TIER-1

   Shubham Budhiraja [1] Bank issued loan to company A which defaulted and bank took action under SARFESI and auction conducted and part payment made. Meanwhile, section 10 petition admitted by the NCLT during moratorium, bank accepted the part payment from auction purchaser. It is the contention of Bank that sale gets complete on first payment which occurred prior to CIRP order. Hon’ble Apex Court held that recovery of balanced part payment by the Bank is hit by section 14 IBC and not permissible .   (I)                  After the CIRP is initiated, there is moratorium for any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the Corporate Debtor in respect of its property including any action under the SARFAESI Act. It is clear that once the CIRP is commenced, there is complete prohibition for any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the Corporate Debtor in respect of its property. The words “including any action un

  Shubham Budhiraja [1] Mr. A and Mr. B entered into arbitration proceedings, despite various opportunities given by the arbitrator, Mr. A has failed to file its statement of claim. Thus, the learned arbitrator terminated the proceedings for failure of filling of statement of claim. Mr. A filed the application for re-call of its order however the arbitrator refused to allow the same for reason that it has no power to re-call. Mr. A challenged the order under Article 226 wherein Hon’ble High Court allowed the writ and held that the Arbitral Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the application for recall of the order terminating proceedings under Section 25(a) of the Act . [2]   [1] Advocate, Delhi High Court, shubhambudhiraja02@gmail.com [2] CM(M) 425/2021, 09.05.2022, Delhi High Court

      SHUBHAM BUDHIRAJA [1] Company-A and Company-B entered into a service agreement as per which Company- B to provide the housekeeping, staff, and guard services at all offices of Company-A in India. The agreement further requires Company-B to furnish compliance proof of payment of ESI, PF of the employees deputed. The Dispute arises on payment of dues and matters reach arbitration. The Arbitral tribunal allowed the claim of Company-B for non-payment of salary dues of the employee deputed.  The Company-A challenged the award on the ground that the arbitrator has committed patent illegality by ignoring specific terms of the agreement which mandate Company-B to furnish compliance report on payment of ESI, PF. The Hon’ble High Court refused the plea and held that the breach committed by Company-B is not material one. The withheld of payment by Company-A is not because of the non-furnishing of compliance report by the Company-B. The Company-A could have made the payment by deducting th

    Shubham Budhiraja [1] Mr. A filed suit against his company seeking a declaration that Mr. A be made permanent and seeking permanent injunction restrain his termination. However, Mr. A was terminated by giving 3 months’ salary as per the contract. He filed Interlocutory application (I.A) seeking arrear of his salary. The Delhi High Court denied it stating that relief in I.A cannot go beyond the main relief. There is no prayer in plaint seeking arrear of salary. It further held that ‘an interim relief can be granted only in aid of, and as ancillary to, the main relief which may be available to the party on final determination of his rights in a suit or proceeding’. If this be the purpose to achieve which power to grant temporary relief is conferred, it is inconceivable that where the final relief cannot be granted in the terms sought for because the statute bars granting such a relief ipso facto the temporary relief of the same nature cannot be granted [2] .          

  Shubham Budhiraja [1]   Mr. A given his land to the municipality on premise that he will be compensated if he allows construction for road purpose. Having denied so, he filed writ petition whereby HC held that there is no surrender of land however division bench held that burden is on A to show that land was not surrendered. The apex court held that two conditions to take away right to property, one being public purpose and other being compensation. Burden is on municipality to show that property was surrendered free of cost. In absence of any evidence, there is violation of Article 300A [2] .   (I)                  Article 300A clearly mandates that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. In the present case, we do not find, under which authority of law, the land of the appellants was taken and they were deprived of the same. If the Panchayat and the PWD failed to produce any evidence that appellants have surrendered their lands voluntarily, depriving t

    SHUBHAM BUDHIRAJA [1]   Company-A invited tenders for the construction of Hospitals at various locations in India. Company-B was accepted as the successful bidder and the Contract was executed between them pursuant to letter of award. Company B instructed the Bank to issue 3 unconditional Bank guarantees in favor of Company A ‘for the purpose of main contract between A & B’ . Company A issued the demand letter to the Bank seeking credit of Bank guarantee amount in its favor. Company B filed section 9 petition seeking stay of the Bank guarantee, inter-alia, on the ground that the Company-A does not need those funds/ there is dispute on performance as per Contact between Company-A and Company-B. The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the stay application stating that Bank guarantee is an independent contract between its beneficiary Company-A and the Bank to which Company B is a complete stranger. The conditions of contract between Company-A & Company B cannot be read in Con

Shubham Budhiraja [1] Shubhambudhiraja02@gmail.com A and B enters into the dealership agreement as per which either party can terminate the agreement by giving 60 days’ notice. A, the manufacturer, terminated the agreement and B filed section 9 petition before Hon’ble High Court seeking restrain on actions pursuant to termination. A took its defense that in terms of exclusive jurisdiction clause, only courts in Chennai can decide the matter. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court dismissed the petition for want of maintainability relying on Indus Mobile Distribution Private Limited Vs. Datawind Innovations Private Limited (2017) 7 SCC 678 wherein it was held that “subject-matter of the arbitration” cannot be confused with “subject-matter of the suit”. In the present case also parties have agreed to the venue of arbitration as Chennai and also that the competent courts in Chennai would have exclusive jurisdiction. It is held that the courts at Delhi would not have the jurisdiction to enter