TIER-1

    Shubham Budhiraja [1] Mr. A advanced a loan of Rs. 21 lacs to the partnership firm (X+Y). To discharge the debt, X issued a cheque in favour of Mr. A of the account maintained in the name of partnership firm. The cheque was issued in the name of firm and signed by X, Partner. The cheque got dishonoured as account of firm was frozen. The notice was issued against X and Y and accordingly complaint under section 138 NI Act was filed against X and Y. Neither the notice was sent to firm not the firm was made as accused in the complaint. The Hon’ble HC quashed the complaint the ground that while the cheque was issued on behalf of the partnership firm, no statutory notice was issued to the partnership firm and it was also not arraigned as an accused in the complaint. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under [2] :   1.     Even if we have to come to the conclusion that the juristic entity i.e., the partnership firm is the primary accused in the instant c...

      The Bank filed Section 7 IBC against Company-A which is the leader in glass industry. The NCLT admitted the petition and RP invited plans for resolution. The Company-B (2 nd largest) and Company-C submitted their plans. The plan of Company-B got approved however on account of proposed combination, it was mandated that approval of CCI must be obtained before filing of application before NCLT. The CCI approval was taken only after plan got approved. Both CCI approval and plan approval was challenged by Company-C before NCLAT.   However, the NCLAT upheld the plan. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2:1 held as under [1] : Shubham Budhiraja [2]   Literal interpretation of proviso   1.     The introduction of a proviso, specifically addressing those Resolution Plans with provisions for combination, and the use of the term ‘prior’ therein, makes it starkly clear that the intent of the legislature was to create an exception .  ...

  Shubham Budhiraja [1]   The Ministry of Corporate affairs directed the SFIO to conduct investigation into affairs of Company-A & its subsidiaries. Basis the investigation, the Union of India filed petition under section 241-242 alleging oppression mismanagement. The NCLT allowed UOI’s application to amend the petition which was allowed. Some parties objected to the amendment for reason that it is beyond the scope of what was allowed by NCLT. The NCLT rejected the objection. Aggrieved by the same, appeal filed before the NCLAT. The Hon’ble NCLAT held as under [2] :   1.     Rule 155 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 which contains general power of amendment. The above rule clearly empowers the Tribunal to permit to amend necessary amendment for the purpose of determining the real question or issue raised in the proceeding. Section 424 of the Companies Act, 2013 deals with procedure before Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal   2.     The above pro...

  Shubham Budhiraja [1] A filed a suit for declaration against B seeking will & codicil of their father to be null & void. The B filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 seeking rejection of plaint on basis that plaint was barred by limitation. The Ld. Trial Court allowed the application but High Court reversed the findings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the application and held as under: [2]   1.      Article 58 would stand attracted which provides for a limitation period of three years to obtain any other declaration other than that mentioned under Articles 56 and 57. It provides that for such a declaration, the limitation is three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues.   2.      The use of the words “when the right to sue first accrues” as mentioned in Article 58 is very relevant and important. It categorically provides that the limitation of three years has to be counted from the dat...

  Shubham Budhiraja [1]   A (Purchaser of suit property) filed a suit for permanent injunction against B seeking retainment against B for creating 3 rd party rights in respect of land in question. The basis of suit was an agreement to sell entered between A&C. B filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 for rejection of plaint on basis that the agreement to sell gives no right to A. They are not the owners. The Trial Court rejected the application. The High Court also dismissed it in revision jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the Order 7 Rule 11 and held as under [2] :   1.     The protection under Section 53-A is not available against a third party who may have an adversarial claim against the vendor. Therefore, unless and until the sale deed is executed, the purchaser is not vested with any right, title or interest in the property except to the limited extent of seeking specific performance from his vendor. An agreement for s...

    Shubham Budhiraja [1]   Mr. A advanced OD facility to B. The security cheque got dishonoured. Mr. A filed a 138 NI case against Mr. B basis the dishonour of a cheque. The B paid the cheque amount and A withdrew the petition. Thereafter, another cheque got bounced and Mr. A issued demand Notice. B through reply asked for loan documents but same were not supplied. The 2 nd 138 NI case filed against B. The B filed 482 CRPC seeking quashing of summoning order. The HC rejected the same and hence, Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under [2] :   1.     While filing a complaint under Section 200 of CrPC and recording his statement on oath in support of the complaint, as the complainant suppresses material facts and documents, he cannot be allowed to set criminal law in motion based on the complaint. Setting criminal law in motion by suppressing material facts and documents is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. ...