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

KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M AND M) CORP LTD. V. P P SURESH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M AND M) CORP LTD. V. P P SURESH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

SC- The Hon’ble SC while allowing the appeal against the Kerala HC judgment, held that the decision taken by the Govt. in overriding public interest was a measure to strike a balance between the competing interest of the displaced Abkari workers and unemployed youth in the State of Kerala. The impairment of the fundamental rights of the Respondents due to the change in policy was not excessive and it cannot be said that the change in policy regarding re-employment of displaced abkari workers is disproportionate. If an announcement is made by the Govt. of a policy conferring benefit on a large number of people, but subsequently, due to overriding public interest, the benefits announced earlier are withdrawn, it is not expedient to provide individual opportunities to such innominate number of persons.-Hon'ble Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta [04-10-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/kerala-state-beverages-(m-and-m)-corp-ltd-vs-p-p-suresh-and-ors-etc-etc

#saketagarwal

PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOW GLADA) V. VIDYA CHETAL

SC-The Hon’ble SC overruled the case of HUDA vs. Sunita, (2005) 2 SCC 479,with the finding that it was rendered without considering any of the previous judgments of this Court and the objects of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.It opined that the determination of the dispute concerning the validity of the imposition of a statutory due arising out of a “deficiency in service”, can be undertaken by the consumer fora as per the provisions of the Act. Not all statutory dues/exactions are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum, rather only those exactions which are exacted for a service rendered, would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.-Hon'ble Justices N.V.Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Ajay Rastogi[16-09-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/punjab-urban-planning-and-development-authority-(now-glada)-vs-vidya-chetal

#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

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL NEEMUCH V. MAHADEO REAL ESTATE

SC-Setting aside the Madhya Pradesh HC order,the Hon’ble SC held that the HC while exercising its powers of judicial review of administrative action, could not have interfered with the decision unless it suffers from the vice of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. The Commissioner, instead of blindly accepting the directions contained in the communication, acted in larger public interest so that the Municipal Council earns a higher revenue by enlarging the scope of the competition and the State Government has re-examined and reconsidered the issue and authorised the Commissioner to pass appropriate orders directing initiation of fresh tender process and so such orders were not illegal, improper or irrational.-Hon'ble Justices Arun Mishra,M.R. Shah and B.R. Gavai [17-09-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/municipal-council-neemuch-vs-mahadeo-real-estate

#saketagarwal
#plclaws #prathamalawchambers

THE BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD V. RADHA BALLABH HEALTH CARE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE (P) LTD

SC-Setting aside the order of the Patna HC,the Hon’ble SC held that the appellant as a State is required to act fairly in fixation of price for allotment of a plot. The order of the HC to direct the appellant to charge the price proportionate to the price advertised earlier has no legal basis and is a commercial decision taken by the appellant fixing the price of the plot. In the matter of fixation of price, the Board has a right to fix such price, more so, when such price was accepted by the respondent on three different occasions.The action of the respondent to dispute the allotment price after accepting the price is neither fair nor reasonable and so, cannot be accepted.-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/the-bihar-state-housing-board-vs-radha-ballabh-health-care-and-research-institute-(p)-ltd

#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

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE I V. M/S MOTOROLA INDIA LTD.

SC-Remitting the matter back to the HC,the Hon’ble SC held that the Karnataka HC was not justified in holding that the appeals are not maintainable under Section 130 of the Customs Act but are tenable before this Court under Section 130E of the Customs Act. The only question is as to whether the assessee has breached the conditions which are imposed by the notification for getting exemption from payment of the customs duty or not. The appeals do not involve any question of law of general public importance which would be applicable to a class or category of assessees as a whole. The question is purely inter-se between the parties and is required to be adjudicated upon the facts available.-Hon'ble Justices Arun Mishra,M.R. Shah and B.R. Gavai [05-09-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/commissioner-of-customs,-bangalore-i-vs-ms-motorola-india-ltd

#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