .....Respondent D.D
05/08/2021
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act – Government Accommodation – Retired Employees – The Supreme Court held that retired government employees, including those displaced due to terrorism, do not have an indefeasible right to occupy government accommodation on a nominal license fee. Such accommodation is meant for serving government employees to facilitate their...
(6)
SHRI SAURAV JAIN AND ANOTHER .....Appellant Vs.
M/S A. B. P. DESIGN AND ANOTHER .....Respondent D.D
05/08/2021
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Procedure Code – Order 41 Rule 22 – Cross-objections – Court held that it is not necessary for a respondent to file cross-objections to challenge adverse findings if the decree is wholly in their favor – Objections can be raised against adverse findings of the lower court before the appellate court without a cross-objection – Amendments to Order XLI Rule 22 in 1...
(7)
SURAJDEO MAHTO AND ANOTHER .....Appellant Vs.
THE STATE OF BIHAR .....Respondent D.D
04/08/2021
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Indian Penal Code – Section 302 read with 34 – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Surajdeo Mahto (Appellant No.1) based on circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, recovery of incriminating materials, and motive. Appellant No.1 was the last person seen with the deceased, provided false information about the deceased...
(8)
DENA BANK (NOW BANK OF BARODA) .....Appellant Vs.
C. SHIVAKUMAR REDDY AND ANR. .....Respondent D.D
04/08/2021
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – Section 7 – Limitation Period – The Supreme Court held that an application under Section 7 of the IBC would not be barred by limitation if the Corporate Debtor acknowledged the debt before the expiration of the limitation period of three years, thereby extending the period by another three years. An acknowledgment of debt in financial statements o...
(9)
M/S. CHEMINOVA INDIA LTD AND ANOTHER .....Appellant Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER .....Respondent D.D
04/08/2021
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Insecticides Act – Misbranding – Quashing of Complaint – The appellants challenged the criminal complaint on the grounds that the complaint was barred by limitation, that there were procedural delays in sample testing, and that the Magistrate did not follow the prescribed procedure under Section 202 CrPC. The Supreme Court held that the complaint was indeed barred by limitation a...