TIER-1

  Shubham Budhiraja [1]   Mr. A was appointed as Additional Director in May 2014. The Board meeting was held in September 2014. Because of non-compliance, ROC initiated prosecution against directors. All directors pleaded guilty except Mr. A.   Mr. A filed an application for discharge but the Trial court refused to discharge Mr. A. The Hon’ble High Court held that: (i) there is no difference between the term director and additional director except for their tenure and the appointing authority, (ii) there is no clarity whether Mr. A was appointed as an Independent Director or otherwise because no Fresh DIR-12 was filed by the company recording his regularization. Hence, this require trial and discharge cannot be granted. [2]     (i)              That an Additional Director is a director having the same powers, responsibilities and duties as other directors. The only difference between them is regards to their appointing authority and their term of office.   (ii)         

Shubham Budhiraja [1]   Mr. A with his family acquired more than 5% shareholding in the Company B but the disclosure as per SEBI Takeover code was not made. Company B filed petition before NCLT for: (1) to declare the acquisition as illegal because of non-compliance of SEBI takeover code and (2) to rectify the shareholder/ member register accordingly. Hon’ble NCLT allowed the petition but Hon’ble NCLAT set aside the same. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that section 59 of companies act, 2013 doesn't permit the NCLT to decide compliance of SEBI Regulations particularly when their inquiry and adjudication jurisdiction is within realm of SEBI under SEBI Act. The NCLT cannot such issues in a rectification jurisdiction under section 59. [2]   (i)                     Having regard to the comprehensive role of the SEBI in regulating the securities market the important role of the Regulator cannot be circumvented by simply asking for rectification under Section 56 of the 2013 Act

  Shubham Budhiraja [1]   A filed suit for infringement of trademark against B. The Ld. trial court also allowed the application for interim injunction. B filed appeal before Division Bench.   While appeal was pending, B filed petition u/s 57 for cancellation of A’s trademark. A took an objection that petition is not maintainable because B never raised an issue of non-validity of A’s mark in its WS. THE Hon’ble Delhi High Court rejected the objection and held that the Party can file for cancellation and Rectification of registered trademark u/s 57 even if they haven't raised the issue of invalidity of mark before the trial court u/s 124. [2]   (i)                     There is no clause in Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, which makes it subject to any other provision in the Trade Marks Act. Nor does one find in Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, any non obstante clause which would accord it pre-eminence over other provisions in the Trade Marks Act.     (ii)