Mr. Justice Dharmesh Sharma

The jurisdiction of the Court under Section 34 of the Act is neither in the nature of an appellate remedy or akin to the power of revision – Center for Research Planning and Action Vs. National Medicinal Plants Board Ministry of Ayush Government of India – Delhi High Court

A plain reading of Section 34 reveals that the scope of interference by the Court with the arbitral award under Section 34 is very limited, and the Court is not supposed to travel beyond the aforesaid scope to determine whether the award is good or bad. Even an award that may not be reasonable or is non-speaking to some extent cannot ordinarily be interfered with by the Courts. It is also well settled that even if two views are possible, there is no scope for the Court to reappraise the evidence and take a different view from that taken by the arbitrator.

The jurisdiction of the Court under Section 34 of the Act is neither in the nature of an appellate remedy or akin to the power of revision – Center for Research Planning and Action Vs. National Medicinal Plants Board Ministry of Ayush Government of India – Delhi High Court Read Post »

A Director of a contemnor-company guilty for contempt for disobeying various undertakings given to the bank – Lechamps (Sea) Pte Ltd. Vs. Ashish Gupta and Anr. – Delhi High Court

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

A Director of a contemnor-company guilty for contempt for disobeying various undertakings given to the bank – Lechamps (Sea) Pte Ltd. Vs. Ashish Gupta and Anr. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Is imposition of an exorbitant interest in the background of contemporary commercial practices against the fundamental policy? – BPL Ltd. Vs. Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd. – Delhi High Court

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

Is imposition of an exorbitant interest in the background of contemporary commercial practices against the fundamental policy? – BPL Ltd. Vs. Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

The words/expression “the amount due” in Section 250 of the Companies Act, 2013 would only mean a quantified amount of money which is legally recoverable by the company from its debtors, it is not restricted to admitted debt or a crystalised amount due – A.B. Creations and Anr. Vs. Bhan Textiles Pvt. Ltd. – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that:

(i) Even if the name of a company is struck off from the register, it remains operational in so far as it can pursue legal remedies for realisation of the ‘dues’ of the said company against its debtors, which have either crystalised or remain uncrystallised, arising from any liability or obligation of its debtors to the company, but even the creditors can pursue legal remedies against the said company for the payment and discharge of its liabilities or obligations arising from any contract or statutory implications.
(ii) Mere striking-off of the name of the respondent-company from the register by the Registrar of Companies does not automatically invalidate or renders flawed the civil suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff.

The words/expression “the amount due” in Section 250 of the Companies Act, 2013 would only mean a quantified amount of money which is legally recoverable by the company from its debtors, it is not restricted to admitted debt or a crystalised amount due – A.B. Creations and Anr. Vs. Bhan Textiles Pvt. Ltd. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Adjudicating Authority is forum alone which shall finally decide whether the CoC has performed its fiduciary duty as per the legislative mandate of the IBC – Gateway Investment Management Services Ltd. Vs. Reserve Bank of India and Ors. – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble Delhi High Court referring Guidelines for Committee of Creditors (CoC) issued by IBBI on 06.08.2024 held that Court is not enjoined upon to exercise its power of judicial review and thereby usurp upon the powers of the NCLT to inquire into the commercial wisdom of the CoC whereby the Resolution Plan of the petitioner was rejected. The decision of the CoC shall definitely be considered by the NCLT in a just and expedient manner, and if it deems fit it, may even allow “Open Court Bidding” in accordance with law.

Adjudicating Authority is forum alone which shall finally decide whether the CoC has performed its fiduciary duty as per the legislative mandate of the IBC – Gateway Investment Management Services Ltd. Vs. Reserve Bank of India and Ors. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top