TIER-1

    Shubham Budhiraja [1]   ABG Shipyard import goods for export. Sometimes they keep such goods at customs warehouse. ABG imported various goods since year 2011. No demand was raised by the custom department for interest on warehouse facilities and pending custom duties. In the 2017, CIRP was issued against ABG. The IRP in further of his duties asked the custom department for warehoused goods but no cooperation received for non-payment of the dues. NCLT under section 60(5) passed directions and directed the custom officer to cooperate. The NCLAT, in appeal, held that customs is a complete code in itself and no goods can be cleared unless duties are paid and thus custom department can auction them. Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the NCLAT order and observed that the liquidation order was passed in the year 2019 but the custom department initiated the recovery under section 72 of customs act post liquidation order. It further held that IBC overrules Customs act. Customs act als

      Shubham Budhiraja [1]   Mr. A & Developer-B enters into a builder buyer agreement containing an arbitration clause giving unilateral power to the Managing Director of the developer company to appoint an arbitrator. Dispute arose, B appointed C as arbitrator who later recused himself. Thereafter, B appointed D as arbitrator. Mr. A filed an objection challenging the appointment which was rejected by the arbitrator. Mr. A filed section 11(6) petition seeking appointment of arbitrator relying upon TRF Judgment but Delhi High Court dismissed it holding that MD can nominate it. The appeal filed before Hon’ble apex court was withdrawn with liberty to file review. Meantime Perkins' Judgment settled the law. The Delhi High Court in review jurisdiction set aside the earlier order and the matter came up for fresh hearing on section 11(6) petition. While this petition was pending, the arbitration proceedings were completed and the award was passed. The Delhi High Court held that the

      Shubham Budhiraja [1]   Ms. A filed a petition under 498A IPC against her husband and in laws-family members. The Brother in law filed discharge application stating that no specific allegations made against him. The MM court allowed the discharge and session judge confirmed it in revision. Under Section 482 CRPC, the Hon’ble High Court confirmed the discharge of brother in law by holding that MM court while dealing with discharge application cannot act as mere post office. [2]   (I)          If false implications, by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute are left unchecked, the same would result in misuse of the process of law.   (II)        It is a settled law that a judge, while considering the question of framing of charges, is certainly empowered to weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.   (III)      Where the material place

      Shubham Budhiraja [1]   A filed commercial suit for seeking permanent Injunction, rendition of accounts, etc. against B for trademark Infringement, B filed its WS, and both the parties filed their admission denial and joint schedule of documents, Issues yet to be framed. B filed I.A under Order XI Rule 1seeking leave to place additional documents on record on the ground that (I) such documents were not in power and possession and are discovered recently, (II) the term ‘pertaining to the suit’ means pertaining to the disputes between the parties and not ‘relevance’ from the perspective of the Evidence Act, which applies after issues are framed and in fact, even after issues are framed, grounds of admissibility and relevancy are merely recorded and taken up only at the stage of final arguments. Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that requirement of establishing the reasonable cause for non-disclosure of the documents shall not be applicable if it is averred that the documents

      Shubham Budhiraja [1] Mr. A, father, purchased two properties from his Income in the name of minor sons as owners in papers. The sons later on sold the property to Mr. B. Mr. A filed suit for declaration of title seeking setting aside of the sale deed made by sons to Mr. B. Mr. A deposes his statement, statement of the tenant who deposed that Mr. A was in possession of property and he used to pay him rent. Sons in their WS admitted that they were minor had no source of Income. The trial court and High court dismissed the suit on the ground that Mr. A had benami transaction and thus suit is barred by virtue of Section 4(1) of Benami Property act. Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the suit and declared Mr. A as owner of said properties on basis of exception craved by Section 4(3) holding that source from where the purchase money came and the motive why the property was purchased benami are by far the most important tests for determining whether the sale standing in the name of one pers

Shubham Budhiraja [1] Mr. A bought a car new from the dealer and paid full consideration. However, the vehicle was delivered after 1 year. Mr. A alleged that said car is old one and has many defects. On denial of replacement by dealer, Mr. A filed consumer complaint seeking replacement of vehicle. District Consumer forum and State Commission directed the dealer to replace the car. The National Commission modified the order and directed to compensate instead of replacement. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India set aside National Commission order and held that [2] :   (I)                  When customer booked a new car and paid the sale consideration of a new car, the dealer was supposed to and/or bound to deliver the new car.   (II)                In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, while