TIER-1

  Can Banks make the Managing director personally liable for the dues of the company on basis of a cleverly drafted share pledge agreement?  Shubham Budhiraja Company A took credit facility from the bank and that the MD signed the credit facility agreement in its official capacity. In addition to it, MD pledges its 20,000 shares through share pledge agreement in favor of bank against the credit facility taken by the Company A. There arises some default and bank initiated recovery proceedings before debt recovery tribunal (DRT) under Recovery of debt due to banks & financial institution (RDDBFI) Act which passes the order ex-parte against MD & the Company A and make them liable jointly and severally. DRAT confirmed the order in appeal by holding that the term “borrower” under SARFESI Act includes pledger, etc. Hence, Writ petition under Article 226 seeking prayer in nature of appropriate writ to quash the DRT order & subsequently recovery proceedings . The HC has held

Shubham Budhiraja [1] The Delhi Govt. constituted committee to recommend on scheme to appreciate the role of advocates and to constitute a welfare scheme for them. The committee recommendations were accepted and Delhi CM Welfare scheme for Advocates brought into force. The conditions for getting benefit of this scheme were as follows: (I)                  Enrolled with Bar council of Delhi (II)              Member of any bar association such as Patiala House bar association, NCLT Bar association, Delhi HC bar association, etc. (III)              Must be resident of Delhi The 3 rd condition was challenged as arbitrary in a Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 before High Court of Delhi. The Court held that though sub-classification of a class (i.e. Advocate enrolled with Delhi is a class & must be resident in Delhi is a sub-class) on basis of domicile is not prohibition under Article 14 but that classification must have a nexus with objects sought to be achieved otherwis

Shubham Budhiraja [1] There were riots occurred in North-east part of Delhi and as a result various people have lost their life and property. There were allegations regarding role of Facebook and its failure of control over the hatred content. The Parliament constituted a committee to look into this issue and as a result they summoned the Facebook India President & he appeared before it. The Legislative assembly of Delhi Govt. also constituted a committee name “Peace & harmony committee” and one of agenda of committee was to look into this issue and take proper actions so that this kind of riots not to be repeated in future. It also has an agenda to identify the culprit and find charge-sheet against them. This committee has also summon Facebook India President but he has challenged the summon before apex court citing that (I)       The Peace & harmony committee of Legislative assembly of Delhi has no legislative competence because Law & order is matter of 3 excep

  Shubham Budhiraja [1] [1] Company Secretary, LLB Final Year,DU & Bcom (H) The land acquisition falls in concurrent list and parliament in year 2013 has introduced a new act which provides for rehabilitation, compensation and procedure on land acquisition of property. The State of T.N has made 3 different state laws w.r.t. land acquisition which was struck off by the High Court. Thereafter, state of TN in year 2019 enacted the same law but with president assent under Article 254 to avoid the repugnancy with 2013 act under Article 254. The appeal filed before apex court w.r.t. repugnancy of 2019 state law with 2013 central law & test of validating the struck off law. The Supreme Court observed as: VALIDATING A LAW WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT Case Law Relevant Remarks National  Agricultural  Cooperative  Marketing  Federation  of India Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors, (2003) 5 SCC 23 The legislati