Supreme Court

Can a partner of an unregistered partnership firm file a Suit for recovery of money, being hit by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932? – Sunkari Tirumala Rao and Ors. Vs. Penki Aruna Kumari – Supreme Court

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in this case, the suit for recovery was filed by a set of partners together on one side, against another partner, for the purpose of enforcing a right accruing under the agreement. It is a clear as a noon day that the present suit had not been instituted by or on behalf of the firm against any third persons so as to fall under the ambit of Section 69(2). The petitioners have also not filed the instant suit for enforcing any statutory right conferred under any other law or a common law right so as to exempt the application of Section 69. Hence, the rigours of Section 69(1) would apply on such a suit and the partnership firm being unregistered would prevent the petitioners from filing a bare suit for recovery of money from the respondent.

Can a partner of an unregistered partnership firm file a Suit for recovery of money, being hit by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932? – Sunkari Tirumala Rao and Ors. Vs. Penki Aruna Kumari – Supreme Court Read Post »

Can the benefit of the condonable period, which expired during the Court’s vacation, be granted when the petition is filed immediately after the reopening of the Court, in exercise of the power under Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963? – My Preferred Transformation & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd. – Supreme Court

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in light of the current position of law, the Section 34 application preferred by the appellant is barred by limitation based on the following conclusions:
(i) There is no wholesale exclusion of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act when calculating the limitation period under Section 34(3) of the ACA.
(ii) Section 4 of the Limitation Act applies to Section 34(3) of the ACA only to the extent when the 3-month period expires on a court holiday. It does not aid the applicant when the 30-day condonable period expires on a court holiday.
(iii) In view of the applicability of Section 4 of the Limitation Act to Section 34 proceedings, Section 10 of the GCA does not apply and will not benefit the applicant when the 30- day condonable period expires on a court holiday.

Can the benefit of the condonable period, which expired during the Court’s vacation, be granted when the petition is filed immediately after the reopening of the Court, in exercise of the power under Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963? – My Preferred Transformation & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd. – Supreme Court Read Post »

The right to maintenance will be superior to and have overriding effect than the statutory rights afforded to Financial Creditors, Secured Creditors, Operational Creditors or any other such claimants encompassed within the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) or similar such laws – Apurva @ Apurvo Bhuvanbabu Mandal Vs. Dolly and Ors. – Supreme Court

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here

The right to maintenance will be superior to and have overriding effect than the statutory rights afforded to Financial Creditors, Secured Creditors, Operational Creditors or any other such claimants encompassed within the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) or similar such laws – Apurva @ Apurvo Bhuvanbabu Mandal Vs. Dolly and Ors. – Supreme Court Read Post »

A sale certificate issued to the purchaser in pursuance of the confirmation of an auction sale is merely evidence of such title and does not require registration under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act | When the auction purchaser presents the original sale certificate for registration, it would attract stamp duty in accordance with Articles 18 and 23 of the First Schedule to the Stamp Act – The State of Punjab and Anr. Vs. Ferrous Alloy Forgings P Ltd. and Ors. – Supreme Court

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:

(i) A sale certificate issued to the purchaser in pursuance of the confirmation of an auction sale is merely evidence of such title and does not require registration under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act.
(ii) Mere filing under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act itself is sufficient when a copy of the sale certificate is forwarded by the authorised officer to the registering authority.
(iii) However, a perusal of Articles 18 and 23 respectively of the first schedule to the Stamp Act respectively makes it clear that when the auction purchaser presents the original sale certificate for registration, it would attract stamp duty in accordance with the said Articles.

A sale certificate issued to the purchaser in pursuance of the confirmation of an auction sale is merely evidence of such title and does not require registration under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act | When the auction purchaser presents the original sale certificate for registration, it would attract stamp duty in accordance with Articles 18 and 23 of the First Schedule to the Stamp Act – The State of Punjab and Anr. Vs. Ferrous Alloy Forgings P Ltd. and Ors. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Whether the period spent in pursuing proceedings under the IBC is liable to be excluded while computing the limitation period for filing the application under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996? | Whether the principles contained in Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC will apply to an application under Section 11(6)? | Whether the benefit of Section 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act is available in respect of an application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act? – HPCL Bio-Fuels Ltd. Vs. Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad – Supreme Court

In this landmark judgment, following issues are covered:
(i) Scope and applicability of Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC to proceedings other than suits.
(ii) Whether the principles contained in Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC will apply to an application under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996.
(iii) Important aspect while applying the principles of Order 23 Rule 1 to applications under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996.
(iv) Withdrawing Section 11 application to file application under Section 9 of IBC, it would no longer be open to it to file a fresh application for appointment of arbitrator without having obtained the liberty of the court to file a fresh application at the time of the withdrawal.
(v) Whether the period spent in pursuing proceedings under the IBC is liable to be excluded while computing the limitation period for filing the application under Section 11(6)?
(vi) Ingredients need to be fulfilled for the applicability of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act.
(vii) Conditions required to be fulfilled for seeking the benefit of exclusion under Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act.
(viii) Key difference between sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
(ix) Interpretation of the expression “other cause of a like nature” used in Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
(x) A Section 11 petition is in the nature of an ‘application’ and cannot be considered to be a ‘suit’ for the purposes of the Limitation Act.
(xi) Application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act is not for the same relief as an application under Section 9 of the IBC.
(xii) Insolvency proceedings are fundamentally different from arbitration proceedings etc.
(xiii) Whether the benefit of condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is available in respect of an application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996?
(xiv) Whether it is permissible for the courts to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the absence of any application seeking such condonation?

Whether the period spent in pursuing proceedings under the IBC is liable to be excluded while computing the limitation period for filing the application under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996? | Whether the principles contained in Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC will apply to an application under Section 11(6)? | Whether the benefit of Section 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act is available in respect of an application for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act? – HPCL Bio-Fuels Ltd. Vs. Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad – Supreme Court Read Post »

Supreme Court sets Guidelines for Withdrawal and Settlement of Insolvency Cases under Section 12A of IBC read with CIRP Regulation 30A | Withdrawal application shall be moved through Resolution Professional only and NCLT Rule 11 or NCLAT Rule 11 or even the power under Article 142 no longer arises – GLAS Trust Company LLC Vs. BYJU Raveendran and Ors. – Supreme Court

In this landmark decision, Hon’ble Supreme Court covers following issues:

i. Nature of the proceedings after admission of the application: proceeding in personam or in rem.
ii. Legal framework for withdrawal and settlement of claims.
iii. Four stages of withdrawal of Insolvency cases: A procedure prescribed under the existing framework.
iv. Comprehensive framework to deal with withdrawal and settlement: Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, or Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules or even the power under Article 142 no longer arises.
v. Withdrawal application u/s 12A through IRP only, NCLT conducts an adjudicatory exercise and the procedure is not a mere technicality.
vi. Inherent Powers under Rule 11 of NCLT/ NCLAT Rules, 2016.
vii. Meaning of the phrase “any person aggrieved” under Section 61 and Section 62 of IBC.

Supreme Court sets Guidelines for Withdrawal and Settlement of Insolvency Cases under Section 12A of IBC read with CIRP Regulation 30A | Withdrawal application shall be moved through Resolution Professional only and NCLT Rule 11 or NCLAT Rule 11 or even the power under Article 142 no longer arises – GLAS Trust Company LLC Vs. BYJU Raveendran and Ors. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Whether both the certified copy which is made available free of cost and the certified copy which is made available on the payment of costs, are treated as certified copies for the purpose of NCLT Rule 50? – State Bank of India Vs. India Power Corporation Ltd. – Supreme Court

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
(i) The important point to note is that both the certified copy which is provided free of cost as well as the certified copy which is made on an application in that behalf are treated as certified copies for the purposes of Rule 50.
(ii) Both the certified copy which is made available free of cost as well as the certified copy which is made available on the payment of costs, are treated as certified copies for the purpose of Rule 50.
(iii) A litigant who does not apply for a certified copy cannot then fall back and claim that he was awaiting the grant of a free copy to obviate the bar of limitation.
(iv) The provisions of Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules place both the free certified copy as well as the certified copy which is applied for on payment of fees on the same footing.

Whether both the certified copy which is made available free of cost and the certified copy which is made available on the payment of costs, are treated as certified copies for the purpose of NCLT Rule 50? – State Bank of India Vs. India Power Corporation Ltd. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Company Director or Authorised Signatory of cheque is not a Drawer in terms of Section 143A of NI Act and cannot be directed to pay interim compensation under Section 143A – Shri Gurudatta Sugars Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Prithviraj Sayajirao Deshmukh and Ors. – Supreme Court

In this Landmark Judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the ratio of Lyka Labs Limited and Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2023) ibclaw.in 131 HC and held that:

(i) The general rule against vicarious liability in criminal law underscores that individuals are not typically held criminally liable for acts committed by others unless specific statutory provisions extend such liability.
(ii) The High Court rightly emphasized that liability under Section 141 arises from the conduct or omission of the individual involved, not merely their position within the company.
(iii) The distinction between legal entities and individuals acting as authorized signatories is crucial.
(iv) This principle, fundamental to corporate law, ensures that while authorized signatories can bind the company through their actions, they do not merge their legal status with that of the company.
(v) The drawer under Section 143A of NI Act refers specifically to the issuer of the cheque, not the authorized signatories.
(vi) The judgment in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd. (2017) ibclaw.in 821 SC nowhere lays down that directors or authorised signatories would come under the ambit of ‘drawer’ for the purposes of Section 143A.
(vii) An authorized signatory is not a drawer of the cheque, as established in N. Harihara Krishnan Vs. J. Thomas (2017) ibclaw.in 964 SC.

Company Director or Authorised Signatory of cheque is not a Drawer in terms of Section 143A of NI Act and cannot be directed to pay interim compensation under Section 143A – Shri Gurudatta Sugars Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Prithviraj Sayajirao Deshmukh and Ors. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top