Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai

Legal validity of a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), filed by a Power of Attorney Holder on behalf of an Individual/ Proprietor – Naresh Potteries Vs. Aarti Industries and Anr. – Supreme Court

/ 42 minutes of reading

This judgment covers the following issues:

A. Section 142 of the NI Act creates a legal bar on the court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act
B. Who can file a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act, on behalf of an incorporated body
C. The legal validity of a complaint u/s 138 of NI filed by the power of attorney holder of an incorporated body
D. The power of attorney issued by the ‘payee’ who is an individual

Legal validity of a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), filed by a Power of Attorney Holder on behalf of an Individual/ Proprietor – Naresh Potteries Vs. Aarti Industries and Anr. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Special Court presided by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge will have jurisdiction to try the complaint under the Code | Any amendment to Section 435 of Companies Act, 2013, after the date on which the IBC came into effect would not have any effect on the provisions of Section 236(1) of the Code | Provision with regard to Special Court under Section 236 is a case of ‘legislation by incorporation’ and not ‘legislation by reference’ – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) Vs. Satyanarayan Bankatlal Malu and Ors. – Supreme Court

/ 61 minutes of reading

In this case, the question before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether the Special Court under the Code (Section 236 of IBC) would be as provided under Section 435 of the Companies Act as it existed at the time when the Code came into effect, or it would be as provided under Section 435 of the Companies Act after the 2018 Amendment.

The Hon’ble Court:

(i) Interpreted Section 236 of IBC and Section 435 of Companies Act, 2013 with various amendments.
(ii) Listed distinction between ‘legislation by reference’ and ‘legislation by incorporation’.
(iii) Quashed and set aside the order of Bombay High Court reported in (2022) ibclaw.in 40 HC.

Special Court presided by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge will have jurisdiction to try the complaint under the Code | Any amendment to Section 435 of Companies Act, 2013, after the date on which the IBC came into effect would not have any effect on the provisions of Section 236(1) of the Code | Provision with regard to Special Court under Section 236 is a case of ‘legislation by incorporation’ and not ‘legislation by reference’ – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) Vs. Satyanarayan Bankatlal Malu and Ors. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Curative Jurisdiction should not be used to open the floodgates and create a fourth or fifth stage (Review Jurisdiction or Curative Jurisdiction) of Court intervention in an Arbitral Award – Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. Vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. – Supreme Court

/ 50 minutes of reading

I. Scope of interference of Courts with arbitral awards
II. Scope of interference of Supreme Court with Arbitral Awards
III. Invoking Curative Jurisdiction in an arbitral award

Curative Jurisdiction should not be used to open the floodgates and create a fourth or fifth stage (Review Jurisdiction or Curative Jurisdiction) of Court intervention in an Arbitral Award – Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. Vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. – Supreme Court Read Post »

The High Court should not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution particularly when an alternative statutory remedy is available – PHR Invent Educational Society Vs. UCO Bank and Ors. – Supreme Court

/ 27 minutes of reading

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:

(i) It could thus be seen that the Court has strongly deprecated the practice of entertaining writ petitions in such matters. It can thus be seen that it is more than a settled legal position of law that in such matters, the High Court should not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution particularly when an alternative statutory remedy is available.
(ii) where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question;
(iii) it has acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure;
(iv) it has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed; and
(v) when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice.
(vi) It has however been clarified that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance.

The High Court should not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution particularly when an alternative statutory remedy is available – PHR Invent Educational Society Vs. UCO Bank and Ors. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top