Tag: supreme court

Resolution Plan that fails to address Statutory Dues is bound to be rejected by the Adjudicating Authority: Supreme Court

The Hon’ble Division Bench, Supreme Court comprising of Justice Indira Banerjee, and Justice A.S. Bopanna, in State Tax Officer (1) v. Rainbow Papers Limited (Civil Appeal No. 1664 of 2020), on 6th September, 2022, held that a

The Holder of the Recovery Certificate would be a Financial Creditor and would be entitled to initiate CIRP: Supreme Court

A Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and A.S. Bopanna, in Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. A. Balakrishna and Anr (Civil Appeal No. 689 of 2021), affirmed the view taken in

india law

DUOMATIC PRINCIPLE, HOW IT CAN BE ESTABLISHED?

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and JK Maheshwari held in a recent judgment1 that the Duomatic Principle is applicable even in the Indian context which states that ‘Strict adherence to a statutory

ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CAN NOT ORDER INTERIM DEPOSIT OF DISPUTED AMOUNT, WHERE THE LIABILITY IS IN DISPUTE: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna held, in a recent judgment1 Arbitral Tribunal (“Tribunal”) cannot pass an interim order under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the

SALARIES OF THOSE EMPLOYESS WHO WORKED DURING CIRP CONSTITUTE CIRP COSTS & PROVIDENT FUND, GRATUITY FUND TO BE KEPT OUT OF THE LIQUIDATION ESTATE

The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose in the recent Judgement1 held that: – the wages or salaries of only such workmen/employees, who worked during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process

An Arbitral Award can be set aside only when it is vitiated by patent illegality: SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court, in a recent judgement1, delivered on 30th March 2022, noted that apart from the grounds mentioned in Section 34(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2013 (the “Act”), an arbitral award can

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10