Search Judgments

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – Section 61 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 12 – Appeals were filed against an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) dismissing appeals due to the rejection of applications to condone the delay. The NCLAT dismissed the appeals because the appellant, a shareholder and suspended Managing Director of Dharti Dredging and Infrastructure Limited, filed appeals beyond the limitation period without sufficient cause and made incorrect statements regarding the application for certified copies of the orders. The appellant argued that the delay should have been condoned under Section 12(3) of the Limitation Act and Section 61 of the IBC, emphasizing the permissible 15-day extension beyond the initial 30-day period.

However, the court noted that the appellant had not applied for certified copies, and the appeals were filed with misrepresentations regarding the timeliness.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 120-B, 420, 423, 465, 468, and 471; Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) – Section 239 – This case involves a challenge to an order passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, regarding a discharge petition filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. The prosecution’s case alleges that the petitioner, along with other accused, conspired to illegally grab temple land in Sivarakkottai Village. It is alleged that the petitioner formed a trust to purchase land for an educational institution and, in the process, conspired with others to fraudulently acquire temple land through an exchange deed and subsequent sale deeds, misrepresenting Patta numbers and acting without permission from the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department.

The Magistrate partly allowed the discharge petition, finding no prima facie case for offences under Sections 465, 468, and 471 of the IPC but held that sufficient ingredients existed to constitute an offence under Section 120-B read with Section 408 of the IPC.

Motor Vehicles Act (MVA) – This case involves an appeal concerning compensation awarded in a motor vehicle accident claim. The claimant-appellants, the husband and daughters of the deceased Lakshmi Nagalla, sought compensation for her death in a car accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of a vehicle owned and operated by the respondent.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) initially awarded Rs. 8,03,42,476, considering the deceased’s monthly income of $11,600 in the U.S.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order 26 Rules 19-22, Sections 78 and 151; Hague Convention of 18.03.1970 – The Intellectual Property Division (IPD) of the Madras High Court addressed two petitions seeking to execute Letters Rogatory issued by the United States District Court under the Hague Convention, related to a patent dispute between the petitioners and Indian pharmaceutical companies Zenara and Cipla in the U.S.

The petitioners allege that Zenara and Cipla’s Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) for generic versions of VYNDAMAX® infringe their U.S. patent. The Letters Rogatory request the Court to obtain deposition of documents from the respondent, a third party believed to possess relevant information.

The Criminal Procedure Code 1973 Section 437 and 439; The Constitution Of India 1950 Article 325 –  This appeal was filed by a District and Sessions Judge of the Rajasthan Judicial Service, challenging adverse observations and directions issued against him by the High Court in a bail application matter. The High Court had found fault with the appellant for not complying with its earlier directions in Jugal Kishore vs. State of Rajasthan, which mandated the inclusion of a specific tabular format detailing the accused’s antecedents in bail orders. The appellant accepted the mistake and clarified it happened due to work pressure, and assured it would not happen again.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 (Dishonour of Cheque) – Section 143A (Interim Compensation) – Section 148 (Deposit pending Appeal) – “Drawer” vs. “Authorized Signatory” An authorized signatory of a company’s cheque is generally not considered the “drawer” of the cheque for the purpose of Sections 143A and 148 of the NI Act. While the company is the primary obligor, and its officers may be vicariously liable under Section 141, the statutory language of Sections 143A and 148 specifically refers to the “drawer.” Therefore, merely being an authorized signatory, without being the actual drawer, does not empower a trial court to direct interim compensation under Section 143A or an appellate court to direct a deposit of fine/compensation under Section 148(1) as a condition for suspending sentence in an appeal against conviction under Section 138. The liability for such deposits rests primarily with the “drawer” of the cheque.

• Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation – Contributory Negligence: An act of merely attempting to overtake a vehicle on the road, without any other evidence suggesting rashness or negligence, cannot by itself be termed as an act of contributory negligence, especially when the other vehicle involved in the accident was proven to be driven rashly and negligently. The burden to prove contributory negligence lies on the party asserting it.
• Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation – Multiplier: The appropriate multiplier for calculating compensation in motor accident cases should be applied in accordance with the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as it stood on the date of filing the Special Leave Petition, even if it was subsequently omitted.
• Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation – Future Prospects: In cases where the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, future prospects are to be added to the established income as per the principles laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.