Search Judgments

Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 – The case involves appeals against a High Court order that had quashed the resumption of a plot initially allotted to respondents Manjit Kumar Gulati and Ors. through an auction on a 99-year leasehold basis. The allottees failed to pay installments as per the terms of the auction, leading to the cancellation of the lease by the Assistant Estate Office after multiple opportunities for payment. The Chief Administrator initially directed the allottees to pay the outstanding amount for restoration of the site.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – Sections 30, 31, 61, 238; Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 – Section 34(2)(d) – This case involves an appeal against the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s (NCLAT) judgment, which upheld the approval of a Resolution Plan for Shree Bhoomika International Limited (Corporate Debtor). NOIDA Special Economic Zone Authority (Appellant), an operational creditor, challenged the plan, arguing that it unfairly allocated only INR 50 Lakhs against its admitted claim of INR 6.29 Crores.

The Appellant contended that it was not informed about auction proceedings, that Clause 10.9 of the Resolution Plan contradicted Special Economic Zone (SEZ) rules, and that the valuation of the Corporate Debtor was flawed due to lack of physical inspection. The Appellant also emphasized on the non-payment of statutory dues, transfer fees etc.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CPA, 1986) – Section 23 – This case involves appeals against the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)’s order regarding a complaint filed by Dharmendra Sharma against the Agra Development Authority (ADA) for deficiency in service related to the allotment of a flat. Sharma applied for a flat in 2011, made full payment, but possession was delayed, and the offer of possession in 2014 was contingent on additional payments and lacked necessary completion and firefighting clearance certificates. The NCDRC partly allowed Sharma’s complaint, ordering a refund with interest from the complaint date. Both Sharma and ADA appealed, with Sharma seeking interest from the deposit date and ADA contesting limitation and pecuniary jurisdiction.

Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 125 – The Supreme Court addressed appeals concerning the extension of the Scheduled Commissioning Date (SCD) under the force majeure clause of Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) and the subsequent reduction in tariffs. The central question was whether delays in project commissioning were attributable to force majeure events, justifying tariff reductions.

The case originated from a policy introduced by the State of Karnataka to promote solar energy projects by farmers. Disputes arose regarding delays in land conversion, evacuation approvals, and other factors, leading to requests for SCD extensions.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – Section 7, 18, 36 and Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Section 126, 128, 140 – The case involves a loan of Rs. 100 crores granted by SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited (financial creditor) to Gujarat Hydrocarbon and Power SEZ Limited (corporate debtor), a subsidiary of Assam Company India Limited (ACIL). The loan was secured by a mortgage, a pledge of shares, and a corporate guarantee from ACIL. Upon default, the financial creditor initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against ACIL.

Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002 – Rule 21 – This case involves appeals against a Gujarat High Court order regarding the principle of stepping up pay for senior employees whose juniors, who were previously ad hoc lecturers, now earn more due to the counting of their ad hoc service for Senior Scale/Selection Grade benefits. The appellants, directly selected Assistant Professors, sought pay parity with these juniors under Rule 21 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002.

The core issue is whether Rule 21, which allows for stepping up pay to match a junior’s higher salary, applies when the pay disparity arises from considering the junior’s past ad hoc service. The appellants, despite acknowledging the legality of granting Senior Scale/Selection Grade to the junior lecturers (appointed as ad hoc lecturers between 1984-95), claimed that Rule 21 should bridge the resulting pay gap.

Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) & 11(12)(a) – The petitioner filed two petitions under Section 11(6) read with Section 11(12)(a) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a Shareholders Agreement dated 25.07.2011.

The disputes concern the non-issuance of share certificates for 4,00,000 and 2,00,010 equity shares in respondent no.1 (ASAP Fluids Pvt. Ltd.) allegedly belonging to the petitioner. The respondents (ASAP Fluids Pvt.

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 67, Section 2(7) – This case involves an appeal against the judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which partly allowed the respondent’s complaint against the appellant-builder for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. The respondent, a private limited company, booked a flat with the appellant, with the intention for residential use of one of its directors and his family. A dispute arose when the respondent discovered the flat was already allotted to another person, and the appellant insisted on possession despite this confusion and later terminated the allotment and forfeited the deposit when the respondent declined to take possession.

The primary issues were whether the respondent qualified as a “consumer” under Section 2(7) of the Act and whether the appellant was deficient in service.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – Section 7, 35, 61 & IBBI Regulations, 2016 – Regulation 31A, 33, 47A & National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 – Rule 11 – The case involves appeals against the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) order dismissing appeals filed by V.S. Palanivel, a shareholder of Sri Lakshmi Hotel Private Limited. The appeals arose from liquidation proceedings under the IBC, challenging the e-auction of the company’s property and related orders. Key issues include the validity of extending the timeline for the auction purchaser to deposit the balance sale consideration due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the alleged undervaluation of the property, and the non-constitution of a Stakeholders Consultation Committee.

Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) and 11(12)(a) – This case concerns a petition filed by Cox & Kings Ltd. (Petitioner) under Section 11(6) read with Section 11(12)(a) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes with SAP India Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No.