Search Judgments

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 9, 47, 49 – This appeal concerns the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award (26.03.2021, corrected 17.05.2021) obtained by the appellant against the 1st respondent for demurrage under a voyage Charterparty. The dispute was subjected to London arbitration. During interim proceedings under Section 9, the 2nd respondent, a group company of the 1st respondent with common directors and inter-company transactions, voluntarily provided a cheque of Rs. 2,06,78,000/- as security for the disputed arbitration claim, after the 1st respondent’s initial cheques were dishonoured.

Charitable and Religious Trust Act, 1920 (CRT Act) – Section 7 and Indian Trust Act, 1882 (Trust Act) – Section 34 and Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) – The appeal concerns an order passed in OP No.260 of 2022, where Samarpana Charitable Trust (R1/Trust) sought permission under Section 7 of the CRT Act, read with Section 34 of the Trust Act, to vest property in favor of Chennai Metro Rail Project (R2/CMRL). The appellant, Phoenix ARC Private Limited, challenged the order, alleging collusion between the original borrowers, R1, and CMRL to suppress a loan transaction and mortgage on the property.

The appellant argued that the borrowers had taken a loan from Andhra Bank, mortgaging the property in question, and subsequently transferred the property to R1, suppressing the debt and related recovery actions. They highlighted inconsistencies in R1’s ownership claims and alleged that the trust documents were fabricated to protect the property from the appellant’s recovery efforts under the SARFAESI Act.

Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 and Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997

Case Overview: The case concerns the validity of appointments of school teachers (Shiksha Karmi Grade III) in Janpad Panchayat, Gaurihar, made in 1998. The initial selection was challenged due to alleged nepotism and bias in the selection committee, as some members were related to selected candidates.

Conflict of Opinion: A split verdict arose between two judges, with one upholding the selection, citing a breach of the right to a fair hearing, and the other setting aside the selection due to violation of the principle against bias (nemo judex in causa sua). This led to a larger bench addressing the conflict between these foundational principles of natural justice.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – Section 5(7), 5(8), 3(6), 3(11), 14, 15 and Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Section 126, 127 – This case concerns appeals against the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) judgment, questioning if the appellants are ‘Financial Creditors’ under Section 5(7) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Doha Bank challenged the appellants’ classification as Financial Creditors, arguing they weren’t direct lenders to Reliance Infratel Limited (RITL). The appellants claimed status based on Deeds of Hypothecation (DoH), where RCom entities, including RITL, provided security for loans, promising to cover any shortfall in debt repayment.

The NCLAT deemed the DoH not a guarantee, however, the Supreme Court held that clause 5(iii) of the DoH, read with the Master Security Trustee Agreement (MSTA), constitutes a guarantee under Section 126 of the Contract Act.

Advocates Act, 1961 – Section 16 – This case addresses concerns regarding the designation of Senior Advocates as per the guidelines laid down in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India [(2017) 9 SCC 766] (Indira Jaising-1) and Indira Jaising vs. Supreme Court of India, [(2023) 8 SCC 1] (Indira Jaising-2).

The primary issues raised include:

The propriety of Advocates applying for Senior Advocate designation, as Section 16(2) suggests it should be conferred by the Court.