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

JANARDAN DAGDU KHOMANE V. EKNATH BHIKU YADAV .

*SC*-Affirming the decision of the *Bombay HC*, the Hon’ble SC opined that the Trust, being a *public trust*,was rightly registered on 8.8.1984 and so *cannot be questioned*. The respondents became *deemed purchasers* and the right under *Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948* accrued to them on Tillers’ Day, that is, 1.4.1957. The respondents *cannot be divested of such right upon subsequent registration of the Trust*.A Trust for a religious purpose has the *right to own and acquire property, however, such property may be taken away by authority of law*.-Hon'ble Justices  R.Banumathi and Indira Banerjee[18-09-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)- https://www.legitquest.com/janardan-dagdu-khomane-vs-eknath-bhiku-yadav

#saketagarwal #plclaws

M.J.THULSIRAMAN V. COMMR.

SC- The Hon’ble SC while dismissing the Appeal against the Madras HC held that the “Bakers Choultry”, and the rock inscription therein, constitute a “specific endowment” as defined under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and the same is not the private property of the appellants. The contents of the rock inscription are sufficient to hold that there has been a valid divestment of the right to receive a certain part of the income, with the inscription also stipulating a bar on the right of the Manager to transfer the choultry.- 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/mjthulsiraman-vs-commr

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

CHANDRAKANT BABAN MOTKARI . V. GOTIRAM LAXMAN MOTKARI(D) BY LRS.

SC-In a case relating to a property matter, the Hon’ble SC while dismissing the Appeal opined that the Kabuliyatnama was never in the name of the elder brother and the certificate under Sec. 32M of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was granted in favour of the younger brother. The Agreement to Sell never matured into a sale deed and this was not a case where a suit was required to be stayed and the question of tenancy remitted to the Mamlatdar. The long drawn out proceedings initiated by the grandsons of Laxman were proceedings by “side wind”, which have dragged on for the last 16 years.-Hon'ble Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph[27-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/chandrakant-baban-motkari-vs-gotiram-laxman-motkari(d)-by-lrs

M/S KUT ENERGY PVT.LTD V. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

SC- Setting aside the order of the Himachal Pradesh HC and directing  that the amount deposited by the appellants in terms of the order dated 11.10.2017 be returned to them, the Hon’ble SC held that the deposit of Rs.40 crores in terms of the HC order made by the appellant was only to show the bona fides of the appellants when a revised offer was made by them. It was not towards satisfaction of the debt in question and that is precisely why the HC directed the deposit would be treated to be a deposit in the Registry of the HC. It reiterated the law laid down in Axis Bank that the ‘secured creditor’ would be entitled to proceed only against the ‘secured assets’ mentioned in the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.-Hon'ble Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran[20-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/ms-kut-energy-pvtltd-vs-the-authorized-officer-punjab-national-bank

ASST. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EPFO, BAREILLY V. M/S U P STATE WAREHOUSING CORP

SC-The Hon’ble SC remanding the matter to the Allahabad HC for deciding the Corporation's writ petition afresh on merits keeping in view the definition of "employee'' as defined under Sec. 2(f) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, held that the definition of "employee" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Act is not identical to the one defined under Sec. 2(f) of the Act in question and secondly, the object of these acts is not the same. The issue was to be decided independently and de hors the proceedings decided under the ID Act.-Hon'ble Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and R. Subhash Reddy[14-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/asst-provident-fund-commissioner-epfo,-bareilly-vs-ms-u-p-state-warehousing-corp

www.plclaws.com

WHETHER FLAT BUYERS CAN INITIATE INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BUILDERS UNDER THE IBC?

Nikhi l Mehta & Sons (HUF) & Ors. v. M/s AMR Infrastructures Ltd. (NCLT Delhi), 
C.P NO. (ISB)-03(PB)/2017, decided on 23.01.2017

In this case the NCLAT has ruled that a purchaser of real estate, under an 'Assured-return' plan, would be considered as a 'Financial Creditor' for the purposes of IBC and is, therefore, entitled to initiate corporate insolvency process against the builder, in case of non-payment of such 'Assured/Committed return' and non-delivery of unit. NCLAT further went on to rule that the 'debt' in this case was disbursed against the consideration for the 'time value of money' which is the primary ingredient that is required to be satisfied in order for an arrangement to qualify as 'Financial Debt' and for the lender to qualify as a 'Financial Creditor', under the scheme of IBC.

WHETHER THE IBC CAN BE INVOKED IN RESPECT OF AN OPERATIONAL DEBT WHERE AN ARBITRAL AWARD HAS BEEN PASSED AGAINST THE OPERATIONAL DEBTOR, WHICH HAS NOT YET BEEN FINALLY ADJUDICATED UPON?

K. Kishan vs. M/s Vijay Nirman Company Pvt. Ltd, Civil Appeal No. 21824 of 2017 decided on 14.08.2018

The court held that the filing of a Section 34 petition against an Arbitral Award shows that a pre-existing dispute which culminates at the first stage of the proceedings in an Award, continues even after the Award, at least till the final adjudicatory process under Sections 34 & 37 has taken place. However, court clarified that there may be cases where a Section 34 petition challenging an Arbitral Award may clearly and unequivocally be barred by limitation, in that it can be demonstrated to the Court that the period of 90 days plus the discretionary period of 30 days has clearly expired, after which either no petition under Section 34 has been filed or a belated petition under Section 34 has been filed. It is only in such clear cases that the insolvency process may then be put into operation.