Share inheritance Notice to Cheque Nominee Director Assets attached Compounding fees Winding-up Tax liability reduction

dispute Regulators Dishonor removal u/s 337 & 339

Bad debts Remedy to Fee
Filing in OOBH before Nominee written off Pref. S/H waiver
Typo Error Diff state
Active Co. restoration Director; 447

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

section 29A
33

reduction of capital 34

Directors Forensic audit 35

Co. Name- High Court
& their Compromise Strike off/ Jurisdiction
Disqualification & T/F of Winding up 36
Restore petition from HC to NCLT
Arrangement
Tata case study 37
Merger & Oppression
Amalgamation & 38
vicarious liability
Mismanagement
Winding-up u/s 271(c) 39
Appointment of CFO 40

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

LLP & Co. Promoter applied, 236- Compulsory MD- Loss of Kanodia Min. Applicants’ Co. Law Challenge
during Liquidation acquisition Confidence Knits case waiver Suit- NCLT  Strike-off
167(1)(a) 164 (2)- OOBH  CLB relief  130- Accounts Resigned before
No objections
is valid Lender intervention Rectification of ROM
Retrospective  then NCLT  Re-open Despite info. Co. defaulted
CL 1. ARUNA OSWAL v. Dispute of Inheritance of Shares is a civil dispute, it cannot be decided
PANKAJ OSWAL & ORS [SC] under section 241/242 of the Companies Act, 2013. The decision of NCLT is
set aside.

CL 2. SANDEEP AGARWAL & ANR v.

UNION OF INDIA & ANR [DELHI HC] CFSS HC held that the directors are allowed to file the returns of the active
company under the Companies Fresh Start Scheme (CFSS), even if they are
disqualified under 164(2)(a).

CL 3. ASHISH O. LALPURIA v. NCLAT held that before approval of NCLT for any scheme of amalgamation,
KUMAKA INDUSTRIES LTD & ORS a notice has to be given to all the regulators specified to invite objections if
[NCLAT] any, this requirement can not be waived by NCLT.

CL 4. MR. PANKAJ KUMAR MISHRA VS. The NCLAT held that before making any order for restoration, opportunity
REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, MUMBAI of being heard has to be given, and since in the given case opportunity for
& ORS.(NCLAT) being heard was not given, the order of NCLT is set aside.

CL 5. ALIBABA NABIBASHA VS. HC held that after resignation, Director cannot be held responsible for daily
SMALL FARMERS AGRI-BUSINESS affairs of Company including Cheques issued and dishonored.
CONSORTIUM & ORS. (DELHI, HC)

CL 6. DR. RAJESH KUMAR YADUVANSHI VS. Person as a Nominee Director of the Company cannot be summoned for
SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE offences in respect of Sections 128, 129, 448 read with Section 447 of the
(SFIO) & ANR. (DELHI, HC) Companies Act, 2013, without any specific allegations against him in
Investigation report.

CL 7. QVC EXPORTS PVT. LTD. & ORS. VS. Removal of Nominee Director (appointed by minority shareholders) with
COSMIC FERRO ALLOYS LTD. & ORS. majority vote in duly convened EGM giving special notice is completely legal
(NCLAT) and valid.
CL 8. ECONOMY HOTELS INDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED Merely a ‘typographical error’ in the extract of ‘Minutes’, characterising the
VS. ‘special resolution’ as ‘unanimous ordinary resolution’ will not render a
REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES & ANR. special resolution as invalid. The special resolution passed is very well valid.
(NCLAT)

CL 9. K.V. BRAHMAJI RAO VS. Any person assets (who is head of some other organizations) cannot be
UNION OF INDIA (NCLAT) attached in exercising the powers under Sections 337 & 339 of the
Companies Act, 2013.

CL 10. VIJAY GOVERDHANDAS KALANTRI & ANR. VS. The jurisdiction of the High Court is limited to the territorial jurisdiction of
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. the State of which it is the High Court.
(HC OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA)

CL 11. THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, The compounding fees has to be more than or equal to the minimum fine
WEST BENGAL VS. prescribed under the Act.
KARAN KISHORE SAMTANI (NCLAT)

CL 12. S. P. VELUMANI & ANR. VS. The NCLAT upheld the decision of the NCLT, Chennai bench that decision of
MAGNUM SPINNING the Board of Directors to write off the bad debt is a commercial decision,
MILLS INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS. (NCLAT) which does not warrant any judicial interference.

CL 13. LATE MONA AGGARWAL THROUGH HER LEGAL HEIR

NCLAT held that even after removal of the name of the company from the
MR. VIJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL & ANR. VS. GHAZIABAD register of companies the NCLT can proceed with the petition for winding up
ENGG. COMPANY LTD. & ORS. (NCLAT) under Companies Act, 2013.

CL 14. BANK OF BARODA

NCLAT held that Preference shareholders are not remediless for redemption
VS.
of preference shares, they can file an application under Section 55(3) of the
ABAN OFFSHORE LIMITED Companies Act, 2013 or alternatively they may also file application under
(NCLAT) Section 245 of the Companies Act, 2013 as a class action suit.
Class action
suit
CL 15. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI Mere fact that a Scheme of Compromise or Arrangement may result in
VS. reduction of tax liability does not furnish a basis for challenging the validity of
RELIANCE JIO INFOCOMM LTD. & ORS. (NCLAT) the same.

CL 16. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, KERALA VS.

NCLT per se has no power to waive the filing fee & additional fee.
AYOLI ABDULLA (NCLAT)

CL 17. REGIONAL DIRECTOR, SOUTHERN REGION AND ORS. If an Indian Limited Liability Partnership (‘LLP’) is proposed to be merged into
VS. an Indian company then firstly, the LLP has to apply for registration under
REAL IMAGE LLP AND ORS. (NCLAT) Section 366 of the Companies Act, 2013.

CL 18. G. VASUDEVAN VS. Section 167(1)(a) is constitutionally valid.

UNION OF INDIA (MADRAS, HC)

CL 19. MUKUT PATHAK & ORS. VS. Penalty u/s 164(2) of Companies Act not to apply retrospectively and other
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. (DELHI HC) issues were also clearly answered.

CL 20. JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LIMITED VS. During the Liquidation proceeding under IBC, 2016 a petition under Section
ARUN KUMAR JAGATRAMKA AND ORS. (NCLAT) 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, 2013 is maintainable, but a promoter can
not file a petition under Section 230 to 232 during the liquidation.

CL 21. M/S IND-SWIFT LIMITED

VS.
REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES The Appellant had at the time of first grant of time got relief of huge
(PUNJAB & CHANDIGARH) extension by CLB and that there was no reason to accept the plea for further
(NCLAT) extension.

CL 22. S. GOPAKUMAR NAIR & ANR.

VS. To give a notice under section 236 for compulsory acquisition of shares of
OBO BETTERMANN INDIA PVT. LTD. minority, merely holding 90% or more is not enough, other requirement of
section 236 also needs to be complied.
(NCLAT) Baki sab bhi zaroori hai
CL 23. HARI SANKARAN v.
UNION OF INDIA [SC]
CL 24. CADS SOFTWARE INDIA PVT.
LTD. AND ORS VS.
MR. K.K. JAGADISH & ORS. (NCLAT)
CL 25. USHA MARTIN VENTURES LTD.
& ORS. v.
USHA MARTIN LTD. & ANR [NCLAT]
CL 26. KANODIA KNITS PVT LTD v.
REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES DELHI & HARYANA [NCLAT]
CL 27. SHASHI PRAKASH KHEMKA
THROUGH LRS.AND ANR.
VS. NEPC MICON & ORS.
CL 28. S. AHAMED MEERAN V.
RONNY GEORGE & ORS [NCLAT]
CL 29. K. J. SUWRESH & ANR v.
TEAMLEASE STAFFING SERVICES
PVT. LTD. & ANR [NCLAT]
NCLAT dismissed the appeal. Tribunal has passed an order allowing the
application under Section 130 of the Companies Act for reopening the books
of accounts and re casting the financial statements of IL&FS and other two
companies, viz, for the last 5 years.
Managing Director in this case is eligible for compensation for loss of office as
removal of director due to loss of confidence does not appear in Companies
Act as a ground of removing.
Lender SBI was allowed to file an intervention application in case of
oppression and mismanagement against the borrower Company.
So the company could not prove that it was carrying on operations and hence
NCLAT also ordered in favor of the company being stricken off.
Power to deal with issues pertaining to rectification of register of members,
is with NCLT, and not the civil courts.
The waiver (for minimum number of applicant for entertaining a petition
alleging oppression and mismanagement in the company) was set aside, as
there has to be exceptional circumstances, to give this waiver.
The Appellants clearly had knowledge and information regarding the scheme
of amalgamation of these Companies and had also given their No Objections
for the merger. Hence, NCLAT rejected the appeal.
CL 30. SAS HOSPITALITY PVT LTD & ANR v.
SURYA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD & ORS [DEL] Primary forum for any company law related suit is NCLT.

CL 31. KARN GUPTA VS.

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. If the director has resigned before the actual default, but the company fails
to inform ROC about his resignation, the director will not be disqualified.

CL 32. RISHIMA SA INVESTMENTS LLC VS. REGISTRAR OF A person other than member or creditor can also challenge the ‘Striking’ off
COMPANIES, WEST BENGAL & ORS. (CALCUTTA HC) the Company Name through a writ petition.

CL 33. ARUN KUMAR JAGATRAMKA VS. Person ineligible to submit a resolution plan under section 29A of the
JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LTD AND ANR (SC) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 cannot submit a scheme of
compromise and arrangement under Section 230 of the Companies Act,
2013.
CL 34. BRILLIO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VS.
REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES & ANR (NCLAT) NCLAT held that selective reduction of capital is very well allowed.

CL 35. VIJAYA SAI POULTRIES PVT. LTD. VS.

VEMULAPALLI SAI PRAMELLA & ORS [NCLAT] Forensic audit of the accounts ordered by NCLT without recording suitable
reasons is not tenable.

CL 36. KALEDONIA JUTE & FIBRES PVT LTD VS. If application is made by creditor under section 7 of IBC, when the winding up
AXIS NIRMAN & INDUSTRIES & ORS (SC) petition is already pending before HC, SC ordered to transfer the case to
NCLT.

CL 37. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD VS.

CYRUS INVESTMENTS PVT LTD (SC)
Case study (for knowledge)
CL 38. RAVINDRANATH BAJPE VS
MANGALORE SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE LIMITED & OTHERS The directors are not vicariously liable, unless there are specific allegations
(SC) against the directors.

all the grounds of attack to the concurrent orders of winding up u/s 271(c) of
CL 39. DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PVT LTD VS. Devas Multimedia Pvt Ltd passed by the NCLT and confirmed by NCLAT to be
ANTRIX CORPORATION LTD (SC) unsustainable

CL 40 . Hamlin Trust & Ors v. Rose investments S.Ã R.L. &

Ors (NCLAT) Private company is covered by sections 184,189 and 203 of the Companies
Act,2013 for appointment of CFO (Key Managerial Persons)
 SEBI can modify Dissemination
penalty imposed by AO Board Delay reason- SAST 1997, Separate Client’s CIS- Director
Ex-parte No Lawyer SAST 2011 Account was not aware
Interim order
Delay in SCN

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Whatsapp forwards
Penalty/ Fact
not UPSI
oriented Cases

SEBI &
its powers SAST
related Brokers &
their duties

Bajaj- Karvy Case

Factors to determine
Multiple
penalty- illustrative
registration

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

No separate Public issue Appeal against Underwriter

Cheques for Broker co.
Demand notice of NCD Can take Administrative obligation
Margin Laurel Case merger case
for Penalty cognizance Circular
Matching trades on its own Interest up till date of order
Violation only .04% Appointed Director in Target co.
SL 1. SHRUTI VORA, NEERAJ KUMAR
AGARWAL, PARTHIV DALAL AND
ADITYA OMPRAKASH GAGGAR VS.
SEBI (SAT)
SL 2: ICICI BANK LIMITED VS.
SEBI (SAT)
vs
SL 3: INDIA RATINGS AND RESEARCH
PRIVATE LTD. VS. SEBI (SAT)
SL 4: DR. UDAYANT MALHOUTRA VS.
SEBI (SAT)
SL 5: INDUS WEIR INDUSTRIES LIMITED
(APPELLANT) VS. SEBI (SAT)
A “forwarded as received” WhatsApp message circulated on a group
regarding financial results of a Company closely matching with the vital
statistics would not amount to an UPSI under the provisions of SEBI
(Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations.
Merely the delay on part of SEBI to issue show cause notice and to order
penalty does not invalidate the proceedings, but in this case considering the
delay the penalty was modified. (Reduced)
A.O SEBI SEBI can call for and examine records of any proceedings if it considers the
orders passed by the adjudicating officer is erroneous and not in the
interests of securities markets.
After making inquiry, SEBI may modify the penalty imposed.
There is no doubt that SEBI has the power to pass an interim order and that
in extreme urgent cases SEBI can pass an ex-parte interim order but such
powers can only be exercised sparingly (rarely/infrequently) and only in
extreme urgent matters.
Penalty imposed by SEBI on violating SEBI (Issue and Listing of Non-
Convertible Redeemable Preference Shares) Regulations, 2013, further
reduced by SAT to meet the end of justice in the matter.

SL 6: MR. MAHENDRA GIRDHARILAL VS.
NSE, SEBI AND T. STANES AND
COMPANY LIMITED (SAT)
SL 7: SYNERGY COSMETICS (EXIM)
LIMITED VS.
BSE LIMITED (SAT)
SL 8: NICER GREEN HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPERS LTD. & ORS. VS.
SEBI (SAT)
SL 9: M/S SUNGOLD CAPITAL
LIMITED CASE (SEBI)
SL 10: RICOH INDIA LIMITED CASE (SEBI)
SL 11: VISHAL VIJAY SHAH CASE (SEBI)
Exit
opportunity Where the buy-back offer is made with the intention to provide an exit
opportunity to the existing shareholders at a fair price, the stock exchange is
correct to remove the company from the Dissemination Board of the stock
exchange.
The company delayed in filing the appeal because of the reason that it took
time to find a specialized lawyer in securities market and also took time to
pool resources to file the appeal. SAT finds this to be sufficient cause to file
an appeal.
Evidence In the absence of any evidence that the appellants had refunded and that
kaha hai? they are ready and willing to pay the balance amount to investors in a time
bound manner, SAT is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the order
passed by SEBI disposing of their representations.
If an acquirer has triggered an open offer obligation under SAST Regulation,
1997, and has not given the open offer, meanwhile SAST Regulation 1997 has
been replaced with SAST Regulation 2011, SEBI held that even after SAST
Regulation 2011 has been notified, still the pending offers will be given as per
SAST 1997.
Insider Trading case, Penalty imposed
• The objective of opening and maintaining a separate account for the
clients’ securities is to segregate and identify them separately and to
prevent its use by the Stock Broker for any purpose.
• The payments should be received directly from the respective clients and
not from third parties.
• The debiting of any client’s account for transactions which are not related
to that client defeats the very purpose of maintaining client’s account
separately.
SL 12: M/S BECKONS Fraudulent issue of GDR case, Penalty imposed.
INDUSTRIES LIMITED CASE
(SEBI)

SL 13: MR. GURMEET SINGH (“NOTICEE-1”), MR. I.S. Fraudulent issue of GDR case, Penalty imposed.
SUKHIJA (“NOTICEE-2”) AND MR. H. S. ANAND (“NOTICEE-
3”) IN THE MATTER OF BECKONS INDUSTRIES LIMITED
CASE (SEBI)
SL 14: M/S ASHLAR COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED CASE Non-genuine trades, market abuse case, Penalty imposed.
(SEBI)

SL 15: ADJUDICATION ORDER IN CS was fined for not closing the trading window.
RESPECT OF MR. B RENGANATHAN
(‘NOTICEE’) IN THE MATTER OF
EDELWEISS FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. CASE (SEBI)
As the director was not aware about and involved the CIS and its functioning
SL 16. DR. UPPAL DEVINDER KUMAR V. at all during his 50 days short tenure, he can not be held liable.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
(SAT) (SEPTEMBER 25, 2019)

SL 17. BAJAJ FINANCE LIMITED V. SEBI [SAT] (DECEMBER 3, SAT held that the BF being a bonafide lender SEBI shall consider the
2019) representations of the BF and, after giving an opportunity for personal
hearing, pass an order as per law.

SL 18. ADJUDICATING OFFICER, SEBI v. 3 factors given under SEBI Act, 1992 to determine the quantum of penalty by
BHAVESH PABARI [SC] adjudicating officer are merely illustrative and not exhaustive.
•Power and discretion of adjudicating officer does not stand eclipse because
of the limits given under penalty provisions.

SL 19. PVP GLOBAL VENTURES PVT Penalty becomes payable on adjudicating officers order, no separate demand
LTD v. SEBI [SAT] notice is required for recovery of penalty, and if not paid in time, shall
automatically attract interest.
SL 20. THERM FLOW ENGINEERS Merely for violation for .04% of shares, penalty of giving open offer is
PVT. LTD. v. disproportionate , SAT ordered the promoter to transfer back the shares and
SEBI [SAT] deposit the purchase price to IEPF.

SL 21. GRD SECURITIES LTD. v.

NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE & If the cheques for margin money were collected but not deposited/credited
in time, penalty of 100% of the amount would be disproportionate.
ANR[SAT]

SL 22. SEBI v. If there has been matching trades/ synchronized trading/ circular trading, but
KISHORE RAJMERA [SC] there is no proof to hold either lack of vigilance or bona fides on the part of
the broker, broker will not be held liable.

SL 23. IN RE: NEESA TECHNOLOGIES If there has been public issue of NCD, in principal approval has to be obtained
LIMITED & ORS [SEBI] by SE, and other provisions of company law and securities law to be
complied, If not complied, the company can be asked to refund the entire
money raised through the issue of NCDs.

SL 24. SEBI v.
OPEE STOCK-LINK LTD & ANR [SC] SEBI can take cognizance on its own for any default in securities market, it
does not need a complaint by investor to take action.

SL 25. SEBI v. • Acquirer (Individual or company) can not appoint director on the target
BURREN ENERGY INDIA LTD& ANR [SC] company during the offer period.
• The offer period starts from the date of MOU/ share purchase agreement
(and not from the date of public announcement)

SL 26. NATIONAL SECURITIES DEPOSITORY LTD v. An appeal lies to SAT for any order made by SEBI being quasi-judicial orders
SEBI (SC) and orders making Rules and Regulations, BUT administrative
orders/circulars by SEBI can not be appealed in SAT.
SL 27. LAUREL ENERGETICS PVT LTD. v.
SEBI [SC]
SL 28. DUSHYANT N DALAL v.
SEBI [SC]
SL 29. RATNABALI CAPITAL
MARKETS LTD v.
SEBI & ORS [SC]
SL 30. PENTA GOLD LIMITED v.
NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE [SAT]
SL 31. BOI SHAREHOLDING LIMITED v.
SEBI [SAT]
• Laurel was the promoter of IBREL.
• IBREL demerged and new company named Rattan infra created.
• Laurel bought some shares of Rattan infra from other promoters of Rattan
infra at 6.3 (Acq. 1)
• Laurel bought some shares of Rattan infra from outsiders at 3.2. (Acq. 2)
• Laurel was required to give open offer under takeover code.
• Laurel while calculating the offer price exclude Acq 1 and calculates the
offer price to be 3.2 (claiming exemption under regulation 10)
• SC held that exemption under regulation 10 will not be given as this
exemption is available only for a person who is a promoter for more than 3
years, and Laurel is not a promoter of Rattan infra for more than 3 years ,
so Acq. 1 will also be considered for calculation of offer price, So offer price
shall be 6.3.
Interest will be charged only up till the date of the order, and not up till the
date of the payment, unless clearly specified in the order.
• If a broker company goes for merger as an alternative to liquidation (when
the company has negative net worth), fresh registration/turnover fees will
be exempt.
• But if a broker company goes for merger to comply with the minimum net
worth requirement, no exemption will be given.
If a companies shares are under subscribed and the underwriter discharged
his obligation by procuring applications from third party, there is no default
on part of the company, NSE can not reject listing to any company on this
ground, action may be taken against the underwriter.
SEBI issued a circular requiring the intermediaries to implement a policy
immediately, but there was no implementation time schedule, SEBI imposed
a penalty of 40L. on an intermediary which did not implement the policy, on
appeal, the amount was reduced to 6L.
SL 32. NSE- DARK FIBRE CO-LOCATION CASE (January 20, SEBI discharged nine current and former officials of NSE as they could not be
2020) held responsible for any misconduct or non compliance in dark fibre issue
and hence, disposed off proceedings initiated against them.

SL 33. SEBI v. NSE Members Association & Ors (SC) As per Section 12, the stock broker has to obtain a certificate of registration
from SEBI for each of the stock exchange where he operates, and at the same
time, has to pay ad valorem fee prescribed
 Carlsberg- Composite issue 2nd statutory notice Class Action Suit- Builder EMI- Limitation period Civil suit pending- Writ X 2nd complaint

COPRA Unregistered NI Act presumes RBI info Bail Asset acquired

Vehicle overload
with arbi P. Firm debt existence disclose PMLA or CrPC before PMLA Export
proof

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18
PMLA
19

Same domain & trademark

Consumer 20
Protection
Act 21
Order to pay as interim measure

23
22
24
Cheque
Trademark Insurance
Dishonour Cases
25
/ Design

26

27

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

Nandhini case
Surveyor Tomb in
Toyota Pirus Prior use of Employee bonus-
Concentrate/ Essence case appointed cemetery
Case trademark competing business
 Anti- Arbitral Injunction: UOI Ineligible to appoint Appeal against Appeal against
Arbitrator application rejection Foreign awards

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Applied for extension to file WS

18
Bank guarantee
encashed
19
Interest to be awarded,
If given in agreement 20

21
23 Arbitration Act International
arbitration/ 22
24 Foreign award
Partnership deed unregistered

25
Patent illegality 46
26
Goods from warehouse
27 45

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

Lease- non Standard Interim Order Agreement Merely Stamp duty on Foreign Awards
Not appeared- arbitrable T&C award- directly states the arbitrator
no plea in appeal file for non-arbitrable Word used Seat & Venue- Sole proprietor-
appeal 5 agreements - 5 arbitrators execution disputes different Pvt Co.
EL 1. EMAAR MGF LAND Complaint can be filed under Consumer Protection Act, even if there is an
LIMITED v. AFTAB SINGH arbitration clause.
[SC]
EL 2. CARLSBERG BREWERIES v.
SOM DISTILLERIES AND BREWERIES Composite suit is allowed if the evidence involved in both the cases are
LTD [Del] common.

EL 3. HINDUSTAN INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION

CORPORATION LTD. v. Unregistered partnership can file a suit in case of dishonor of cheque.
M/S. R.S. WOODS INTERNATIONAL & ORS [DEL]

EL 4. M/S. SICAGEN INDIA LTD v. NOTICE PE NOTICE

Complaint filed based on second statutory notice for dishonoring of cheque
MAHINDRA VADINENI & ORS [SC] is very much allowed

EL 5. UNION OF INDIA v. Anti-arbitral injunction was rejected and the court asked UOI to raise the
KHAITAN HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LTD & ORS [DEL] said grounds in arbitration.

EL 6. BIR SINGH v. Negotiable instrument act keeps a presumption of existence of a legally

MUKESH KUMAR [SC] enforceable debt.
(The presumption is that the drawer has given the cheque against due
consideration, so the consideration from drawee can not be questioned)

EL 7. ROHITBHAI J PATEL v. Negotiable instrument act keeps a presumption of existence of a legally

THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR [SC] enforceable debt.
(The presumption is that the drawer has given the cheque against due
consideration, so the consideration from drawee can not be questioned)
EL 8. BHARAT BROADBAND
NETWORK LTD. v. Person who is himself ineligible to be appointed as arbitrator, can not even
appoint another person as arbitrator.
UNITED TELECOMS LTD [SC]

EL 9. ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS v.

INTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT LTD
Class action suit can be filed by the purchasers against the builder.
& ORS [SC] IBC

EL 10. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. RBI has to disclose information regarding investigation, audit, bad debts,
JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY [SC] FEMA violations etc. of various banks under RTI.

EL 11. GAUTAM KUNDU v.

MANOJ KUMAR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, If any person has allegedly committed offence under PMLA, provision under
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [SC] PMLA will be followed for granting bail (and not CrPC)

EL 12. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. v.

Period of limitation would, commence from the date of the last defaulted
ANUJ KUMAR TYAGI [DEL]
EMI.

EL 13. MAHANIVESH OILS & FOODS PVT LTD. v.

Proceedings can not be initiated under PMLA, if the asset was acquire before
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [DEL] the law was enacted.

EL 14. SANDEEP GUPTA v. The petitioner cannot maintain a petition under Article 226 of the
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS [DEL] Constitution of India for the relief for which the petitioner, has already filed a
suit under the civil law and is pending
EL 15. TODAY HOTELS (NEW DELHI) If an application for arbitration is rejected by the court, appeal does not lie to
PVT LTD. v. HC, appeal lies to HC against the award passed by the court.
INTECTURE INDIA DESIGNS PVT
LTD [DEL]

EL 16. LAKHMI CHAND v. Refusing the insurance claim merely on the ground that the vehicle was
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE [SC] overloaded is not allowed.

EL 17. INDIAN MACHINERY COMPANY v. Second complaint is allowed if the first complaint was rejected because of
ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD [SC] the default of appellant and not on merits

MAINE KOI GALATI NAHI KI

HAI

EL 18. EITZEN BULK A/S v. Indian courts will not have appellate jurisdictions in cases of foreign awards
ASHAPURA MINECHEM LTD & ANR [SC]

EL 19. ROTOMAC ELECTRICALS LTD. v. If export proof is not given within the time allowed to export under the
UNION OF INDIA & ANR [Del] advance license under Duty Exemption Scheme, Penalty can be imposed.

EL 20. GREAVES COTTON LTD. v. Application for seeking extension to file WS is not a bar to refer the case to
UNITED MACHINERY & APPLIANCES [SC] arbitration.

EL 21. THOUGHTWORKS INC v. The appellant had the trademark registered by the name “Thoughtworks”,
SUPER SOFTWARE PVT LTD & ANR [DEL] but respondent obtained domain name “thoughtworks.in”, Hence the
appellant can prevent the respondent to use this domain name.

EL 22. FALCON PROGRESS LTD v. The respondents raised the following contentions for not enforcing the
SARA INTERNATIONAL LTD. [DEL] foreign award:
1. No contract was concluded.
2. Difference in market price and contract price was awarded as damages,
but the the appellant never purchased the goods at MP.
The contentions were rejected.
EL 23. COSMO FERRITES LTD. v. Interest has to be awarded, if the agreement expressly provided for the
PRAGYA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD & ORS. [DEL] interest.

EL 24. DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD Division bench agreed with the order of HC, So HC was correct in ordering
. v. the appellant to pay as an interim measure.
DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PVT.LTD
[DEL]
EL 25. ESSAR PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD. v. Bank guarantee can be encashed, during an arbitral proceedings.
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD & ANR
[DEL]

EL 26. ANANTHESH BHAKTA v.

NAYANA S. BHAKTA & ORS
Unregistered Even if the partnership deed which contains arbitration clause is
unregistered, still arbitration can be referred
partnership
EL 27. NEWGEN SPECIALTY PLASTIC If a party chose not to appear in the arbitration proceedings, they can not
LTD v. raise any new plea/issue in appeal under section 34
INTEC CAPITAL LTD [DEL]
to plea
EL 28. KANCHAN UDYOG LTD. v. KU was already in losses.
UNITED SPIRITS LTD [SC] US was supplying essense to KU, KU demanded an extended credit period, to
which US cancelled the contract of supplying essense.
KU filed a suit against US for loss of profit and establishment expenses which
was rejected.

EL 29. M/S DURO FELGUERA S.A v. There were 5 separate agreements between the appellant and respondent,
GANGAVARAM PORT LIMITED [SC] dispute arose, and the court held that five different arbitrators will be
appointed.
EL 30. HIMANGNI ENTERPRISES v.
KAMALJEET SINGH AHLUWALIA [SC] Eviction and recovery under lease deed is a non-arbitrable dispute

EL 31. INNOX WIND LTD. v. Even if arbitration clause is given with standard terms and conditions and
THERMOCABLES LTD [SC] there is no separate arbitration agreement, still dispute can be referred to
arbitration, and Arbitration Act will be followed.

EL 32. INDIAN FARMERS FERTILIZER

APPEAL An appeal is allowed against the final award as well as against the interim
COOPERATIVE LTD. v. award.
M/s.BHADRA PRODUCTS [SC]
FINAL INTERIM

EL 33. TOYOTA JIDOSHA KABUSHIKI KAISHA v. Toyota could not prove the goodwill for prius in india and hence the
PRIUS AUTO INDUSTRIES LTD & ORS. [SC] trademark of prius was given to the respondent.

EL 34. ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LTD. v. If the trademark applied is already used by another entity prior to the
KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) LTD & ORS [SC] applicant, Trademark wont be granted to the applicant.

EL 35. SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD. v. Arbitration order can be directly filed for execution at the place of asset.
ABDUL SAMAD & ORS [SC]

EL 36. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. If arbitration agreement clearly states the disputes which will be non-
NARBHERAM POWER & STEEL PVT LTD [SC] arbitrable, it has to be strictly followed

EL 37. SHYAM SUNDER AGARWAL v. BOTH ARE Merely the word arbitrator written in the agreement, does not mean there is
P. NAROTHAM RAO [SC] DIFFERENT an arbitration clause in the agreement.
EL 38. M/S. NANDHINI DELUXE v.
M/S. KARNATAKA COOPERATIVE
MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION LTD Nandhini vala case
[SC]

EL 39. DEEPAYAN MOHANTY v. Cargill kept a policy that if an employee joins a competing company, he will
CARGILL INDIA PVT LTD & ORS. [Del] not be given the bonus.
Is this a HC held that such policy is illegal.
policy?
EL 40. M/S SHRIRAM EPC LIMITED v.
Foreign arbitral awards are not required to be stamped
RIOGLASS SOLAR SA [SC]

EL 41. SONELL CLOCKS AND GIFTS LTD. v. We can reject Merely appointment of surveyor does not mean that the insurance company
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD [SC] has waived its right to reject the claim for delay.

EL 42. DREDGING CORPORATION OF INDIA v. Foreign awards can not be appealed in Indian courts.
MERCATOR LTD [DEL] Seat of arbitration and venue of arbitration is different.

EL 43. GOVT OF N.C.T OF DELHI v. If a sole proprietorship converts to a company, the arbitration agreements of
YASIKAN ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD [DEL] the sole proprietorship does not automatically devolve upon the company.

EL 44. TRUSTEE, JACOBITE SYRIAN CATHEDRAL Any person paying an amount for permission of tomb in a cemetery, does not
& ANR v. make the person a consumer under Consumer Protection Act.
JIPPU VARKEY [NCDRC]
EL 45. DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PVT. LTD. VS.
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. [SC] Contravention of a statute which is not linked to public policy/public interest
is beyond patent illegality and cannot be a ground for setting aside an arbitral
award.

EL 46. SUBORNO BOSE VS.

ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE & ANR. [SC] If the goods were imported, but kept in warehouse, as the Company failed to
take steps to get the goods released, the MD is liable to be punished.
Lockdown case Suit filed to DRT was Continuing default-
Initiated Arbitration after DN issued within limitation period not time barred
Merely asked further info

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

1
44

3 yrs from the date of default, not

43
from the IBC enforcement date
42
Limitation Act
SARFAESI IBC-Dispute 
and IBC 41

40

39

RDB 38

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Nach Baliye CD claims

It overrides Applicable
Deposit case- NDA Not applicable money paid; Not applicable Appeal
Tripura Act to J&K State
mandatory on Insolvency Hotel- OC claims on Agricultural against
Refund of Deposit-Unconditional for appeal SARFAESI & Arbitration Proceedings ITC case not paid land Award
 Winding-up Court passed Tea Agreement Promoter challenged Resolution plan Constitutional Settlement Reached
Proceeding states validity Case withdraw
proceeding order on garden
against file suit Counter Winding up Petition
transfer Asset of CD case
Guarantor in Foreign claim HC to NCLT Liqn order-No review

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

1 Trade Union- OC
Doc. clearly state-
Contractual
Loan outstanding
42 dispute-NCLT not
43 have jurisdiction
NCLAT can Condone
the delay in appeal-
41 Interest free loan
Max.15 days
44
Lessor is not a IBC commercial
40 wisdom of CoC
Financial Creditor
45
1. Stages of CIRP 39 HC- unfreze
2. IBC overrides
the Customs Act. 46 ROC
38 - Pecuniary Jur
Section 27- does
not require to give
OBH to RP

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Suit pending Appeal within No notice

7 days to remove Debtor obligation Under SARFAESI 30 days of Arbitrator rejected claim, to CD
Deficiencies- Directory is Unconditional & RDB Act knowledge of order then OC can’t apply
IL 1. BABULAL VARDHARJI GURJAR v.
The debt is barred by limitation as 3 years have expired from the actual
VEER GURJAR ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES
date of default. (Date of enforcement of IBC is irrelevant)
PVT LTD & ANR [SC]

IL 2.SAGUFA AHMED(APPELLANT) v. UPPER ASSAM If the last date to file the appeal has expired before the lockdown, the
PLYWOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD [SC] extension because of lockdown will of course not be available.

IL 3. SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE SC held that when the documents clearly state that the loan was
LIMITED v. outstanding, it is established, NCLAT was wrong in rejecting the application.
RAJEEV ANAND [SC] (NCLAT’s contention that order can not be made on the basis of documents
Itna galat kaise ho sakte ho bhai earlier rejected is completely baseless)
IL 4. KIRAN GUPTA v.
Bank/FI can file a suit and recover money from guarantor, even during CIRP,
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANR [SC] as the provision of moratorium does not apply to guarantor.

IL 5. KALEDONIA JUTE & FIBRES PVT LTD v. AXIS NIRMAN & If application is made by creditor under section 7 of IBC, when the winding
INDUSTRIES &ORS [SC] up petition is already pending before HC, SC ordered to transfer the case to
NCLT.

IL 6: GEORGE VINCI THOMAS vs. Merely asking for further information on the services rendered by the
CAPEDGE CONSULTING PVT. LTD. & ORS operational creditor to corporate debtor can not be considered as existence
(NCLAT) of dispute, Hence application for CIRP can be filed.
Is this even a dispute?

IL 7. ANAND RAO KORADA Woah!!! Stop

RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL v. looking at my assets Appeal allowed. (Once application has been admitted to NCLT, no order
M/S VARSHA FABRICS (P) LTD. regarding the assets of the CD can be passed by any court.)
[SC] [18/11/2019]
IL 8. DUNCANS INDUSTRIES LTD v. IBC shall have an over riding effect over the Tea Act, and hence no approval
A.J. AGROCHEM [SC] [04/10/2019] of CG, as envisaged under the Tea Act, is required.

IL 9. EXCEL METAL PROCESSORS LTD v. If through an agreement creditor and CD has agreed to file any suit arising in
BENTELER TRADING INTERNATIONAL a foreign country, still if the creditor intends, it can initiate the CIRP
GMBH &ANR. [NCLAT] [21/08/2019] proceedings in India, IBC will override such an agreement.
IBC
agreement

IL 10. AHLUWALIA CONTRACTS (INDIA) LTD If after receiving demand notice, the CD has initiated arbitral proceedings
v. RAHEJA DEVELOPERS LTD [NCLAT] against the creditor making the application, this does not qualify as pre
[23/07/2019] existing dispute, and the application will be accepted.

IL 11. SSMP INDUSTRIES LTD v.

PERKAN FOOD PROCESSORS PVT. LTD [DEL] [18/07/2019] Counter claim need not be stayed, if application has been filed under IBC.

Company to promoters under IBC

IL 12. LALIT MISHRA & ORS v. If no amount is given to the promoters/ shareholders and the other equity
SHARON BIO MEDICINE LTD. & shareholders who are not the promoters have been separately treated by
ORS. [NCLAT] providing certain amount in their favour, the Appellant cannot claim to have
been discriminated.

IL 13. FORECH INDIA LTD. v.

EDELWEISS ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION Winding up petitions pending in the High Courts could be transferred to NCLT
CO LTD & ANR [SC] if any person makes an application to NCLT under IBC.
HC NCLT

IL 14. SWISS RIBBONS PVT LTD. v.

UNION OF INDIA [SC] IBC is constitutionally valid.
IL 15. SHALINI PUBLICITY CREATIVE PVT. If a suit was filed to DRT within the limitation period, and afterwards
LTD. v. application was filed to NCLT under IBC for the same, Limitation period will
continues
DENA BANK [NCLAT] not be said to have expired

IL 16. COAL INDIA LTD. v.

GULF COIL LUBRICANTS INDIA LTD Case can be withdrawn under IBC if a settlement is reached before
& ANR [NCLAT] constitution of the COC.
HC

IL 17. AFFINITY FINANCE SERVICES PVT LTD. v.

Once a liquidation order is passed under IBC, it is not subject to review or
KIEV FINANCE LTD [NCLAT]
revocation by the liquidator during liquidation.

IL 18. JK JUTE MILL MAZDOOR MORCHA v.

JUGGILAL KAMLAPAT JUTE MILLS LTD A trade union can make an application as operational creditors to NCLT
& ORS [SC] under IBC

IL 19. PRANAMI TRADING PVT LTD. v.

KIEON DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD [NCLAT] If there has been a continuing default like this case, the question of the debt
becoming time barred does not arise.

IL 20. AXIS BANK v.

SBS ORGANICS PVT. LTD & ANR [SC] Condition can not be imposed at the time of refund of deposit under
SARFAESI, It has to unconditional.

IL 21. UCO BANK & ANR v. • Specific law overrides the general law
DIPAK DEBBARMA & ORS [SC] •If there is an inconsistency between the central law and state law, central
law shall prevail.
Hence in this case SARFAESI will override Tripura Act
IL 22. STATE BANK OF INDIA v.
SANTOSH GUPTA & ANR [SC] The provisions of SARFAESI Act are applicable to the State of J&K and the
Constitution of India is superior to the Constitution of J&K

IL 23. CHUNNU FASHIONS & ORS

v. To make an appeal to DRAT, the requirement of deposit is mandatory.
EDELWEISS ASSET
RECONSTRUCTION
CO LTD [DEL]

IL 24. MOBILOX INNOVATIONS PVT LTD. v. Application for CIRP will not be accepted by NCLT if there exist a dispute for
KIRUSA SOFTWARE PVT LTD [SC] the claim. (NDA is violated and hence payment is withheld is considered as a
dispute)

IL 25. SURENDRA TRADING COMPANY The 7 days prescribed to remove the deficiencies in the application in the
v. JUGGILAL KAMLAPAT JUTE MILLS CO section is directory
LTD [SC]

IL 26. INNOVENTIVE INDUSTRIES LTD v. Central Law prevails over State Law.
ICICI & ANR [SC] Debtors obligation to pay its creditors is unconditional, debtor can not say
that he has not received money from his debtors, hence he can not pay to
UNCONDITIONAL
creditors. (This does not amount to a dispute)
Debtors obligation is like Dogs love
Aage ke, Peeche ke
IL 27. M.D. FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS SARFAESI proceedings and arbitration proceedings, can go hand in hand.
PVT. LTD. v. Even if the loan was taken prior to the Act, still if the payment is due and
HERO FINCORP LTD [SC] unpaid, SARFAESI can be resorted to.
Sare case lega re tera SARFAESI

IL 28. INTERNATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Appeal filed beyond the given time period will not be accepted, exemption
OF INDIA LTD. v. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF ALDRICH
under section 5 of Limitation Act is not applicable to tribunals.
PHARMACEUTICALS LTD & ORS [SC] tribunal

appellant
IL 29. MACHHAR POLYMER PVT LTD v.
SABRE HELMETS PVT LTD [NCLAT] Limitation Act is not applicable on Insolvency proceedings.

IL 30. NEETA CHEMICALS (I) PVT. LTD.

Application can be admitted by NCLT under IBC, if the suit is pending in
v. RDDBFI Act, 1993, SARFAESI Act and liquidation order is not yet made.
STATE BANK OF INDIA [NCLAT]

IL 31. ITC LTD. v. • Blue coast hotels (borrower) claimed that there was fraud and collusion
BLUE COAST HOTELS LTD.[SC] between IFCI (lender) and ITC (auction purchaser) as ITC agreed to
purchase the hotel in Goa where IFCI just had symbolic possession and
dispute was also pending.
• SC held the transaction between IFCI and ITC is valid.

IL 32. J.P. ENGINEERS PVT. LTD v. If CD claims that the money has been paid, and the OC claims that the money
MURTI UDYOG LTD [NCLAT] is not yet paid.
This amounts to dispute and application for CIRP can not be filed.

IL 33. PROWESS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. v.

Appeal to NCLAT has to be filed within thirty-days from the date of
ACTION ISPAT & POWER PVT. LTD [NCLAT] knowledge of the order under IBC.
Sirf 30
din hai

IL 34. INDIAN BANK v.

SARFEASI is not applicable on agricultural land, and there is no definition of
K. PAPPIREDDIYAR [SC] agricultural land, it depends on facts of the case.

IL 35. K. KISHAN v. Appeal under section 34 challenging an award will be considered to be

VIJAY NIRMAN COMPANY PVT. DISPUTE existence of dispute, and hence an application to NCLT under IBC for CIRP
LTD [SC] appealed u/s 34 can not be filed.
IL 36. TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
OF ANDHRA PRADESH LTD. v.
EQUIPMENT CONDUCTORS & CABLES
[SC]
IL 37. RAJESH ARORA v. Notice kaha
SANJAY KUMAR JAISWAL [NCLAT]
IL 38. ORATOR MARKETING PVT. LTD(APPELLANT) VS.
SAMTEX DESINZ PVT. LTD (SC)
IL 39. INDIA RESURGENCE ARC PVT LTD V. (APPELLANT) VS.
AMIT METALIKS LTD & ANR (SC)
IL 40. SANDEEP KHAITAN VS.
JSVM PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES LTD. [SC]
IL 41. SKILLSTECH SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS.
REGISTRAR, NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL & ANR.
[DEL]
ROC
If the claim itself has been rejected by Arbitral tribunal/any court, there is no
question of applying as a creditor to NCLT under IBC.
If proceedings under IBC have been started for CIRP without giving notice to
hai
CD, application has to be dismissed.
SC held that the term financial debt includes
interest free loan.
The business decision taken in exercise of the commercial wisdom of CoC
does not call for interference unless creditors belonging to a class being
similarly situated are denied fair and equitable treatment.
HC can not unfreeze the accounts of a company undergoing CIRT under
Section 482 of CrPC.
NCLT has the pecuniary jurisdiction or not, cannot be decided by the
Registrar of the NCLT, but the same ought to be looked into and determined
by an appropriate bench of the NCLT.
IL 42. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD VS. VISHAL NCLT does not have any residuary jurisdiction to entertain the present
GHISULAL JAIN contractual dispute which has not arisen because of the insolvency of the
Corporate Debtor.

IL 43. NATIONAL SPOT EXCHANGE LIMITED (APPELLANT) VS.

ANIL KOHLI- RP FOR DUNAR FOODS LTD (RESPONDENT) (SC)

Appellate Tribunal may allow an appeal to be filed after the expiry of the said
period of 30 days, but such period shall not exceed 15 days.

IL 44. NOIDA VS. The lessee has not raised any amount from the Appellant under the lease,
ANAND SONBHADRA (SC) which is a transaction. the Appellant is not a Financial Creditor.

IL 45. Sundaresh Bhatt, Liquidator of ABG Shipyard Vs.

Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (SC) 1. No take away (stages of CIRP)
2. the IBC overrides the Customs Act.

IL 46. Sumat Kumar Gupta Insolvency Professional, Formerly

Resolution Professional M/S Vallabh Textiles Company Ltd Vs. Section 27 of the IBC does not contemplate any opportunity of hearing to the
Committee of Creditors of M/S Vallabh Textiles Company Ltd. Resolution Professionals be given by the Adjudicating Authority before
Through Punjab National Bank (NCLAT) approving the proposal of new Resolution Professional.
1 BCI BCI is not an Enterprise

2 Cartel Cartel of automotive bearings

3 Travel agent DOE Circular specified Travel Agents
4
SBI Bank making recovery under SARFAESI through Auction
5
TRAI TRAI vs. CCI – Cases of Telecom companies
6
Writ Writ of Prohibition against CCI
7
Appeal Appeal against CCI orders; Section 53A
8
Judicial Member Absence of Judicial member does not effect CCI adjudication
9
Seizure DG has right to Search & Seizure
10 Bid Rigging In oligopolistic market, merely identical bids does not mean bid rigging.

11 Uber does not have any dominant position

12 Investigation ordered on Google.

Similar bids does not amount to bid rigging

13
Restricting players from participating in the tournaments organised by unrecognised bodies is abuse of dominance
14
The person making the application need not be incurring any loss himself, any person can make an application
15 in public interest.

Section 3 contravened, but no penalty imposed considering COVID 19 pandemic outbreak

16
Section 3 contravened, Penalty of 200 crore imposed.
17
Section 4 contravened
18 CCI have jurisdiction to investigate bid rigging and cartelization in the tender process conducted by the State
19 The apprehension of likelihood of AAEC by an entity which is yet to take form cannot be a subject matter of
inquiry/investigation under Section 3 or 4 of the Act.
20
21 The term enabling the OP to disqualify bidders due to “conflict of interest”, does not appear to be unfair or anti-competitive in any manner.
CO 1. THUPILI RAVEENDRA BABU v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
& ORS [CCI]
CO 2: CARTELISATION IN INDUSTRIAL AND AUTOMOTIVE
BEARINGS-SUO MOTU CASE (CCI)
CO 3: TRAVEL AGENTS ASSOCIATION OF
INDIA VS.
DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND ORS (CCI)
CO 4: RH AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED VS. Bank
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS (CCI)
CO 5. COMPETITION COMMISSION
OF INDIA v.
BHARTI AIRTEL LTD & ORS [SC]
TRAI
CO 6: KARNATAKA FILM CHAMBER & COMMERCE AND
OTHER ASSOCIATIONS VS.
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA (KARNATAKA HC)
CO 7: UTTARAKHAND AGRICULTURAL
Appeal against
PRODUCE MARKETING BOARD VS.
CCI & ORS. (NCLAT)
Case dismissed, as BCI is not an enterprise under the Act.
Evidences clearly proved a cartel of automotive bearings in India.
DOE issuing circular that government employees have to use specified
service provider for travel is not violating any provision of competition law.
CCI observes that a bank acting as per the remedies available to it under the
SARFAESI Act for recovery cannot be termed as a dominant entity when it
acts in accordance with provision thereof as it is acting in recovery of its
funds/money in order to mitigate losses in such transaction (where account
has been declared NPA).
If there is an alleged anti-competitive agreement between telecom
companies, CCI can not directly take up the case and make order, TRAI has
to first look into it and then if TRAI finds any violation of Competition Act,
only then a reference to CCI will be made and the CCI will handle the case.
CCI
No writ of prohibition can be issued against statutory commission from
exercising its jurisdiction
Appeal against CCI orders not maintainable if the orders are not passed
under sections specifically enumerated in Section 53A of the Competition
Sec
53A Act, 2002.
CO 8: CADD SYSTEMS AND SERVICES The absence of a Judicial Member did not preclude CCI from performing its
PVT. LTD. VS adjudicatory function until such time the Judicial Member was appointed by
CCI (DELHI HC) the Central Government

CO 9: COMPETITION COMMISSION DG has the right to search and seizure under 240A of
IBC Companies Act read with Section 41(3) of Competition Act.
OF INDIA VS.
JCB INDIA LTD. AND ORS (SC)

CO 10. RAJASTHAN CYLINDERS &

CONTAINERS LTD v.
UOI & ORS [SC] In an oligopolistic market, merely identical bids
does not amount to bid rigging.

CO 11. MERU TRAVEL SOLUTIONS PVT.LTD.VS.

Uber does not have any dominant position and hence there
UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PVT.LTD.& ORS. (DEL)
can not be any abuse of dominant position.

CO 12. KSHITIZ ARYA & ANR (APPELLANT) VS. Investigation ordered on Google.
GOOGLE LIC & ORS (CCI)

CO 13. CP CELL,DIRECTORATE GENERAL ORDNANCE

SERVICE VS. Mere similar bids does not amount to bid rigging
SANKESHWAR SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD.(CCI)
ABFI is in dominant position and Restricting players from
participating in the tournaments organised by unrecognised
CO 14. CONFEDERATION OF PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL
bodies is abuse of dominance, Hence investigation ordered.
CLUBS SOFTBALL APPELLANT) VS.
AMATEUR BASEBALL FEDERATION OF INDIA

CO 15. SAMIR AGRAWAL V. The person making the application need not be incurring any loss himself, any
CCI & ORS. [SC] person can make an application in public interest.
CO 16: EASTERN RAILWAY, KOLKATA(INFORMANT) VS.
M/S CHANDRA BROTHERS &ORS(OPPOSITE PARTIES)
Section 3 contravened, but no penalty imposed. considering COVID 19
pandemic outbreak

CO 17: ALLEGED ANTI-COMPETITIVE CONDUCT BY MARUTI

SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED IN IMPLEMENTING DISCOUNT
Section 3 contravened, Penalty of 200 crore imposed.
CONTROL POLICY VIS-À-VIS
DEALERS (COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA)

CO 18. INFORMANT (CONFIDENTIAL) VS.

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED [OPPOSITE PARTIES] (OP) Section 4 contravened.
(CCI)

CO 19. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA V.

STATE OF MIZORAM & ORS(SC) CCI have jurisdiction to investigate the allegation of bid rigging and
cartelization in the tender process conducted by the State of Mizoram.

CO 20. Consumer Unity & Trust Society Vs. PVR Limited &
INOX Leisure Limited (CCI) The apprehension of likelihood of AAEC by an entity which is yet to take form
cannot be a subject matter of inquiry/investigation under Section 3 or 4 of the Act.

CO 21. Swastik Road Carrier v. Central Railside Warehouse

Co Ltd (CCI) The term enabling the OP to disqualify bidders due to “conflict of interest”, does
not appear to be unfair or anti-competitive in any manner.
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Forum for Illegal Website of Devi

Second application Porbandar Same parties,
Labour disputes Termination of Consultancy Services
for Defense Factory case Different issues
Service Contract
SEBI’s DRT, DRAT - Other RBI may give
Police officer Adverse False Affidavit Guidelines for
Consent HC-Other max.
Power to seize Possession Samaritans
no. of CIC

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Co-operative
Owner Tenant Panchayat Question Experience of
Court Exemption notif
Case Tax of Law exist or not? Subsidiary
Jurisdiction for Pharma Co.

Jet Airways SCN after Ins. Co appealed to HC and SC Port Berth Guidelines for Affiliation with
Carrier liability 13 years To reduce compensation, Rejected Case BS-III vehicles University

26 27 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
28 29

Proceedings MD can Dispute of No external

Fraud by Guidelines for aid for
Guidelines for Grant of Stay Under FSS & IPC file suit royalty
Bank Clerk, interpretation
Compounding Gratuity withheld territorial
Land acquisition by 1.SEBI’s 1. requirement to
Compensation
Tread Property Consent x 2. record reasons
Advocate can collector Committee has the
pattern Tax Guidelines for 2. Guidelines for
not without considering jurisdiction to pass writing judgments)
of Tyres Not paid objections Compounding)
File case u/s 138 award
I 1. PRAKASH GUPTA VS. SEBI (SC) SEBI’s Consent of SEBI is not required for compounding off offences under SEBI
Act.
CONSENT
SC Criminal court
I 2: STATE OF M.P. & ANR. vs. SC agreed with the wisdom of the Legislature, that the process would be
M.P. TRANSPORT WORKERS better served by maintaining the regular criminal Courts as a forum for
FEDERATION (SC) adjudication of such labour disputes which have a criminal aspect,
accordingly the amendment has been upheld.

I 3. NEVADA PROPERTIES PVT LTD v.

Police officer power to seizure under section 102 of CRPC does not include
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [SC] power to seize an immovable property.

I 4. INTERTEK INDIA PVT LTD v. The respondent is not claiming re-installment for the service contract, She is
PRIYANKA MOHAN [DEL] claiming damages for illegal termination and so the case will continue and
the application of petitioner for dismissing the suit is not allowed

I 5. RAVINDER KAUR GREWAL v.

Suit can be filed on the basis of adverse possession for 12 years or more.
MANJIT KAUR [SC

I 6. ANIL KHADKIWALA v. If an earlier application for defense has been rejected, still another
THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI [SC] application taking some other defense can be filed.

I 7. THOMAS CHACKO v.
THE CHIEF MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA & ORS [KER] High Court of Kerala can order DRAT, Chennai, Tamil Nadu exercising
supervisory jurisdiction as the case has emanates from DRT, Ernakulum

I 8. CEMENT WORKERS MANDAL v. Gujrat HC has the jurisdiction even if the registered office of the company is
GLOBAL CEMENTS LTD in Calcutta, and DRT Calcutta has issued the order, as the factory is situated
(HMP CEMENTS LTD) & 0RS [SC] in Gujrat and there is an unexecuted order of labour court of Gujrat.
I 9. M/S SCIEMED OVERSEAS INC v.
BOC INDIA LIMITED & ORS [SC]
I 10. VILLAYATI RAM MITTAL (P)
LTD v.
SHAMBHAVI CONTRACTORS PVT
LTD [DEL]
I 11. SAVELIFE FOUNDATION & ANR v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR [SC]
I 12. RAMESH RAJAGOPAL v.
DEVI POLYMERS PVT. LTD [SC]
I 13. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v.
ONICRA CREDIT INFORMATION CO LTD
[DEL]
I 14. JET AIRWAYS (INDIA) LTD. v.
DHANUKA LABORATORIES LTD [DEL]
I 15. BHUPINDER SINGH BAWA v.
ASHA DEVI [SC]
HC was correct in imposing a cost of 10 lacs for false affidavit
Since the issue involved and the remedies asked for are completely different
in the two cases, both the cases can move simultaneously. (one in Shimla and
one in Delhi)
Guidelines for legal framework to protect Samaritans.
Ramesh Rajgopal has not entered any contract in his name, nor he has
received any money in his account, he has just created the website for the
development of the company, Hence no criminal intent.
It is not mandatory for RBI to specify the maximum limit for credit information
companies.
Jet Airways can not take the benefit of limited liability. Jet Airways will be
liable for the goods.
The owner satisfactorily explained that no other owned premise is suitable for
the business, hence eviction was ordered.
I 16. INNOVATIVE TECH PACK LTD. v. As the show cause notice was issued after 13 years of the transaction, penalty can
SPECIAL DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT not be issued if the appellant was not able to produce the bill of entry as the proof
[DEL] of import

I 17. MGR INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION An industrial undertaking can take exemption from tax by panchayat only if the
& ANR v. undertaking has been notified as industrial undertaking through a notification by
STATE OF U P & ORS [SC] the govt.

I 18. D.M.ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. Life insurance claim case, SC did not interfere, (no takeaway)
LTD. v. Life insurance
SWAPNA NAYAK & ORS [SC] SC

I 19. FARIDABAD COMPLEX HC dismissed the case saying no question of law is involved, In appeal SC pointed
ADMINISTRATION v. out the question of law involved.
IRON MASTER INDIA (P) LTD [SC]

I 20. JSW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED & ANR v. SC interpreted a clause regarding private berth operators at port. (no takeaway)
KAKINADA SEAPORTS LIMITED & ORS [SC]

I 21. THE MAHARASHTRA STATE Cooperative court does not have jurisdiction to handle service disputes between
COOPERATIVE HOUSING FINANCE employer and employee.
CORPORATION LTD v.
PRABHAKAR SITARAM BHADANGE
[SC]
I 22. M.C. MEHTA v.
Directions given for sale of BS-III vehicles. (no takeaways)
UNION OF INDIA & ORS [SC]

I 23. CONSORTIUM OF TITAGARH FIREMA

ADLER S.P.A. TITAGARH WAGONS LTD. v. The holding company being a government owned entity can bid on the basis of
NAGPUR METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD experience of its subsidiary.
and ANR [SC] I can
bid

I 24. MAHARISHI MARKANDESHWAR If a college has already taken affiliation with any university, the state government
MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL v. can not ask the college to also take affiliation with the state university.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH &
ORS [SC]
Affiliated to SPPU

I 25. GLAXO SMITHKLINE SC interpreted an exemption notification for pharmaceutical companies, where it
PHARMACEUTICAL LTD v. held that “manufacture” is relevant to take the exemption and not “sale price”.
UNION OF INDIA [SC]

I 26. APOLLO TYRES LTD. v. Tread pattern of a tyre can be copyrighted.

PIONEER TRADING CORPORATION &
ANR [DEL]

I 27. METERS AND INSTRUMENTS PVT. Guidelines laid down for compounding of offence for Section 138. (no takeaway)
LTD & ANR v.
KANCHAN MEHTA [SC]

I 28. ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PVT LTD. Tax recoverable from the tenant under Section 67(3) of the NDMC Act as arrears
v. of rent by the appellant cannot be considered to be forming part of the rent for
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD [ the purpose of seeking eviction.
SC]
DONO ALAG ALAG HOTE
HAI KYA
I 29. CANARA BANK & ANR v. DEKH BHAI If a bank has incurred some loss because of the misconduct (fraud) of the
LALIT POPLI (THRIUGH LRs) [SC] employee, the bank can withhold the gratuity and provident fund, to recover the
amount.

I 30. B SUNITHA v.
The advocate can not file a case for section 138 of NI Act for receiving an amount
STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR [SC] which is a percentage of decretal amount. (against professional ethics)

I 31. ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD Guidelines issued for grant of stay. (no takeaway)
AGENCY PVT. LTD & ANR v.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
[SC]

I 32. SHIV SINGH v. The collector has not considered the objections filed by the appellant, not given
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & any opportunity of being heard, and not even submitted the report to the govt.
ORS [SC] and directly passed an order for land acquisition, SC dismissed collectors order.

I 33. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. Proceeding can be initiated under both FSS and IPC. (Food and Safety Standards
SAYYED HASSAN SAYYED SUBHAN [SC] Act, 2006)

I 34. BHUPESH RATHOD (APPELLANT) VS.

DAYASHANKAR PRASAD CHAURASIA & ANR.
(RESPONDENTS) (SC) Managing director can file a suit in his name for the cheques dishonoured to the
company.
I 35. MAYAN (APPELLANT) VS.
MUSTAFA AND ANR. (RESPONDENTS) (SC)
The territorial Compensation Committee has the jurisdiction to pass award to
employee in case of accident in the course of employment.

I 36. M/S INDSIL HYDRO POWER AND MANGANESE

LIMITED (APPELLANT) VS. All the issues relating to royalty over water usage were clearly answered.
STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS (RESPONDENTS) (SC)

I 37. PRAKASH GUPTA VS.

SEBI (SC) Consent of SEBI is not necessary for the SAT or the Court for compounding an
offence. Guidelines issued.

I 38. THE AUTHORITY FOR CLARIFICATION AND ADVANCE

No external aid for interpretation can be employed when the exemption Entry
RULING & ANR. V. being clear and unambiguous
M/S. AAKAVI SPINNING MILLS
(P) LTD. (SC)

I 39. GANDHAR OIL REFINERY (INDIA) LTD VS. CITY OIL PVT.
LTD (NCLAT) 1. A decision without reasons is like grass without root, the requirement to
record reasons is one of the principles of natural justice
2. guidelines for writing judgments and orders
 Compensation in lieu of reinstatement Driver Accident during Probation not covered under Fine below minimum
Retirement- ESI, can not Fine prescribed
Trade Union Director is Holding Co.- 58 years or 60 years investigate
Recognition Employee Party to suit? Casual Worker

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Reinstatement, Compensation
18

19
Wages from date of order of
reinstatement
ESI Act
20
to actual date of reinstatement.
Employee 21
Union
22
23
Employee
Gratuity

24

25

26

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

Forfeiture of
Escorts Yamaha case Interim Wages 100 Workmen
Canteen Worker Gratuity
 Theft by forcible entry
PF Commissioner Railway Simple Assault- Employee died due to negligence LIC- Govt. Department
Special Employee not offence Workmen
didn’t summon Acquired by
Allowance Superannuation involving M.T. Pondicherry absorption
Contractors Corporation
establishment case case

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18

Environment Clearance
19

20
Employee died on visit

PF related
21
Dismissal
cases 22

Excessive Leave
23

24
BOWA & Factories Act

25

26

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

Non- supply of DTC Security Staff Accepted Bribe Minimum Wages

Charitable No Writ if Change in Notification
Inquiry Report & Delhi Police
Hospitals- Alternative Terms of Workmen appointed Transfer at request-
Forged Certificate POBA remedy available Service 50% Deposit through Contractor Forfeited benefits
G 1. POONA EMPLOYEES UNION
v.
FORCE MOTORS LIMITED & ANR
[SC]
G 2. MANAGEMENT OF THE BARARA
COOPERATIVE MARKETING-CUM
PROCESSING SOCIETY LTD. v.
WORKMAN PRATAP SINGH [SC]
G 3. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION v.
VENUS ALLOY PVT. LTD. [SC]
G 4. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION v.
SATNARAIN [DEL]
G 5. CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES v.
STANDING CONFERENCE OF PUBLIC
ENTERPRISES [DEL]
G 6. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND
COMMISSIONER v.
VIVEKANANDA VIDYAMANDIR & ORS
[SC]
The appellant union wanted to be the recognized union, and submitted that
85% of the employees are its members, SC rejected the appeal of the union
as the workers were made to sign the affidavit under the assurance that it
would not be used in any court of law and that if the appellants got successful
in getting recognition, they would ensure that the workers got their dues
repaid.
If a workman has received compensation in lieu of right of reinstatement, then
of course later he can not file a case for reinstatement.
Director is considered to be an employee under ESI, Act.
Director= Employee
Respondent was removed from job. Respondent was ordered reinstatement
by labour court without back wages on 6.09.2010, but the employer actually
reinstated on 13.12.2014.
The respondent claimed wages for 6.09.2010 to 13.12.2014.
HC held the wages for 6.09.2010 to 13.12.2014 have to be paid.
The PF commissioner determined the dues for the workers through
contractors also and directed the employer to pay, without summoning the
contractors.
HC directed the PF commissioner to summon all the contractors and then
carry out the requisite assessment again.
In this case special allowance will fall in the category of Basic wages and
contribution to PF has be calculated accordingly. (Any amount which is paid to
everyone will fall in basic wages, if there is any variable earning, paid on the
basis of efficiency, it will not form part of basic wages)
G 7. MODERN TRANSPORTATION CONSULTATION SERVICES An employee of railways, who was a member of PF and has withdrawn all his
PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. accumulations on superannuation, if joins another establishment later, is not
C.P.F. COMMISSIONER [SC] required to be a member of PF again.

G 8. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. The respondent driver during probation met with an accident and was
JASBIR SINGH [SC] removed by corporation.
The tribunal ordered reinstatement and 50% back wages.
SC set aside back wages and ordered merely reinstatement.

G 9. GLOBE GROUND INDIA EMPLOYEES

UNION v.
Holding Company can not be impleaded to a suit merely because it is the
LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES & ANR [SC]
holding company of the party of the suit.

G 10. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. v. A simple assault does not amount to an offence involving moral turpitude.
P. SOUPRAMANIANE [SC]

G 11. REGIONAL MANAGER, U.P.S.R.T.C.

& ANR v. SC held that the appellant was correct in retiring the respondents at 58 years
as they were placed under Category C because of their revised pay scale.
MASLAHUDDIN (DEAD) [SC]

G12. EMPLOYEE STATE INSURANCE

CORPORATION v. If any establishment is not covered under ESI Act for any particular period,
BATRA HOSPITAL & MEDICAL RESEARCH any investigation by ESI corporation can not take place for that period.
CENTRE & ORS [DEL]
G13. NANDRAM v. The decision to close the establishment at Pondicherry was taken by the
GARWARE POLYSTER LTD [SC] Company at Aurangabad.
SC held that both the Labour court at Pondicherry and Aurangabad had the
Pondicherry Aurangabad Jurisdiction to entertain the case.
G14. JAYA BISWAL & ORS v.
BRANCH MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD & ANR [SC]
G15. ESIC v.
A.K. ABDUL SAMAD & ANR [SC] REDUCE
G 16. ROYAL WESTERN INDIA
TURF CLUB LTD v.
E.S.I.C & ORS [SC]
G 17. TAMILNADU TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY
LIC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v.
S.K. ROY, THE CHAIRMAN, LIC [SC]
G 18. PEPSU ROADWAYS TRANSPORT
CORPORATION v.
S.K.SHARMA & ORS [SC]
Govt.
G19. INDUSTRIAL PROMOTION & INVESTMENT
CORPORATION OF ORRISA LTD v.
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD (SC)
G 20. ELECTROTHEM (INDIA) LTD v.
PATEL VIPULKUMAR RAMJIBHAI & ORS [SC]
• Compensation has to be paid for death of the employee, even if the
employee was negligent.
• HC can not reduce the compensation by half saying that it is in the
interest of justice.
If the Act mentions the minimum fine to be 5,000, the Authority can not
impose a fine for 1,000 for that offence.
Casual workers are covered under definition of employee as defined in Section
2(9) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948
LIC was ordered to absorb workmen along with back wages and other
benefits, SC allowed the appeal of LIC and the order was modified to make it
practical, back wages was reduced to 50%.
On acquisition of a government department by a corporation, the employees
then ceases to be government employees.
SC interpreted the clause in the policy and held that only a theft by forcible
entry will be covered in the policy.
Public hearing is mandatory for Environment clearance, but in this case
environment clearance was granted without public hearing, and hence the
court had ordered immediate closure of the plant, SC set aside the order of
the court and said that the plant can continue but public hearing has to be
done within next 3 months.
G 21. GEN SECRETARY, COAL WASHERIES WORKERS UNION,
DHANBAD v. EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO MANAGEMENT
OF DUGDA WASHERY OF M/s.BCCL [SC]
G22. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION
v.
RAJENDER KUMAR [DEL]
G 23. M/S SILVER TOUCH ENTERPRISES v.
RADHA SHARMA & ANR [DEL]
G 24. JORSINGH GOVIND VANJARI v.
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA
STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION[SC]
G 25. LANCO ANPARA POWER LTD v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS [SC]
G 26. THE MANAGEMENT OF STATE BANK OF INDIA v.
SMITA SHARAD DESHMUKH & ANR [SC]
G 27. ALL ESCORTS EMPLOYEES UNION v.
THE STATE OF HARYANA [SC]
• Industrial tribunal ordered reinstatement of 35 WM with 30% back wages.
• In appeal, the HC set aside reinstatement and ordered 50,000 to each WM.
• In appeal, the SC increased the compensation to 1,50,000.
Excessive unauthorized leaves can be a ground for dismissal.
An employee who resigned 3 months back, died while visiting the factory to meet
a friend. The court ordered the employer to pay compensation.
In appeal to HC, fresh adjudication was ordered.
To deny gratuity to an employee, there must be termination for an offence
involving moral turpitude.
Buildings And Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996 will be
applicable on construction of a factory uptill the manufacturing process has
started, Once manufacturing process has started, then it will be covered in
Factories Act and not in the above cess Act.
Emplyee submitted a forged certificate of passing some examination and got
raise. When found, dismissed from job.
In appeal HC reinstated her with 50% back wages on the ground she was not
aware that the certificate was forged.
SC set aside the order of HC, as the report of Industrial tribunal clearly proves
that she was aware.
Appellant union was the recognized union of Escorts Yamaha, The company was
taken over and named Yamaha Motors Ltd., The appellant union wanted to still
be the recognized union so amended the constitution clause of its union to allow
employees of YM to be its members, for which the issue lies to SC that can a
union amend its constitution clause?
In between YM formed its own union which was held to be the recognized union
and hence case dismissed.
G 28. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
v. ESI contribution has to be paid over interim wages as well.
MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS (INDIA) PVT.
LTD [SC]

G 29. UTTARAKHAND TRANSPORT

Mere non-supply of the inquiry report does not automatically warrant re-
CORPORATION& ORS. v. instatement of the delinquent employee.
SUKHVEER SINGH [SC]

G 30. P. KARUPPAIAH (D) THROUGH LRS.
v.
GENERAL MANAGER, THIRIUVALLUVAR
TRANSPORT CORPORATION [SC]
• The employee does not become entitled to claim back wages as of right
unless the order of reinstatement expressly provides for back wages.
• To claim back wages, the employee is required to prove with the aid of
evidence that from the date of his dismissal order till the date of his re-
joining, he was not gainfully employed anywhere.

G 31. NATIONAL KAMGAR UNION v. IT held, more than 100 WM employed, ID Act is applicable.
KRAN RADER PVT LTD & ORS. [SC] HC held, less than 100 WM employed, ID Act is not applicable.
SC held, less than 100 WM employed, ID Act is not applicable.

G 32. BATRA HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION Even charitable hospitals are covered by the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.
v.
BATRA HOSPITAL & MEDICAL RESEARCH
[DEL]
G 33. THAI AIRWAYS INTERNATIONAL LTD v.
If there is an alternative remedy available, writ can not be entertained
GURVINDER SINGH [DEL]
G 34. PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED
v.
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS [SC]
G 35. DTC SECURITY STAFF UNION (REGD.)
v.
DTC & ANR [SC]
G 36. CHENNAI PORT TRUST V.
THE CHENNAI PORT TRUST INDUSTRIAL
EMPLOYEES CANTEEN WORKERS WELFARE
ASSOCIATION & ORS. [SC]
G 37. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INDUSTRIES LTD v.
NEELAM BHUTANI [DEL]
G 38. M/S. G4S FACILITY SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD v.
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-I [DEL]
Paise dedo
appeal kar lo
G 39. MAHENDRA SINGH v.
DELHI POWER SUPPLY CO. LTD. [DEL]
G 40. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD & ORS v.
COMMISSIONER WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION
[J&K]
If employer intends to make any material change to the terms of service of
workmen (e.g. retirement age), 21days notice and opportunity of being heard
has to be mandatorily given.
The appellant argued that since the pay scale of Delhi Police Force has been
revised, the pay of appellants should also be revised, SC dismissed the case.
Canteen workers to be treated as regular employees of the port trust
The respondent was ordered to be reinstated with full back wages, interest,
increment, HRA, conveyance allowance, medical reimbursement, LTC and cost
of litigation as well, by the Labour court.
HC in appeal modified the order and set aside the medical reimbursement and
LTC.
Appellate tribunal under PF can order the appellant to deposit 50% or more of
the penalty amount to file the appeal.
Dismissal is a fair punishment for accepting bribe.
Employer has to pay compensation, even if the workman (iron smith) was
appointed through a contractor and got injured during the work.
G 41. FEDERATION OF OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION
(REGD) & ORS v. Notification revising the minimum wages was quashed by the HC.
Lt. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ANR [DEL]

G 42. UNION BANK OF INDIA v. Forfeiture of gratuity is not automatic on dismissal from service.
C.G. AJAY BABU [SC] Forfeiture of gratuity is permissible only if the termination of an employee
is for any misconduct which constitutes an offence involving moral
turpitude, and convicted accordingly by a court of competent jurisdiction.

G 43. COAL INDIA LTD v. Transferor company can not forfeit the service benefits even if the inter-
NAVIN KUMAR SINGH [SC] company transfer is at the request of the employee.