TIER-1

Shubham Budhiraja (ACS, LLB, BCOM H)) Shubhambudhiraja02@gmail.com A and B enter into a collaboration agreement, the contract terminated by B. That A filed suit for specific performance against B seeking specific performance and perpetual injunction. The district court and High Court held that specific performance cannot be granted as it is a continuous contract but allowed perpetual injunction. The Supreme disallowed A's plea of getting damages because as per section 21(5) of specific relief act, damages cannot be asked unless pleaded in plaint . [1]   (I)                  In Shamsu Suhara Beevi v. G. Alex and Another(2004) 8 SCC 569 , the Court referred to the Law Commission of India’s recommendation that in no case the compensation should be decreed, unless it is claimed by a proper pleading. However, the Law Commission was of the opinion that it should be open to the plaintiff to seek an amendment to the plaint, at any stage of the proceedings in order to introduce

  Shubham Budhiraja (LLB, ACS, BCOM (H)) Shubhambudhiraja02@gmail.com Company A defaulted in depositing PF of its employee. The labour officer inspected and imposed penalty of Company A. The Company A contended that it had no bad intention for not depositing the same and thus in absence of mensrea, the penalty being a criminal consequence cannot be imposed. The Supreme Court held that mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations or liabilities [1] .   (I)                  A penalty imposed for a tax delinquency is a civil obligation, remedial and coercive in its nature, and is far different from the penalty for a crime or a fine or forfeiture provided as punishment for the violation of criminal or penal laws.   (II)                J.K. Industries Ltd. v. Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers (1996) 6 SCC 665 :  The offences under the Act are not a part of general penal law but arise from the breach of a duty provided in a

  Shubham Budhiraja (Advocate, Delhi High Court) ( Shubhambudhiraja02@gmail.com A and B married in June 2009. After 13 days, both are living separately till today. Though she came to visit matrimonial home at time of mother in law death The Supreme Court held that desertion is proved because both never went to consummate the marriage and were living separately from beginning till today. The intention of visiting matrimonial home for 1 day was not to resume the marriage but to attend the last rituals of mother in law. The husband never filed restitution of conjugal rights either. Hence, desertion proved [1] .   (I)                  The reasons for a dispute between husband and wife are always very complex. Every matrimonial dispute is different from another. Whether a case of desertion is established or not will depend on the peculiar facts of each case. It is a matter of drawing an inference based on the facts brought on record by way of evidence.   (II)               

  Shubham Budhiraja (Advocate, Delhi High Court) ( shubhambudhiraja02@gmail.com , 9654055315) The theft has occurred and the FIR was lodged immediately by the insured with the police station who in turn submitted the untraced report. After 5 months from date of theft, the insured filed claim before the Insurance Company who repudiated the claim on the ground that the insured failed to intimate the insurance company within reasonable time. The consumer filed complaint before District forum which allowed the claim & confirmed by the state commission but the NCDRC upheld the repudiation & dismissed the claim. The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC order and held that delay in intimation of claim cannot be a ground to repudiate the claim, if claim is genuine [1] .   (I)                  In   Gurshinder Singh vs. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. & Another reported in 2020 (11) SCC 612 when an insured has lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of a vehicle

  Can You Ignore the Liability Arising out of an Object clause In MOA in absence of any alteration been made in MOA? NO Can you prove Operational Debt in absence of any Invoice? YES Whether purchaser of Goods can also be an operational creditor under IBC? YES Shubham Budhiraja (LLB, ACS, BCOM(H)) ShubhamBudhiraja02@gmail.com , 9654055315 A and B enter into a contract to execute a project, A contracted with C (proprietor concern)  and placed purchased order for getting supply of light fitting to the A's premises.  B on A's behalf paid 50 Lakh to C. A paid 50 Lakh to B, However, later B terminated the contract with A. Thus, A issued letter to C asking for refund of advance amount stating that A's contract is terminated with B. C case is that I will pay directly to B if B ask from me. A said I will indemnify you if B claim in future course but for now Refund the amount to A because A have made