TIER-1

  How do you proof execution of will?   Shubham Budhiraja LLB, CS, BCOM(H) Shubhambudhiraja02@gmail.com , 9654055315 Advocate, Delhi High Court Member of Research Committee, Northern Region-ICSI Member of Delhi High Court bar association Running an NGO “Shaurya ek Samman” duly registered under Society registration act, 1860   The trial court dismissed granting letter of administration/ probate but High Court allowed in appeal. The Supreme Court [1] set aside the HC Judgment and held that the will was executed in suspicious circumstances because the testator was bed ridden and was suffering from critical disease where he was not able to sign documents. Hence, the execution of will is not proved.   Case laws Relevant Remarks H.Venkatachala Iyenger vs. B.N.Thimmajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443   Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 18

  Shubham Budhiraja (LLB, ACS, BCOM(H)) (Advocate, Delhi High Court) Contact: 9654055315, shubhambudhiraja02@gmail.com Mr. A has a loan account with the bank which is declared as NPA for defaults in repayment. The bank issued circular inviting a one time settlement (OTS) scheme to settle the default loan accounts as per which 20% of debt to be paid up-front. Mr. A applied for the OTS but bank denied the same. The HC issued mandamus against bank directing it consider the OTS application positivity because Mr. A meets the eligibility criteria of OTS and also ready to pay 50% of debt. The Supreme Court [1] set aside the HC order because; (I)                  When Bank can claim the full recovery from Mr. A through its property then why should bank be compelled to accept lesser recovery through OTS of Mr. A account;   (II)                Mere because Mr. A meets the OTS eligibility does not mean that he can claim OTS as matter of right irrespective of its financial conditio

  Whether IRP can ask practicing Company secretary to do verification of claims under IBC on its behalf? Shubham Budhiraja [1] Mr. A appointed as IRP by NCLT, Delhi in matter of CIRP of XYZ Limited. Mr. A appointed Mr. B (Practicing Company Secretary) for purpose of helping Mr. A in verification of claims of creditors (as required to be done as duty of IRP). Mr. A contend that since XYZ limited is a big concern and its claim documents are in huge volumes and verification process is time bound under IBC and therefore he asked Mr. B to assist him in verification and the fee payment of Mr. B was also approved by COC in its 1 st meeting. The IBBI held that delegation of its duty of verification of claims by IRP is in breach of section 18(1)(b) of the Code, regulation 13 (1) of the CIRP Regulations and IBBI Circular no. IP/003/2018 dated 3rd January, 2018 and hence IRP is guilty and penalized with the amount equal to fees paid to Mr. B [2] (I)                  An IRP / RP is appointe

  What does Supreme Court said on rights of allottee to get refund / compensation from RERA Developer and promoters? Shubham Budhiraja [1] Brief Conclusion [2] (I)                  The RERA Act, 2016 is retroactive in operation. Just because it affects the existing rights does not make the act per se retrospective. The difference between retrospective legislation and retroactive legislation is well established   (II)                The twin mechanism under RERA where authority has power to decide complaints seeking refund and adjudicating officer has power to decide complaints seeking compensation is valid because both are safeguard by appeal mechanism to appellate tribunal   (III)              The delegation by RERA authority to single member to hear complaints seeking refund is permissible however delegation of complaints seeking compensation to single member is not permissible because such a power vest only with adjudicating officer   (IV)              The RERA aut

  Can shareholders force the board of director to call an EGM even when proposed resolutions may lead to violation of companies act? Shubham Budhiraja [1] Zee v. Invesco [2] Invesco holds 18% equity in the company and it sent a Notice under section 100 to call for an EGM but such a request was refused by Board of Directors. The Invesco contention is that it should be shareholder decision in their general body meeting to adopt or refuse the proposed resolution and Board of director are under obligation to call an EGM in all situations. In short, board has no power under section 100 when qualified shareholder move a valid requisitioned. The board is duty bound. The Invesco has filed petition before NCLT under section 98 which is pending. Meanwhile, the Company filed Injunction suit against Invesco to stop them from proceeding any further under section 100. The Bombay HC ruled in favor of Zee and against the Invesco for following reasons: (I)             Section 100 of the Companies Act l

   PARTNERSHIP DEED & DISPUTE OF PROFIT BETWEEN PARTNERS Shubham Budhiraja [1] A partnership deed constituted in year 1986 which was re-constituted via deed dated 1992 and it was stated in 1992 deed that if plaintiff failed to maintain 50,000 capital in firm then his profit would reduce from 50% to 10% In year 1995, the deed was again re-constituted and some other partners stating that plaintiff 1 & 2 entitle to 25% each which again makes them 50% each. In 2004, dispute arose between the partners whereby defendant denied the 25% each share of plaintiff’s as a mistake and resolution passed by firm to expel the plaintiff’s from the firm Thus, plaintiff filed suit for rendition of accounts and claiming 50% of share in partnership firm whereas trial court held that plaintiff entitled only to 10% of accounts and plaintiff should also add partnership firm as necessary party for final decree. The HC dismissed the RFA under section 96 and thus SLP. The Supreme Court has held that