(1)
M/S EMKAY GLOBAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD Vs.
GIRDHAR SONDHI .....Respondent D.D
20/08/2018
Facts: The dispute arose between Emkay Global Financial Services Ltd., a registered broker with the National Stock Exchange, and Girdhar Sondhi, its client, regarding transactions in securities and shares. The respondent initiated an arbitration proceeding against the appellant, claiming an amount of Rs. 7,36,620/-, which was rejected by the Sole Arbitrator through an Arbitration Award dated 08.12...
(2)
RAJDEEP GHOSH Vs.
STATE OF ASSAM & ORS .....Respondent D.D
17/08/2018
Facts:The case involved a challenge to the validity of Rule 3(1)(c) of the Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges of Assam (Regulations of Admission into 1st year MBBS/BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, which stipulated eligibility criteria for state quota seats. The rule required candidates to have obtained education from Class VII to XII in the State of Assam.Issues:Whether Rule 3(1)(c) violated Article 14...
(3)
MOHAN LAL Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent D.D
16/08/2018
Facts:An F.I.R. was lodged against the appellant by PW-1, a Sub-Inspector, alleging possession of opium.The appellant was searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer, leading to the recovery of 4 kg of opium.Certain irregularities were noted in the investigation, including the absence of deposition of seized narcotics in the malkhana, delay in sending samples for analysis, and non-examination o...
(4)
STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs.
P. RAVIKUMAR @ RAVI ETC .....Respondent D.D
16/08/2018
Facts:The case involves the State of Karnataka appealing against the acquittal of the respondents (accused) for the offense under Section 302 IPC.The prosecution alleged that the accused conspired to murder Mohan Kumar due to his wife's alleged illicit relationship with one of the accused.Issues:Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accu...
(5)
STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs.
V RAMAKRISHNAN & ANR .....Respondent
Section Acts, Rules, and Articles mentioned:
Section 133: Contract Act, 1872
Section 10, Section 101, Section 13, Section 14, Section 14(1), Section 14(3), Section 179, Section 2(e), Section 238, Section 243, Section 249, Section 3(11), Section 3(7), Section 3(8), Section 31, Section 31(1), Section 5(1), Section 5(22), Section 5(8)(i), Section 60, Section 60(2), Section 60(3), Section 95, Section 96: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
Section 13(2), Section 13(4): Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI)
Subject:
Applicability of Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to personal guarantors of corporate debtors.
Headnotes:
Facts:
The case involved a question regarding the applicability of Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to personal guarantors of corporate debtors.
Issues:
Whether the moratorium provided under Section 14 of the Code extends to personal guarantors of corporate debtors.
Held:
The Court held that Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which provides for a moratorium upon admission of an insolvency petition, applies only to corporate debtors and not to personal guarantors.
The Court noted that Part III of the Code, which deals with insolvency resolution and bankruptcy for individuals and partnerships, has not been brought into force yet. Consequently, personal guarantors continue to be proceeded against under the Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, or the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920.
It was clarified that the Adjudicating Authority for insolvency resolution processes against corporate debtors is the National Company Law Tribunal. However, proceedings against personal guarantors will be decided by the Tribunal under the old insolvency acts.
Decision: The appeals were allowed, affirming that the moratorium under Section 14 of the Code does not apply to personal guarantors of corporate debtors.
Referred Cases:
Bank of Bihar Vs. Damodar Prasad, 1969 AIR(SC) 297
Central Bank of India Vs. Workmen, 1960 AIR(SC) 12
Chokalinga Chettiar Vs. Dandayunthapani Chattiar, 1928 AIR(Mad) 1262
CIT Vs. Chittor Electric Supply Corpn, 1995 2 SCC 430
CIT Vs. Shelly Products, 2003 5 SCC 461
CIT Vs. Vatika Township, 2015 1 SCC 1
Edward Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Ajmer, 1955 AIR(SC) 25
Madras Petrochem Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and Ors., 2016 4 SCC 1
National Project Construction Corporation Limited Vs. Sandhu and Co., 1990 AIR(P&H) 300
Sanjeev Shriya Vs. State Bank of India, 2017 9 ADJ 723
State of Kerala and Ors. Vs. Mar Appraem Kuri Co. Ltd. and Anr., 2012 7 SCC 106
Tulloch, 1964 AIR(SC) 1284
JUDGMENT/ORDER
R.F. Nariman, J. - The present appeals revolve around whether Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which provides for a moratorium for the limited period mentioned in the Code, on admission of an insolvency petition, would apply to a personal guarantor of a corporate debtor.
2. The factual backdrop of the present appeals is that the Respondent No.1 is the Managing Director of the corporate debtor, namely, the Respondent No.2 Company, and also the personal guarantor in respect of credit facilities that had been availed from the Appellant. The Guarantee Agreement entered into between the Appellant and the Respondent No.1 is dated 22.02.2014.
3. As the Respondent No.2 Company did not pay its debts in time, the account of Respondent No.2 was classified as a non-performing asset on 26.07.2015. Consequent thereto, the Appellant issued a notice dated 04.08.2015 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act demanding an outstanding amount of Rs. 61,13,28,785.48 from the Respondents within the statutory period of 60 days. As no payment was forthcoming, a possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was issued on 18.11.2016.
4. As matters stood thus, an application was filed by Respondent No.2, the corporate debtor, under Section 10 of the Code on 20.05.2017 to initiate the corporate insolvency resolution process against itself. On 19.06.2017, this petition filed under Section 10 was admitted, followed by the moratorium that is imposed statutorily by Section 14 of the Code. While the said proceedings were pending, an interim application was filed by Respondent No.1 as personal guarantor to the corporate debtor, in which Respondent No.1 took up the plea that Section 14 of the Code would apply to the personal guarantor as well, as a result of which proceedings against the personal guarantor and his property would have to be stayed. The National Company Law Tribunal, by its order dated 18.09.2017, held that since under Section 31 of the Code, a Resolution Plan made thereunder would bind the personal guarantor as well, and since, after the creditor is proceeded against, the guarantor stands in the shoes of the creditor, Section 14 would apply in favour of the personal guarantor as well. The interim application filed by Respondent No.1 was thus allowed, and the Appellant was restrained from moving against Respondent No.1.
5. An appeal filed to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal resulted in the appeal being dismissed. By the impugned judgment dated 28.02.2018, the Appellate Tribunal relied upon Section 60(2) and (3) of the Code as well as Section 31 of the Code to find that the moratorium imposed under Section 14 would apply also to the personal guarantor. The reasoning was that since the personal guarantor can also be proceeded against, and forms part of a Resolution Plan which is binding on him, he is very much part of the insolvency process against the corporate debtor, and that, therefore, the moratorium imposed under Section 14 should apply to the personal guarantor as well.
6. Shri Sanjay Kapur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant in C.A. No. 3595 of 2018, and Shri C.U. Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of Appellant in C.A. No. 4553 of 2018, both argued that the corporate debtor and personal guarantor are separate entities and that a corporate debtor undergoing insolvency proceedings under the Code would not mean that a personal guarantor is also undergoing the same process. As the guarantor's liability is distinct and separate from that of the corporate debtor, a suit can be maintained against the surety, though the principal debtor has not been sued. For this purpose, they relied upon Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. They also relied heavily upon the reasoning contained in a judgment by a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in M/s. Sicom Investments and Finance Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar Drolia and Anr.,2017 SCCOnline(Bom) 9725 (decided on 28.11.2017).
They then referred to Part III of the Code, and in particular, to Sections 96 and 101. Although Part III of the Code has not been brought into force, it is clear that if an insolvency resolution process is to be carried out against a personal guarantor, it can be done only under Part III, which contains a separate moratorium provision, namely, Sections 96 and 101, both of which would attach only if a separate insolvency process were carried out as against the personal guarantor. Shri Singh, in particular, relied heavily upon the difference in language between Section 14 and Section 101. According to the learned senior counsel, Section 14, in all its sub-sections, speaks only of the corporate debtor. When contrasted with Section 101, it becomes clear that Section 14 cannot possibly attach to a personal guarantor as well, as Section 101 does not speak of a 'debtor' but speaks 'in relation to the debt' and is not only wider than Section 14, but would attach only if Part III proceedings were to be instituted against the personal guarantor. They also relied heavily upon the Amendment Ordinance dated 06.06.2018, by which Section 14(3) of the Code was substituted, including a surety in a contract of guarantee to a corporate debtor. They relied upon the Insolvency Law Committee proceedings, which led to the aforesaid amendment, stating that it had been recommended to clarify, by way of an explanation, that all assets of such guarantors to the corporate debtor shall be outside the scope of the moratorium imposed under the Code. The very impugned judgment in the present proceedings was referred to by the Insolvency Law Committee stating that such a broad interpretation of Section 14 would curtail significant rights of the creditor. They relied upon judgments which made it clear that clarificatory statutes, like this amendment, would have retrospective operation and that, therefore, in any case, the impugned judgment would have to be set aside.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents first took shelter under Section 60(2) of the Code, as according to the learned counsel, the said Section precludes the bank from proceeding against the personal guarantor under SARFAESI or any other Act outside the Code. He relied upon the reasoning of the Tribunal and took shelter under Section 31, as did the Tribunal. He also relied upon a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Sanjeev Shriya v. State Bank of India and Ors., (2018) 2 AllLJ 769 (decided on 06.09.2017). which stated that as a proceeding relatable to the corporate debtor is pending adjudication in two forums, it is not permissible to proceed against the personal guarantor. A financial creditor cannot operate in a manner that imperils the value of the property of the personal debtor. He also relied strongly upon the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2018 which came into effect on 23.11.2017, by which, clause (e) of Section 2 was substituted so as to include within the sweep of the Code, personal guarantors to corporate debtors. He then relied upon the Statement of Objects of the Amendment Act, 2018, which was, inter alia, to extend the provisions of the Code to personal guarantors of corporate debtors, to further strengthen the corporate insolvency resolution process. He then relied upon certain statutory forms which are contained in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 and in particular, to Annexure VI(e) to Form 6. Regulation 36(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 also provides, as did Annexure VI(e), that information as to personal guarantees have to be given in relation to the debts of the corporate debtor when an insolvency process is initiated against the corporate debtor. All this would show that since the personal guarantor is very much part of the overall process, the moratorium contained in Section 14 of the Code should apply to the personal guarantor as well.
8. We appointed Shri K.V. Viswanathan, learned Senior Advocate, to assist us as Amicus Curiae in this matter. We thank him for the valuable assistance that he has rendered. He has pointed out that the whole idea of the Insolvency Code was that the history of debt recovery had shown that the earlier statutes were loaded heavily in favour of corporate debtors and that, as a result, huge outstanding debts to banks and financial institutions had not been repaid. In particular, he pointed out Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and stated that as a result of the said Section applying to guarantors as well, creditors could not proceed against guarantors as well after the company had been declared sick under the said Act, without permission from the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. Now that the said Act has been repealed, and the fact that several later enactments, including the Companies Act, 2013 had omitted a provision akin to Section 22, would show that the enactment of Section 14 of the Code was deliberate, and that the idea was that there should be no stay of proceedings against the guarantor while the corporate debtor is undergoing an insolvency proceeding. For this, he cited various judgments. He also relied upon the Amendment Act, 2018 and stated that since the Act was to get over the appellate judgment in particular, and since it was clarificatory, the position in law would be that it would be retrospective, and would thus govern the case at hand.
9. Before dealing with the arguments of learned counsel on both sides, it is important at this stage to set out some of the provisions of the Code. One difficulty that we faced when hearing the matter was that different provisions of the Code were brought into force on different dates, as Section 1(3) indicates. Also, certain important provisions of the Code have not yet been brought into force. This we will advert to a little later in our judgment.
10. Section 2(e) of the Code, as originally enacted, reads as under:
"2. Application. The provisions of this Code shall apply to
xxx xxx xxx
(e) partnership firms and individuals;
xxx xxx xxx"
By the Amendment Act, 2018, this Section was substituted as follows:
"2. Application. The provisions of this Code shall apply to
xxx xxx xxx
(e) personal guarantors to corporate debtors;
xxx xxx xxx"
Though the original Section 2(e) did not come into force at all, the substituted Section 2(e) has come into force w.e.f. 23.11.2017.
11. Section 3(7), (8) and (11) of the Code read as under:
"3. Definitions. In this Code, unless the context otherwise requires,
(7) "corporate person" means a company as defined in clause (20) of Section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013), a limited liability partnership, as defined in clause (n) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 (6 of 2009), or any other person incorporated with limited liability under any law for the time being in force but shall not include any financial service provider;
(8) "corporate debtor" means a corporate person who owes a debt to any person;"
xxx xxx xxx
"(11) "debt" means a liability or obligation in respect of a claim which is due from any person and includes a financial debt and operational debt;"
12. Section 5(8)(i) of the Code reads as follows:
"5. Definitions. In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires,
xxx xxx xxx
(8) "financial debt" means a debt along with interest, if any, which is disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money and includes
xxx xxx xxx
(i) the amount of any liability in respect of any of the guarantee or indemnity for any of the items referred to in sub-clauses (a) to (h) of this clause;
xxx xxx xxx"
13. Section 5(22) of the Code read as follows:
"5. Definitions. In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires,
xxx xxx xxx
(22) "personal guarantor" means an individual who is the surety in a contract of guarantee to a corporate debtor;"
14. Sections 14, 31, 60, 95, 101, 238, 243, and 249 of the Code read as under:
"14. Moratorium. (1) Subject to provisions of subsections (2) and (3), on the insolvency commencement date, the Adjudicating Authority shall by order declare moratorium for prohibiting all of the following, namely
(a) the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority;
(b) transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein;
(c) any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property including any action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002);
(d) the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor.
(2) The supply of essential goods or services to the corporate debtor as may be specified shall not be terminated or suspended or interrupted during moratorium period.
(3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to such transactions as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator.
(4) The order of moratorium shall have effect from the date of such order till the completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process: Provided that where at any time during the corporate insolvency resolution process period, if the Adjudicating Authority approves the resolution plan under sub-section (1) of Section 31 or passes an order for liquidation of corporate debtor under Section 33, the moratorium shall cease to have effect from the date of such approval or liquidation order, as the case may be."
xxx xxx xxx
"31. Approval of resolution plan. (1) If the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the resolution plan as approved by the committee of creditors under sub-section (4) of section 30 meets the requirements as referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 30, it shall by order approve the resolution plan which shall be binding on the corporate debtor and its employees, members, creditors, guarantors and other stakeholders involved in the resolution plan.
(2) Where the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the resolution plan does not confirm to the requirements referred to in sub-section (1), it may, by an order, reject the resolution plan.
(3) After the order of approval under sub-section (1),-
(a) the moratorium order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 14 shall cease to have effect; and
(b) the resolution professional shall forward all records relating to the conduct of the corporate insolvency resolution process and the resolution plan to the Board to be recorded on its database."
xxx xxx xxx
"60. Adjudicating Authority for corporate persons. (1) The Adjudicating Authority, in relation to insolvency resolution and liquidation for corporate persons including corporate debtors and personal guarantors thereof shall be the National Company Law Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the registered office of the corporate person is located.
(2) Without prejudice to sub-section (1) and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code, where a corporate insolvency resolution process or liquidation proceeding of a corporate debtor is pending before a National Company Law Tribunal, an application relating to the insolvency resolution or bankruptcy of a personal guarantor of such corporate debtor shall be filed before such National Company Law Tribunal.
(3) An insolvency resolution process or bankruptcy proceeding of a personal guarantor of the corporate debtor pending in any court or tribunal shall stand transferred to the Adjudicating Authority dealing with insolvency resolution process or liquidation proceeding of such corporate debtor.
(4) The National Company Law Tribunal shall be vested with all the powers of the Debts Recovery Tribunal as contemplated under Part III of this Code for the purpose of sub-section (2).
(5) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, the National Company Law Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to entertain or dispose of
(a) any application or proceeding by or against the corporate debtor or corporate person;
(b) any claim made by or against the corporate debtor or corporate person, including claims by or against any of its subsidiaries situated in India; and
(c) any question of priorities or any question of law or facts, arising out of or in relation to the insolvency resolution or liquidation proceedings of the corporate debtor or corporate person under this Code.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) or in any other law for the time being in force, in computing the period of limitation specified for any suit or application by or against a corporate debtor for which an order of moratorium has been made under this Part, the period during which such moratorium is in place shall be excluded."
xxx xxx xxx
"96. Interim-moratorium. (1) When an application is filed under Section 94 or Section 95
(a) an interim-moratorium shall commence on the date of the application in relation to all the debts and shall cease to have effect on the date of admission of such application; and
(b) during the interim-moratorium period
(i) any legal action or proceeding pending in respect of any debt shall be deemed to have been stayed; and
(ii) the creditors of the debtor shall not initiate any legal action or proceedings in respect of any debt.
(2) Where the application has been made in relation to a firm, the interim-moratorium under sub-section (1) shall operate against all the partners of the firm as on the date of the application.
(3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to such transactions as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator."
xxx xxx xxx
"101. Moratorium. (1) When the application is admitted under Section 100, a moratorium shall commence in relation to all the debts and shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of one hundred and eighty days beginning with the date of admission of the application or on the date the Adjudicating Authority passes an order on the repayment plan under Section 114, whichever is earlier.
(2) During the moratorium period
(a) any pending legal action or proceeding in respect of any debt shall be deemed to have been stayed;
(b) the creditors shall not initiate any legal action or legal proceedings in respect of any debt; and
(c) the debtor shall not transfer, alienate, encumber or dispose of any of his assets or his legal rights or beneficial interest therein;
(3) Where an order admitting the application under Section 96 has been made in relation to a firm, the moratorium under sub-section (1) shall operate against all the partners of the firm.
(4) The provisions of this section shall not apply to such transactions as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator."
xxx xxx xxx
"238. Provisions of this Code to override other laws. The provisions of this Code shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law."
xxx xxx xxx
"243. Repeal of certain enactments and savings.
(1) The Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (3 of 1909) and the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (5 of 1920) are hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding the repeal under sub-sections (1),
(i) all proceedings pending under and relating to the Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, and the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 immediately before the commencement of this Code shall continue to be governed under the aforementioned Acts and be heard and disposed of by the concerned courts or tribunals, as if the aforementioned Acts have not been repealed;
(ii) any order, rule, notification, regulation, appointment, conveyance, mortgage, deed, document or agreement made, fee directed, resolution passed, direction given, proceeding taken, instrument executed or issued, or thing done under or in pursuance of any repealed enactment shall, if in force at the commencement of this Code, continue to be in force, and shall have effect as if the aforementioned Acts have not been repealed;
(iii) anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken, including any rule, notification, inspection, order or notice made or issued or any appointment or declaration made or any operation undertaken or any direction given or any proceeding taken or any penalty, punishment, forfeiture or fine imposed under the repealed enactments shall be deemed valid;
(iv) any principle or rule of law, or established jurisdiction, form or course of pleading, practice or procedure or existing usage, custom, privilege, restriction or exemption shall not be affected, notwithstanding that the same respectively may have been in any manner affirmed or recognised or derived by, in, or from, the repealed enactments;
(v) any prosecution instituted under the repealed enactments and pending immediately before the commencement of this Code before any court or tribunal shall, subject to the provisions of this Code, continue to be heard and disposed of by the concerned court or tribunal;
(vi) any person appointed to any office under or by virtue of any repealed enactment shall continue to hold such office until such time as may be prescribed; and
(vii) any jurisdiction, custom, liability, right, title, privilege, restriction, exemption, usage, practice, procedure or other matter or thing not in existence or in force shall not be revised or restored.
(3) The mention of particular matters in sub-section (2) shall not be held to prejudice the general application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) with regard to the effect of repeal of the repealed enactments or provisions of the enactments mentioned in the Schedule."
xxx xxx xxx
"249. Amendments of Act, 51 of 1993. The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 shall be amended in the manner specified in the Fifth Schedule."
15. The first important thing that needs to be noticed is that, as has been stated earlier in this judgment, Part III of the Code has not yet been brought into force. This part is entitled "Insolvency Resolution and Bankruptcy for Individuals and Partnership Firms". The repealing provision, namely Section 243, which repeals the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 and the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, has also not been brought into force. Section 249, which amends the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, so that the Debt Recovery Tribunals under that Act can exercise the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority conferred by the Code, has also not been brought into force.
16. Under Part II of the Code, which deals with "Insolvency Resolution and Liquidation for Corporate Persons", a financial creditor or a corporate debtor may make an application to initiate this process. Once initiated, the Adjudicating Authority, after admission of such an application, shall by order, declare a moratorium for the purposes referred to in Section 14 (See Section 13 of the Code).
17. Section 14 refers to four matters that may be prohibited once the moratorium comes into effect. In each of the matters referred to, be it institution or continuation of proceedings, the transferring, encumbering or alienating of assets, action to recover security interest, or recovery of property by an owner which is in possession of the corporate debtor, what is conspicuous by its absence is any mention of the personal guarantor. Indeed, the corporate debtor and the corporate debtor alone is referred to in the said Section. A plain reading of the said D.D
14/08/2018
Facts: The case involved a question regarding the applicability of Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to personal guarantors of corporate debtors.Issues: Whether the moratorium provided under Section 14 of the Code extends to personal guarantors of corporate debtors.Held:The Court held that Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which provides for a moratorium ...
(6)
UNION BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs.
C G AJAY BABU AND ANOTHER .....Respondent D.D
14/08/2018
Facts:The respondent, an employee of the appellant bank, was dismissed from service due to established charges of misconduct.The bank forfeited his gratuity on grounds of moral turpitude.Issues:Whether forfeiture of gratuity, under The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, is automatic upon dismissal from service?Interpretation of Section 4(5) and Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 regardi...
(7)
STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs.
SRINIVASA .....Respondent D.D
14/08/2018
Facts: The case revolved around the alleged murder of Rajashree, with the respondent accused (referred to as A-1) being charged under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was alleged that A-1 had an illicit relationship with the second accused (now deceased), leading to altercations between A-1 and the deceased, ultimately resulting in her death by strangulation. The trial court convicte...
(8)
STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs.
A B MAHESHA & ORS .....Respondent D.D
14/08/2018
Facts: The appeals by the State of Karnataka were filed against the acquittal of the respondents/accused. The prosecution's case was based on various circumstances including the last sighting of the deceased with the accused, the recovery of a car, and the recovery of certain material objects from the accused's houses.Issues: The credibility and reliability of the evidence presented by t...
(9)
MOHINDER SINGH Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB .....Respondent D.D
14/08/2018
Facts:The appellant was convicted under Section 18 of the NDPS Act based on the recovery of opium from his possession during a police check.The trial court acquitted the appellant, citing non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act and insufficient evidence regarding the production of contraband before the court.The High Court reversed the trial court's decision based on oral evidence pres...