TIER-1

                                LIFE IS UNCERTAIN SO IS YOUR PROPERTY AFTER DEATH Shubham Budhiraja [1] Property disputes are inevitable especially when it comes to family matters. There are numerous arrangements through which a person post his death can transfer property to his family or friends concern. There are majorly two methods – 1.        Testamentary – If there is a Will   2.        Non-Testamentary – If there is no Will For Testamentary , the method is where person makes a Will and Codicil. It is a Legal declaration by a person during his lifetime of “his” property in favor of “anyone ” as executor in presence of 2 attesting witness signed, dated. Since, it is a legal declaration. Therefore the person making will must be a major person and competent. It is the wish of the testator to whom he executes the will. If there is no executor is named in the Will or if executor renounce or has died or executor is sick and unable to execute then the probate application ca

  FUTURE RETAIL- AMAZON – RELIANCE: THE BATTLE OF CONTROL SHUBHAM BUDHIRAJA [1] Future retail filed Order 39 Rule 1&2 Suit for Interim Injunction restraining the Amazon to interfere with the transactions happening between Reliance and Future retail on basis of the fact that the relief claimed by Amazon through emergency arbitration is non-Coram judice and thus inherently barred by jurisdiction of arbitrator.  Hence the main ground for praying Injunction is that the Inunction / relief of emergency arbitration taken by Amazon pursuant to agreement between Amazon and Future retail was without inherent jurisdiction of arbitrator because the emergency arbitration is foreign to Indian law. It was held that though prima facie case is made out by the plaintiff future retail because the resolution approving transaction of future retail and reliance is prima facie valid, shareholder agreement between future retail and amazon cannot exceed the control to the extent of acquisition and

  WINDING UP TRANSFER PETITIONS: WHEN TO EXERCISE THE DISCRETION? SHUBHAM BUDHIRAJA [1] A and B enter into a transaction where A has to supply goods and B has to provide payment for same. The part payment provided by B to A and Demand Notice served for remaining amount & cheques issued by B but remain unpaid. Thereafter winding up petition filed by A against B under Section 434 of 1956 Act and same is admitted and OL appointed who took sealed the premises and took over the management of company.  Thereafter SBI filed application u/s 434 seeking transfer of winding up from HC to NCLT because it has already filed Section 7 IBC application. The HC allowed the transfer petition on reason that IBC is a beneficial statute and it would in Interest of equity and Justice to transfer under IBC to NCLT. The same is upheld by division bench. Hence, SLP challenging the transfer order to NCLT. Apex court upheld order of Division bench. OBSERVATIONS (i) So far as transfer of winding up pr

Shubham Budhiraja [1] Vidya Drolia v. Durga Traders [2] Topic: Section 8, Section 11, Section 16 and Section 34, Issue of Non-  arbitrability, principle of competence- competence, International approach, Indian approach, etc. 1.        Non- arbitrability may arise because of following reasons   -           Right in rem and there is no subordinate personam rights -           Public Policy -           Sovereign functions -           Implied Non- arbitrability through statute barring jurisdiction of act + various factors such as doctrine of election, position of parties if they are commercial parties or vulnerable consumers who can have no choice but to refer to consumer forum   2.    Non- arbitrability of claim and Non- arbitrability of subject matter are two different matters where former is in fact and later is in law.   3.    There is no one line answer to who decide the arbitrability. The issue of Non- arbitrability can be decided at 3 stages   -           Reference stage -