In Re Ashok Kumar Sharma HUF, the SEBI undertook to investigate the trading in illiquid stock on the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE). The bench observed that of the total trading in the stocks, 81.40% were non-genuine. The adjudicatory authority initiated the proceedings against the noticee for contravening the reg. 3(a),(b),(c),(d)

In a writ petition decided by a single bench headed by Justice Sandeep K. Shinde, the HC quashes the ‘issue process’ by ASJ against the petitioner. HC considered the issue of whether ASJ can ‘issue process’ on a complaint filed by IBBI. The single bench held that the process was

In a writ petition filed before Allahabad HC, a bench comprising Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh issued a notice to Finance Ministry, Union Government. The writ petition was filed against the vacant post of PO/Chairman of DRAT, lying vacant for almost more than three months. The single bench observed that DRT/DRAT

3-member bench of CCI, consisting of Mr A.K.Gupta, Ms Sangeeta Verma, and Mr B.S.Bishnoi, in a suo-moto case, imposed penalty on Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha, Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd., Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. and Nissan Motor Car Carrier Company (“OP”) for violation of sec.3 of the Act for cartelisation against

SEBI in an order passed by Sh. Ananta Barua imposes a penalty on NSE Ltd., its former MD & CEO for sharing confidential information with a purported ‘spiritual guru’, along with other ex-officials for making misleading statements to SEBI w.r.t. to the arbitrary appointment of NSE’s Advisor to MD and

SEBI, vide a 100-page interim order passed by Mr S.K.Mohanty in proceedings against Reliance Home Finance Ltd. (‘Company’/‘RHFL’), held the Company along with Anil D. Ambani (Chairman of Reliance Group – ‘Noticee 2’) and 3 other KMPs of the Company liable for the violation of corporate governance regulations. The Regulator

Appeals challenging NCLT’s order were dismissed by NCLAT headed by Justice M.Venugopal, Mr V.P. Singh and Dr A.K.Mishra, which holds, inter alia, that any funds received by DHFL (Corporate debtor) for the purpose of repaying or realizing loans refinanced by National Housing Bank (the ‘Respondent’) and remaining outstanding will be

A Division bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice C.T. Ravikumar, strikes down the decision of the Telangana High Court granting anticipatory bail for the Respondent in the proceedings pertaining to PMLA. SC further remands the case to the Telangana High Court for reconsideration of

In the Maheshsinh Babusinh Zala case, the applicant was found guilty of an offence punishable u/s 138 of the NI Act(“the Act”). In light of the amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties, the complainant has filed an affidavit stating that a quashing and setting aside of the conviction

In an appeal decided by ITAT in Draipl-Mskel (JV) case, the assessee’s asserted interest expense was denied by the AO due to the failure to deduct TDS. Additionally, the CIT later confirmed the AO’s disallowance (A). The question before the appellate tribunal is whether the disallowance of the expense should

In an appeal decided in the Anil Kumar Saha case the appellate authority noted that in scrutiny assessment by, AO observed that the assessee had received Rs.40 crores from ILFS on account of shares of ATS Estate (P.) Ltd., conditionally as per the terms of the Share Purchase and Shareholder

The Delhi NCLAT bench comprising Justice M. Venugopal, Learned V.P. Singh and Dr A.K.Mishra stayed the CCI order punishing the MD of Carlsberg (‘Appellant’) directing him to not resort to practice in contravention of Sec.3 of the Competition Act/the Act on paying a 10% penalty amount as penalised by the

The bench was presided over by Ms Soma Majumder (Adjudicating Officer) wherein the noticees who are five employees of Titan were penalized for an amount of INR 1 Lakh by SEBI for not disclosing trading in shares of Titan amounting to approx. INR 10 Lakh violating the PTI regulations as

The noticees who are the two former employees of Mindtree were penalized by SEBI for an amount of INR 1 Lakh for causing loss to the investors of Mindtree and failing to submit the disclosures on time regarding trading in the shares of Mindtree which resulted in the infringement of

Orissa HC’s division bench composed of Chief Justice Dr S. Muralidhar along with Justice A.K. Mohapatra rejected the demand notices for dues issued by the mining dept. (‘Respondent’) against Ferro Alloys (undergoing CIRP – ‘Appellant’) as the demand notices issued by the Respondent were pertaining to before the resolution plan’s

The New Delhi NCLAT bench presided by Justice M. Venugopal, Learned V. P. Singh and Dr Ashok Kumar Mishra upheld the order of NCLT which rejected the application to participate in CoC of ‘superseded directors’ (‘Appellants’) on the Board of Directors (‘BoD’) of DHFL. The bench ruled that a promoter

In an appeal heard by the NCLAT bench composed of Justice M. Venugopal, Hon’ble V. P. Singh and Dr Alok Srivastava held that the construction of Sec.17(1)(d) of IBC that FI “shall act on the instructions of the IRP” should not be interpreted to force a FI to adopt Non-fund

In a plea filed before the Hon’ble Delhi HC’s single bench headed by Justice Mukta Gupta by directors of successful resolution applicant (‘SRA’) against the IBBI complaint filed against the petitioners, HC has issued notice to IBBI. The HC summoned the petitioners for violating the approved resolution plan. The petitioners

The 3-Judge Bench of the Apex Court presided by Chief Justice N. V. Ramana, Justice A. S. Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli heard an appeal against the NCLAT order by the Liquidator of ABG Shipyard, on February 8, 2022. As per the earlier decision of NCLAT, it was pronounced that

The division bench of NCLT Kochi presided by Hon’ble Shyam Babu Gautam and Hon’ble Ashok Kumar Borah directed the Respondents to forward/handover the physical possession of the secured asset of Corporate Debtor to the Applicant so that the same can be utilized as the Liquidation Estate. The Hon’ble bench observed

The 3-Judge Apex Court Bench presided by Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Vikram Nath dismissed an order of the NCLAT set aside the Appellant’s application under sec.9 of IBC, and held that the Appellant fell within the scope and definition of ‘operational creditor’, clarifying that

The division bench of the Kochi NCLT presided by Hon’ble Shyam Babu Gautam and Shri. Ashok Kumar Borah set aside the application seeking dismissal of the RP report and suggesting admission of the application against the personal guarantors(“Appellant’) under sec.95(1) of IBC filed against the appellant with the motive to

In an appeal decided by NCLAT in the Dheeraj Wadhawan case, the Appellant had filed the instant appeal against the Miscellaneous Application under sec.60(5) of IBC in order to seek participation in CoC’S meetings of DHFL, the Hon’ble NCLT dismissing the application upheld that the Appellant being the former member

In an appeal decided by NCLAT in the Economy Hotels case, a division bench of Justice Venugopal M. and Kanthi Narahari pronounced that capital reduction as per sec.66 of the Companies Act is a domestic concern of a corporate entity and hence, a Tribunal will not intervene on the ground

The NCLAT bench composed of Justice M. Venugopal, Dr A.K. Mishra and Mr V. P. Singh decide an appeal against the NCLT order approving the resolution plan (“RP”) as presented by Piramal /Successful Resolution Applicant (‘SRA’) and DHFL/Corporate Debtor. The question before the Appellate Tribunal was that if the possibility

P&H HC upheld the Trial Court’s decision of setting aside the Petitioner’s case and allowed the evidence of the Respondent Company under Sec.138 read with Sec. 141 and 142 with the NI Act (“the act”). HC pronounced that the motive and intent of the statute would be nullified if the

In an appeal decided by the division bench constituted of Sh. V.D. Rao and Sh. M.K. Aggarwal, ITAT held that the assessee/appellant’s right to acquire shares would expire upon forfeit of the converted warrant. Appellate Tribunal noted that a share in a firm denotes a share in the ownership of

The Madras HC division bench presided by Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice G. Jayachandran dismissed a petition of a company’s shareholder/ promoter (‘Petitioner’) who was charged for the offences committed under the PMLA. The petition sought for recalling the summons issued by the ADJ, which had called the Petitioner in

The Amravati NCLT bench approved the merger scheme as proposed by the Transferor (Petitioner) and the Transferee, observing that the scheme was accepted and approved by the required majority of shareholders and creditors of the petitioner. The petitioners submitted that if merely 7 shareholders have raised any objection with regard

The New Delhi NCLAT bench allowed an appeal against the NCLT order which rejected a Sec.9 application filed by the Operational Creditor (‘Applicant’) which sought to initiate the insolvency process. The Appellate Tribunal rejected the NCLT order on the ground of “incorrect premise”. The Appellant submitted that though the NCLT

New Delhi NCLT bench presided by Learned L. N. Gupta and Learned A.B.K. Sinha held that in order to arrive at the minimum limit amount of INR 1 Cr. the interest cannot be added with the principal amount to be in line with Sec.4 of Code. The bench observed that

The Chennai NCLAT bench, composed of Justice M. Venugopal and Shri. K. Narahari dismissed the order of NCLT which had rejected the application filed by the former director (‘Appellant’) u/s. 7 of IBC/Code which sought for the initiation of the CIRP against the corporate debtor contending that the Appellant’s loan

The division bench of Madras HC presided by Justice M. Duraiswamy and Justice J.S.N.Prasad rejected a petition which sought for bail to the petitioners who were arrested u/s. 3 of PMLA (‘the Act’) by ED. The bench held that this court is reluctant to hold that petitioners are unlikely to

The division bench of SC presided by Justice S.K. Kaul and Justice M. M. Sundresh ruled that the Lotteries (Regulation) Act regulates the business of lottery; however, if there is any anti-competition aspect in the process of lottery tendering, which warrants investigation by the commission, the same can be permitted

In a case decided by Mr A.K. Gupta, Ms S. Verma, and Mr B.S.Bishnoi, CCI rejected a complaint by informants, inter-alia, claiming Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Ltd (“KSBC/OP”) violating sec. 4 of the Act by single-handedly deciding contract price for the distribution and purchase of branded alcoholic

In an appeal decided by Justice T. Agarwala and Justice M T Joshi, SAT quashes INR 6.5 Lakh penalty on the appellant for non-compliance with minimum public shareholding (‘MPS’) requirement and violation of SEBI circulars by using the non-prescribed method to meet MPS norms. However, the Appellate Tribunal upholds INR

A division bench of NCLT headed by Sh. Anil Kumar B. and Sh. A.K. Borah, allowed an Insurance Co.(“Applicant”)’s plea to initiate CIRP against Debtor/Respondents as the insured had assigned the debt to the Applicant legally. NCLT observed that the applicant has established that u/s 5(20) of IBC, operational creditor

NCLAT bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhusan, Justice J.K. Jain and Dr Alok Srivastava, rejects the appeal of the corporate debtor’s suspended director (“Appellant”) against the NCLT order whereby the tribunal admitted a claim of the financial creditor (“Respondent”) for CIRP under sec.7 of IBC/Code against the corporate debtor on

In an appeal decided by Justice A.B. Singh and Ms Shreesha Merla, NCLAT set aside NCLT’s order rejecting Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. and Ericsson India Global Services Pvt. Ltd.(“Appellants”)’s plea to do away with Shareholders’ and creditors’ meetings despite the merger of Appellants, i.e., parent company and its 100% owned

Without identifying the nature of the debt, NCLT decided that the RP could not deny a claim that financial debt originating from a term loan arrangement made between parties is combined with the amount resolved under a settlement document. It added that the Resolution Professional is not an adjudicating authority