AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD. V. K.S. INFRASPACE LLP

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD. V. K.S. INFRASPACE LLP

SC-Dismissing the appeal against the Gujarat HC,the Hon’ble SC observed that that in order to fall within Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act,2015 the immovable property must be “used exclusively” or “being used exclusively” in trade or commerce. There has been nothing on record to show that at the time when agreement to sell came to be executed in 2012, the property was being exclusively used in trade and commerce so as to bring the dispute within the ambit of sub-clause (vii) of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act. Merely because, the property is likely to be used in relation to trade and commerce, the same cannot be the ground to attract the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court.-Hon'ble Justices A.S.Bopanna and R.Banumthi [04-10-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)- https://www.legitquest.com/ambalal-sarabhai-enterprises-ltd-vs-ks-infraspace-llp

#saketagarwal

DUNCANS INDUSTRIES LTD. V. A.J. AGROCHEM

DUNCANS INDUSTRIES LTD. V. A.J. AGROCHEM

SC-Confirming the order of the NCLAT which held that the insolvency petition under Sec. 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 initiated by the respondent-operation creditor shall be maintainable, the Hon’ble SC observed that the entire “corporate insolvency resolution process” as such cannot be equated with “winding up proceedings”. The provisions of the IBC would have an over-riding effect over the Tea Act, 1953 and that no prior consent of the Central Government before initiation of the proceedings under Sec. 7 or Sec. 9 of the IBC would be required and even without such consent of the Central Government, the insolvency proceedings under Sec. 7 or Sec. 9 of the IBC initiated by the operational creditor shall be maintainable.-Hon'ble Justices Arun Mishra,M.R. Shah and B.R. Gavai[04-10-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/duncans-industries-ltd-vs-aj-agrochem

#saketagarwal

UNION OF INDIA V. SANDEEP KUMAR

SC-Finding that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction while setting aside the order of conviction passed by the DCM,the Hon’ble SC held that Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 confers wide power on the Tribunal so as to allow an appeal against conviction by a Court Martial where the finding of the Court Martial is legally not sustainable due to any reason; the finding involves wrong decision on a question of law or there was a material irregularity in the course of the trial resulting in miscarriage of justice but such wide powers do not confer jurisdiction to the Tribunal to reverse the findings merely because it finds that different view is possible.-Hon'ble Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta[13-09-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/union-of-india-vs-sandeep-kumar

#saketagarwal

BAJARANG SHYAMSUNDER AGARWAL V. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

BAJARANG SHYAMSUNDER AGARWAL V. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

SC- Ordering that the appellant-tenant shall hand over the possession of the secured asset within 12 weeks of this order to the Assistant Registrar, who in turn shall deliver the same to the respondent no.1-bank,the Hon’ble SC dismissed the Appeal. The bank has produced multiple records to substantiate that this tenancy was created just to defeat the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act and the appellant has failed to produce any evidence to substantiate his claim over the secured asset. So,the appellant cannot claim protection under the garb of the interim protection granted to him, ex parte, by solely relying upon the xerox of the rent receipts .Hence,the rejection of the stay application by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate cannot be held to be erroneous.-Hon'ble Justices N.V.Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Indira Banerjee [11-09-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/bajarang-shyamsunder-agarwal-vs-central-bank-of-india

#saketagarwal

P. CHIDAMBARAM V. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

SC-While dismissing the appeal against the Delhi HC order, the Hon’ble SC opined that the grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant will hamper the investigation and it is not a fit case for exercise of discretion to grant anticipatory bail.Having regard to the nature of allegations and the stage of the investigation,the investigating agency has to be given sufficient freedom in the process of investigation and such Grant at the stage of investigation may frustrate the  agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation.-Hon'ble Justices R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna[05-09-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/p-chidambaram-vs-directorate-of-enforcement

M/S GEO MILLER & CO.PVT.LTD. V. CHAIRMAN, RAJASTHAN VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD

SC-The Hon’ble SC affirmed the view of the Rajasthan HC that the entire dispute seems concocted so as to pursue a monetary claim against the respondents, taking advantage of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appellant’s own default in sleeping over his right for 14 years will not constitute a case of ‘undue hardship’ justifying extension of time under Section 43(3) of the 1996 Act or show ‘sufficient cause’ for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appellant should have approached the Court for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 8(2) of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 within the appropriate limitation period.-Hon'ble Justices N.V. Ramana,Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Ajay Rastogi [03-09-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/ms-geo-miller-and-copvtltd-vs-chairman,-rajasthan-vidyut-utpadan-nigam-ltd

SEP. SATGUR SINGH V. UNION OF INDIA

SC-Without finding any error in the order of discharge of the Appellant and dismissing the Appeal, the Hon’ble SC opined that the parameters laid down in para 5(a) of the Army Instructions dated December 28, 1988 stand satisfied. The appellant has not given any explanation of his absence from duty on seven occasions. The Commanding Officer has recorded that the appellant is a habitual offender. As the absence of duty was on several different occasions for which he was imposed punishment of imprisonment, hence, the order of discharge cannot be said to be unjustified.-Hon'ble Justices L.Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta [02-09-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/sep-satgur-singh-vs-union-of-india

SYED ZAINUL ABEDEEN V. RAJASTHAN BOARD OF MUSLIM WAQF.

SC-Dismissing the appeal and without finding any manifest error with the observation of the Courts that the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Sec. 6 of the Wakf Act, 1954 was barred by limitation ,the Hon’ble SC held that once the property after the survey has been registered in the list of wakfs as Wakf-Al-Allah on the basis of the finding recorded by the Survey Commissioner in its report dated 2nd January, 1965, the dispute regarding the nature of wakfs registered is open to be examined only within the four corners of Sec. 6 of Act, 1954.The plea of the appellant that Sec. 6 has been erroneously referred to and the limitation has to be guided by Sec. 113 of the Limitation Act, is without substance and deserves rejection.-Hon'ble Justices N.V. Ramana and Ajay Rastogi [30-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/syed-zainul-abedeen-vs-rajasthan-board-of-muslim-waqf

M/S N RAMACHANDRA REDDY V. THE STATE OF TELANGANA

SC- Allowing the appeal in a case relating to invitation of bids for award of work of construction of BT Road in Mahabubabad District of Telangana State, the Hon’ble SC observed that the act of the Chief Engineer to call for a report from Superintending Engineer, Karimnagar was fair and not arbitrary. As the issue does not relate to strict construction of territorial jurisdiction, it is always open for the decision-making authority, to have a report from the independent authority, to arrive at the just decision.-Hon'ble Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and R.Subhash Reddy [28-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/ms-n-ramachandra-reddy-vs-the-state-of-telangana