Lawpedia

  Whether you can invoke writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to interdict personal insolvency?   This question arose before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the recent decision of Bank of Baroda v. Farooq Ali Khan & Ors. (dated 20.02.2025). Interestingly, in the said case the High Court’s jurisdiction was invoked against the order of the Adjudicating Authority appointing the Resolution Professional. In the said order it was also directed that the said Resolution Professional shall examine the application under Section 95 and file a report under Section 99 of the IBC.    Let us understand the facts of the case:   R-1 in the said case was a promoter and director of one Associate Décor Limited (Corporate Debtor), and the present case was limited to the personal insolvency proceedings being initiated against R-1. Starting from 2010, the Corporate Debtor had taken loans from the Appellant and the Consortium of Ban...

Can your gratuity be forfeited, in the event of termination of service on misconduct (act constituting moral turpitude)   without there being any conviction in a criminal case or even a criminal proceeding having been initiated.    Recently, in the decisions of  Western Coal Fields Lt v. Manohar Govinda Fulzele , the Supreme Court of India examined the aforesaid issue. In the impugned decision challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, relying on Union Bank of India and Ors. v. C.G. Ajay Babu, it was held that the forfeiture of gratuity to be not permissible under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (“ Act ”).    The sub­-clause (ii) of Section 4(6)(b) of the Act enables forfeiture of gratuity, wholly or partially, if the delinquent employee is terminated for any act which co...

  In a recent decision delivered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in  Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited v. Friends Inc . (dated 09.01.2025), a suit was filed seeking permanent injunction restraining the use of the impugned mark, “PETER ENGLAND ”  by the defendants ’  causing infringement of the  P laintiff ’s  trademark, copyright, and artistic work on the mark of “PETER ENGLAND ” .  As the defendants, had already removed the infringing board from outside their shop and in view of the compliance affidavit filed by the defendants, the suit  was  decreed in favour of the  P laintiff. The Plaintiff had  additionally  also prayed that the mark “PETER ENGLAND ”  be declared as  a  well-known  mark. The  Hon’ble Court  had  granted liberty to the  P laintiff to file evidence by way of affidavit in this regard.  The depositions given by the Plaintiff to declare  the  mark as ...

  A Clause in the contract disentitling the Appellant from raising any claim for damages or compensation for failure or delay caused by the Respondent in fulfilling its obligations under the contract. Interestingly, in this case the Appellant had also given an undertaking that they shall not make any claim other than escalation because of the delay in completion for which the extension was sought and was also duly granted by the Respondent.    Whether such a clause prohibiting payment of damages could be enforced?    In a recent decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India delivered on 31.01.2025 of  M/s. C & C Constructions Ltd.  v . Ircon International Limited  (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6657 OF 2023), the Hon'ble Court, firstly, rejected the Appellant’s contention, wherein it had sought to challenge the validity of the above-mentioned clause in light the Section 23 and 28 of the Indian Contract Act as the said contention was never raised before th...