The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the petition filed by Mr Azim Premji and others seeking quashing of criminal summons issued by the Trial Court in Bengaluru in response to a complaint from a “serial litigant” NGO against the merger of Mr Premji’s three interlocked companies, ordered the Karnataka High Court

The Securities and Exchange Board of India ordered and instructed the Company and its Directors, along with the Appellant, to refund a sum of Rs. 1.75 crores that were obtained through the offer and allotment of shares in conformity with Section 73(2) of the Companies Act and refrained the Appellant

A bench consisting of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice J.K Jain and Dr Alok Srivastava upholds NCLT’s order whereby the Financial Creditor/Appellant’s application seeking dissolution of resolution plan and liquidation of the debtor was dismissed. The Appellate tribunal held that the Appellant’s claim was already decided in the previous instance and

SpiceJet Ltd. i.e., the Appellant filed an appeal counter to a verdict of a single judge for acknowledging the petition of Credit Suisse AG for winding up of SpiceJet and for the appointment of an official liquidator owing to the airline’s incapability to pay debts computing USD 24 million which

According to a complaint made by an Informant allegedly involved in promoting and protecting the interests of digital news publishers, CCI ordered the DG to undertake an investigation into the alleged abusive behavior by Alphabet Inc., Google LLC, Google India Pvt. Ltd., and Google Ireland Ltd. (collectively referred to as

In response to a complaint that alleged abusive conduct of Apple’s dominant spot in the Apps market, CCI directed the DG to launch an investigation into the actions of Apple Inc. and Apple Distribution International Ltd. (an Apple entity that creates Apple-owned apps, information, and facilities accessible to users in

An appeal was filed in NCLAT against the CCI order for ANI Technologies Ltd. (OLA) claiming that there is neither an establishment nor any misuse of its dominant position. Justice Jarat Kumar Jain (Member – Judicial) and Dr. Alok Srivastava (Member – Technical) heard the appeal. The petitioner said that

A writ appeal was filed by MRF Ltd. in Madras High Court against an order passed by a single Judge. The issue was the order of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) directing scrutiny into purported Cartelization and Price Parallelism by the Appellant needed no interference. The division bench comprising

In the appeal filed by 3 Dissenting Financial Creditors of Vedanta Group, namely IFCI Ltd, SIDBI, and Bank of Maharashtra, appellants raised the issue that the decision taken by NCLT does not comply with Sec. 30(2)(b) of IBC, thus the approval of this Resolution Plan is in violation of Sec.

The Resolution Professional filed an appeal against the three appellants in accordance with Sec. 95 of the IBC, 2016, on their behalf. The order in issue, which the Adjudicating Authority had issued in response to a request made via the Resolution Professional, instructed the Resolution Professional to use the authority

The National Company Law Tribunal dismissed the appeal challenging the National Company Law Tribunal’s  order that allowed an insolvency application. The Appellant stated that the date of default had not been mentioned in the Form-1 filed before the NCLT and, therefore, the application ought not to have been admitted. On

NCLT rules that where a financial creditor/debenture trustee (“petitioner”) has categorical rights over the secured asset, then no claim lies under sec.7 of IBC for non-payment of outstanding dues under Debenture Trust Deed (“DTD”) on account of petitioner’s agreement for the sale of a mortgaged asset for the realisation of

An appeal was filed in SAT. The appeal was brought in response to a common decision issued by the Whole Time Member (WTM) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), which ordered the appellants to forfeit illegal earnings worth Rs. 4,55,91,232 along with interest at a rate of

A writ petition was filed with the issue questioning whether the Income Tax Department’s officials have the authority to notify a corporate debtor under Sec. 148 of the ITA of 1961 that they must submit a return in the required format for the assessment year that ended before the date

In a case filed by Union Bank of India(“petitioner”) before Rajasthan HC, the issue was the resolution adopted by RERA that all matters shall be resolved by a single bench as well as the decision made by a single member of RERA about a semi-completed residential complex in which the

Supreme Court of India was hearing a plea by the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, for the issue of the transfer of jurisdiction of DRT at Jabalpur to DRT at Lucknow as it was confusing to lawyers in the matter of jurisdiction. The case came before the bench constituting honourable

In an appeal preferred by The Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited to quash the writ of Mandamus passed by the Allahabad HC, the issue before SC was the direction issued through the Writ to positively consider the application of the borrower (respondent) for One Time Settlement (OTS). The division bench

In a case filed on behalf of M/s. Adama India Pvt. Ltd. (Applicant) to Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) in Gujarat. The issue raised was whether Input Tax Credit(ITC) can be availed for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities. The case came before the division bench comprised of Mr. Sanjay Saxena

A writ petition was filed by Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. (TANGEDCO) with an issue against the notice sent to TANGEDCO by the Competition Commission of India(CCI), before Justice S.M. Subramaniam of the High Court of Madras. Southern India Engineering Manufacturers’ Association filed a complaint to CCI

SAT upheld the order of SEBI, rejecting the appeal against the SEBI order imposing a penalty as the company and the directors (‘Appellants’) failed to undertake the activities as per regulation 24(2) r/w 23(1)(2A) of SEBI (Venture Capital Funds) Regulations (‘VCF Regulations’). The appellate tribunal observed that a 5-year scheme

SAT bench composed of Justice Tarun Agarwala and Justice M. T. Joshi upheld the impugned order as passed by SEBI which directed the MD of the company (‘Appellant’) to discharge the profits earned through wrongful means amounting to INR 1.74 Cr. and restrained him from trading in the market for

SEBI bench presided by Mr S.K. Mohanty allowed an interim order restraining an employee of Infosys (‘Noticee 1’) and another person connected to him (‘Noticee 2’ – who was an employee of Wipro) from the stock market for insider trading in the shares of Infosys, the bench states that the

The Delhi HC bench presided by Justice Yashwant Varma admitted the writ filed by the corporate debtor in a case related to the interplay of IBC and PMLA wherein the bench maintained the corporate debtor was entitled to initiate the liquidation process, thereby barring the ED (‘Respondent’) from taking any

The Appellant BSE Ltd., had filed an appeal against a decision by the NCLT that rejected its request to begin an insolvency resolution process against the Corporate Debtor, but the NCLAT dismissed the appeal and concluded that the Appellant had only started the insolvency proceedings as a means of recouping

The Supreme Court upheld the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s ruling that the RBI’s 2020 Merchant Trade Transactions (MTT) Guidelines, which were issued in the course of exercising its FEMA authority, were a proportionate measure to ensure that there was a sufficient domestic supply of PPE products in India and was

In the instant case, NCLAT opined that the Adjudicating Authority had erred in permitting Respondent’s claim of the fee until October 9, 2018, i.e., when IRP was replaced. Accordingly, NCLAT set aside NCLT order to the degree that it instructed CoC to pay the fees and expenditures to the previous

The Hon’ble Supreme Court ordered all parties involved in the resolution of Amtek Auto Ltd. (the Corporate Debtor), as per the Approved Resolution Plan submitted by Deccan Value Investors LP and/or parties associated with the implementation of the said resolution plan, including the Implementation and Monitoring Committee, to complete its

The Hon’ble Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court consisting of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Rajendra M. Sareen passed an order; directing the Revenue Department to issue GST registration to a firm undergoing liquidation and granted exemption concerning actions taken after the 6-month window due to the COVID-19 pandemic

Reliance Capital Ltd.’s request for the start of a CIRP under Section 227, read with Section 239(2) (zk) of the IBC, was accepted by NCLT because there is a debt and default involving more than Rs. 1000 Cr.; It was noted that –  (i) Due to defaults to several creditors,

The Competition Commission Of India dismissed the complaint against Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. on presuming cartelization through its various offices, and held that “The Informant has singularly failed to identify or array any cartel participants, much less indicate the modus and the details in respect of any such purported cartel.”

A Division bench of Justice  D Y. Chandrachud and Justice A.S. Bopanna, while hearing an appeal set aside NCLAT ruling upholding the NCLT interim order delaying notice of termination sent by TCS Ltd. (the “Appellant”) to the Corporate Debtor terminating a Facilities Agreement between the parties after the CIRP was

In an appeal filed by a housekeeping service provider in the health and hospitality industry (‘Appellant’), the challenge raised before the NCLAT was the infirmity in the NCLT’s order to not accept the Appellant’s application of insolvency under Sec. 9 of the Code.      The Appellant alleged that the Respondent (a

In a bid-rigging case filed on behalf of the Food Corporation of India (FCI) in the Competition Commission of India (CCI), the issue was against the OPs for infringement of Sec. 3(3)(d) of the Competition Act, 2002. OPs were involved in the determination of prices, bidding process manipulation, allocation of

Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. (DHFL) got released from the CBI case after the Hon’ble Bombay High Court overturned the CBI’s decision to refuse to release the Corporate Debtor from the CBI case and allow DHFL to be prosecuted through its former Directors under IBC Section 32A According to DHFL,

In ATE Projects Pvt. Ltd. v/s Rajasthan Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., NCLT Jaipur referred to the Company’s definition as defined under Section 2(20) of the Companies Act, which reads that a “Company,” includes a “Government Company,” as defined under Section 2(45) of that same statute. Noting the factual matrix and

The MCA invited public comments on the CBIRC draft and suggested modifications by December 15, 2021. Following the recommendations made in the report submitted by the Cross-Border Insolvency Rules/ Regulations Committee (the “CBIRC”) on draft rules, regulations, notifications, guidelines, and capacity building for cross-border insolvency, the MCA proposed to enact

The Hon’ble Supreme Court SC nullified the Delhi High Court’s decision upholding the DRT’s order that exempted the delay in applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act (extension of the prescribed period in certain cases) to the appeal under Section 30 of the Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1933 (the

The Hon’ble NCLT, while admitting that the Operational Creditor’s petition to initiate CIRP against the Corporate Debtor (a government-owned firm) held that “Since the Corporate Debtor, has not been performing any Governmental Functions or the Functions of State, the Corporate Debtor cannot be immune from the IBC proceedings merely based

Elektrans Shipping Pte Ltd. Vs Pierre D’silva (NCLAT Delhi) It was observed by the National Company Law Tribunal that even when the Registrar of Companies has removed the Company’s name, the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) may be started under sections 7 and 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,

In a case filed in the Delhi High Court, the issue was regarding vacancies and appointments in the Adjudicatory Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The case came before the single-judge bench of Justice Pratibha M Singh. The counsel appearing for the respondent stated that there were