TIER-1

    Shubham Budhiraja [1] Shubhambudhiraja02@gmail.com , 9654055315   Mr. A when he was a student of ICAI and during his days of CPT, he was booked under Section 376(2) (g), Section 354 & Section 506-II of IPC, However, post his membership as CA, he was convicted under those sections but the HC modified the conviction to 7 months only. Thereafter ICAI issued show cause notice to Mr. A to disqualify him to practice as CA because of his conviction as moral turpitude. Mr. A challenged the show cause notice before Hon’ble High Court on ground that (i) conviction date back to his days of student journey and therefore same cannot be dragged today because conviction was not made in professional capacity, (ii) The show cause notice is driven by malafide because Mr. A wife who is also CA is contesting for ICAI central council elections. The HC refused both contentions of Mr. A and hold the show cause valid for following reasons [2] :   (I)                  The profession of Cha

  Daughters right in father property [1] Shubham Budhiraja (LLB, ACS, BCOM(H)) Advocate, Delhi High Court Member of Delhi High Court Bar Association   (i)                   Daughter / widow will have share in self-acquired property through inheritance.   (ii)                 Right of a widow or daughter to inherit the self-acquired property or share received in partition of a coparcenary property of a Hindu male dying intestate is well recognized not only under the old customary Hindu Law but also by various judicial pronouncements   (iii)                The main scheme of this Act is to establish complete equality between male and female with regard to property rights and the rights of the female were declared absolute, completely abolishing all notions of a limited estate. The Act brought about changes in the law of succession among Hindus and gave rights which were till then unknown in relation to women’s property.   (iv)               The Act lays down a uniform and comprehensive s

    Shubham Budhiraja (ACS, LLB, BCOM(H)) Shubhambudhiraja02@gmail.com , 9654055315 Injunction Application filed by A against Bank & B for seeking restraint against B and Bank to en-cash the letter of credit (LC) for reason that B has supplied the defective products in shipment. Therefore the Bank should not allow LC in favor of B. The HC in its original jurisdiction under commercial court held that the LC cannot be restrained. The defective supply of goods by B is by most stretch is a case of breach of contract and not a case of fraud. Therefore, unless there is a case of ‘egregious fraud and irretrievable injustice’, the LC cannot be restrained [1] .    (i)                   It is a settled position of law that contracts in respect of Bank Guarantees and LCs are independent of the main contract between the parties. Therefore, even if there is a breach of the main contract between the parties, that cannot be a ground for injuncting payments under the Bank Guarantees/L

Shubham Budhiraja [1] Previously also I posted the similar blog  on civil litigation which you can viewed from here  In civil litigation, there are two stories by two different parties who come to court with their plea and some relief. To claim their relief, they state their case in form of pleading. The pleading has to contain material facts and there should be no suppression or omission of material facts. With their plaint/ WS, parties attach all lists of documents they intend to rely upon no matter whether they are relevant or not.   They may with leave of court file additional documents as well (The situation is bit different in case of commercial suit matters). Once the exchange of documents is over, the parties serve affidavit of admission-denial of documents. The purpose is to cut short the controversy so that issues to be framed only for disputed facts and not for those facts or documents which are admitted or so called common facts.   The parties may deliver inte

  Shubham Budhiraja LLB, ACS, BCOM(H) Shubhambudhiraja02@gmail.com , 9654055315   Section 7 admitted by NCLT, confirmed by NCLAT and apex court. NCLT approved the plan under section 31. RP filed an application under section 60(5) for directing banks to reverse the amount they deducted during moratorium. NCLT allowed. NCLAT held that banks in the name of regular payments cannot deduct amounts just because a corporate debtor has liquidity. One of terms of the resolution plan creates charge on immovable property of corporate debtors but bank A is not giving back title deed because Bank B is not given NOC. The NCLAT held that the resolution plan once approved is binding on all and thus NOC not required. Hence, revert bank title deed [1] .     (I)                  As per Section 17(1)(d) of the I&B Code, the Financial Institutions maintaining the accounts of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ have to act on the instructions of the Interim Resolution Professional in relation to su

    Shubham Budhiraja Shubhambudhiraja02@gmail.com , 9654055315 (ACS, LLB, BCOM(H)) Advocate, Delhi High Court Associate Member- ICSI, Member- Northern Region, Research Committee, ICSI Member- Delhi High Court Bar Association Secretary- Shaurya ek Samman (Regd. NG0)   SIDBI purchased bonds and there is dispute pending in court with regard to payment. The Bank made the payment but at delayed time. The SIDBI asked for interest on delayed payment. The Apex court held that SIDBI cannot claim interest on delayed payment because RBI notification was preventing the bank in repayment. The SIDBI cannot be put in same position as of a party claiming pendent lite interest for pending suit especially when the SIDBI never protested it at time of acceptance [1] .   (1)     For ‘public interest’ the RBI is empowered to issue any directive to any banking institution, and to prohibit alienation of an NBFC’s property. The term ‘Public interest’ has no rigid definition. I t ha

   Can resolution professional itself decide the fate of resolution without constituting the committee of creditors? Shubham Budhiraja (Advocate, Delhi High Court) (ACS, LLB, BCOM(H)) Shubhambudhiraja02@gmail.com , 9654055315   Section 9 petition admitted by NCLT & Mr. A appointed as resolution professional. The Resolution professional did not constitute the COC for the simple reason that there is only 1 financial creditor and the company is solvent, therefore it will not be fruitful to let the company go into CIRP. The resolution professional allowed the corporate debtor to pay loan EMI to the financial creditor despite the moratorium. The IBBI held that Mr. A is guilty of professional misconduct because he has itself decided the fate of CIRP without even constituting the COC. He also allowed payment of EMI to the bank despite the moratorium being under process. The IBC imposes a limited role of acceptance, verification of claim and constitution of COC and ensures c