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...

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 ...

  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 obstant...

    Shubham Budhiraja [1]   Mr. A filed suit against Mr. B. After framing of issues, Mr. A filed the list of witnesses and examined himself as witness. Mr. B filed no list of witnesses but the trial court allowed Mr. B to be examined himself as witness. After examination of witnesses, Mr. B filed an application under Order 16 Rule 1(3) to examine 12 witnesses. The trial court dismissed the aforesaid application for reason that witnesses sought to be re-called were not part of list of witnesses filed by Mr. B and there are no proper reasons to summon them. The Hon’ble Delhi High set-aside the trial court order because: (i) that was not a request to recall the witnesses because Mr. B never filed any list of witness at first instance, (ii) allowing Mr. B to lead himself as witness without filling the list of witnesses was erroneous. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court further held that the Application under Order 16 Rule 1(3) was not maintainable because it applies only whe...

  Shubham Budhiraja [1]   Mr. A and Mr. B enter into an agreement to sell land wherein Mr. B has paid earnest money deposit (EMD). The contract to be executed within 1 year. Mr. A, on date fixed, appeared before sub- registrar but Mr. B failed to appear. Mr. A served the Legal notice and forfeited the EMD. Mr. B after lapse of 2 years filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement. Meantime the land was acquired by the state under land acquisition act and Mr. B amended the plaint accordingly. The trial court, 1st Appellate court and High Court held that the forfeiture by Mr. A was wrong and directed to refund the EMD. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when time was the essence of contract and the purchaser has failed to perform its part as required in the agreement then specific performance cannot be granted especially when the purchaser has moved the court after a lapse of 2 years. Just because there is a limitation of 3 years, there is no answer to claim spec...

    Shubham Budhiraja [1]   Mr. A, father filed a senior citizen petition seeking declaration of release deed as void and consequent possession of his property. The tribunal and High Court set aside the release deed created by father to son for reason that son is not taking care of them. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that unless twin conditions of section 23 are fulfilled, the sale deed/ release cannot be treated as void. [2]   (I)                    When a senior citizen parts with his or her property by executing a gift or a release or otherwise in favour of his or her near and dear ones, a condition of looking after the senior citizen is not necessarily attached to it. On the contrary, very often, such transfers are made out of love and affection without any expectation in return. Therefore, when it is alleged that the conditions mentioned of Section 23(1) are attach...

    Shubham Budhiraja [1]   Mr. A took a loan from the Bank. Due to non-payments of the EMI, Bank invoked the arbitration agreement and unilaterally appointed the arbitrator. Mr. A protested for such unilateral appointment. However, the Ld. arbitrator continued the proceedings. Mr. A filed section 12(5) petition seeking terminating the mandate of the arbitrator and to substitute the arbitrator to start afresh. The Bank agitated that the Court cannot appoint the arbitrator under section 12(5) and a separate petition is required under section 13 for this purpose. The Hon’ble High Court held that unilateral appointment of the arbitrator by the Bank cannot be sustained in law. It is not necessary for a party to make a challenge under Section 13 of the Act. A petition for terminating the mandate of an arbitrator who is ineligible under Section 12(5) of the Act and for appointment of a substitute arbitrator, would be maintainable . [2]     (I)   ...