MCS

List of cases applicable for June 2021

(as updated by the additional case given by ICSI on 3th March 21)

SHUBHAMM SUKHLECHA (CA, CS, LLM)

Chapter 1 Company Law
1. Aruna Oswal (Appellant) Vs. Pankaj Oswal & Ors (Respondent)
2 Sandeep Agarwal & Anr (Appellant) Vs. Union Of India & Anr (Respondent)
3 Ashish O. Lalpuria(Appellant) Vs. Kumaka Industries Ltd & Ors(Respondent)

4 Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra (Appellant) vs. Registrar of Companies, Mumbai & Ors. (Respondents)
5 Alibaba Nabibasha (Petitioner) vs. Small Farmers Agri-Business Consortium & Ors.(Respondents)
6 Dr. Rajesh Kumar Yaduvanshi (Petitioner) vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) & Anr.
(Respondents)
7 QVC Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Appellants) vs. Cosmic Ferro Alloys Ltd. & Ors. (Respondents)
8 Economy Hotels India Services Private Limited (Appellant) vs. Registrar of Companies & Anr.
(Respondents)
9 K.V. Brahmaji Rao (Appellant) vs. Union of India (Respondent)
10 Vijay Goverdhandas Kalantri & Anr. (Petitioners) vs. Union of India & Ors. (Respondents)
11 The Registrar of Companies, West Bengal (Appellant) vs. Karan Kishore Samtani (Respondent)
12 S. P. Velumani & Anr. (Appellants) vs. Magnum Spinning Mills India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Respondents)
13 Late Mona Aggarwal through her Legal heir Mr. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal & Anr. (Appellants) vs.
Ghaziabad Engg. Company Ltd. & Ors. (Respondents)
14 Bank of Baroda (Appellant) vs. Aban Offshore Limited (Respondent)
15 Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle (3)(3)-1, Mumbai (Appellant) vs. Reliance Jio
Infocomm Ltd. & Ors. (Respondents)
And
Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)-1, Mumbai (Appellant) vs. M/s. Reliance Jio Infratel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
(Respondents)
16 Registrar of Companies, Kerala (Appellant) vs. Ayoli Abdulla (Respondent)
17 Regional Director, Southern Region and Ors. (Appellants) vs. Real Image LLP and Ors.
(Respondents)
18 G. Vasudevan (Petitioner) vs. Union of India (Rep. by Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs and
Ministry of Law and Justice) (Respondents)
19 Mukut Pathak & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr.
20 Jindal Steel and Power Limited (Appellant) vs. Arun Kumar Jagatramka and Ors. (Respondents)
21 M/s Ind-Swift Limited (Appellant) vs. Registrar of Companies (Punjab & Chandigarh) (Respondent)
22 S. Gopakumar Nair & Anr. vs. Obo Bettermann India Pvt. Ltd.
23 Hari Sankaran (Appellant) vs. Union of India & Ors. (Respondents)
24 CADS Software India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors (Appellant) vs. Mr. K.K. Jagadish & Ors., (Respondents)

SHUBHAMM SUKHLECHA (CA, CS, LLM)

25 Usha Martin Ventures Ltd. & Ors. (Appellant) vs. Usha Martin Ltd. & Anr (Respondent)
26 Kanodia Knits Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) vs. Registrar of Companies Delhi & Haryana (Respondent)
27 Shashi Prakash Khemka (Dead) Through LRs. and Anr. (Appellants) vs. Nepc Micon & Ors.
(Respondents)
28 S. Ahamed Meeran (Appellant) vs. Ronny George & Ors (Respondents)
29 K. J. Suwresh & Anr. (Appellants) vs. Teamlease Staffing Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Respondents)
30 SAS Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Petitioner) vs. Surya Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Respondent)
31 Karn Gupta (Petitioner) vs. Union of India & Anr. (Respondents)
32 Rishima SA Investments LLC (Petitioner) vs. Registrar of Companies, West Bengal &
Ors.(Respondent)
33 Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Tata Sons Ltd. & Ors. (CASE STUDY)

Chapter 2 Securities Laws

1 Mr. Vidyadhar D Vardam, M/s. Avenue Supermarts Limited and Ms. Ashu Gupta (collectively
known as “Noticees”) vs. SEBI
2 Dr. Satish Chandra, Ms. Sucharita Das and The Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd.
(collectively known as “Noticees”) vs. SEBI
3 Mr. Prannoy Roy and Mrs. Radhika Roy (Appellants) vs. Securities and Exchange Board of
India (SEBI)
4 ICICI Bank Limited (Appellant) vs. SEBI (Respondent)
5 India Ratings and Research Private Ltd. (Appellant) vs. SEBI (Respondent)
6 Dr. Udayant Malhoutra (Appellant) vs. SEBI (Respondent)
7 Indus Weir Industries Limited (Appellant) vs. SEBI (Respondent)
8 Mr. Mahendra Girdharilal (Appellant) vs. NSE, SEBI and T. Stanes And Company Limited
(Respondents)
9 Synergy Cosmetics (Exim) Limited (Appellant) vs. BSE Limited (Respondent)
10 Nicer Green Housing Infrastructure Developers Ltd. & Ors. (Appellant) vs. SEBI (Respondent)
11 Final Order in the matter of M/s Sungold Capital Limited
12 Final Order in respect of Mr. Amalendu Mukherjee (Noticee) in the matter of Ricoh India Limited
13 Final Order in the matter of inspection of Vishal Vijay Shah (Noticee)
14 Adjudication Order in respect of M/s Beckons Industries Limited (Noticee)
15 Adjudication Order in respect of Mr. Gurmeet Singh (“Noticee-1”), Mr. I.S. Sukhija (“Noticee-2”)
and Mr. H. S. Anand (“Noticee-3”) in the matter of Beckons Industries Limited
16 Adjudication Order in respect of M/s Ashlar Commodities Private Limited (Noticee)

SHUBHAMM SUKHLECHA (CA, CS, LLM)

17 Adjudication Order in respect of Mr. B Renganathan (‘Noticee’) in the matter of Edelweiss
Financial Services Ltd.
18 Dr. Uppal Devinder Kumar (Appellant) vs. SEBI (Respondent)
19 Bajaj Finance Limited (Appellant) vs. SEBI and Karvy Stock Broking Limited (Respondent)
20 Adjudicating Officer, SEBI (Appellant) vs. Bhavesh Pabari (Respondent)
21 PVP Global Ventures Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) vs. SEBI (Respondent)
22 M/s Therm Flow Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) vs. SEBI (Respondent)
23 GRD Securities Ltd. (Appellant) vs. National Stock Exchange of India & SEBI (Respondents)
24 SEBI (Appellant) vs. Kishore Rajmera (Respondent)
25 Neesa Technologies Limited & ORS
26 SEBI (Appellant) vs. M/s Opee Stock–Link Ltd. & Anr (Respondents)
27 SEBI (Appellant) vs. Burren Energy India Ltd. & Ors. (Respondents)
28 National Securities Depository Ltd. (Appellant) vs. SEBI (Respondent)
29 Laurel Energetics Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) vs. SEBI (Respondent)
30 Dushyant N Dalal and Another (Appellants) vs. SEBI (Respondent)
31 Ratnabali Capital Markets Ltd. (Petitioner) vs. SEBI & ORS (Respondent)
32 Penta Gold Limited (Appellant) vs. National Stock Exchange of India Limited (Respondent)
33 BOI Shareholding Limited (Appellant) vs. SEBI (Respondent)
34 NSE DARK FIBRE CO-LOCATION CASE
35 THE FUTURE RETAIL LIMITED
36 WINDING UP OF SIX YIELD-ORIENTED FIXED INCOME SCHEMES OF FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INDIA
AMID COVID-19

Chapter 3 Economic Laws

1 EMAAR MGF LAND LIMITED (APPELLANT) vs. AFTAB SINGH (RESPONDENT)
2 CARLSBERG BREWERIES A/S. (PLAINTIFF) vs. SOM DISTILLERIES AND BREWERIES LTD.
(DEFENDANT)
3 HINDUSTAN INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD. (PETITIONERS) vs. M/S. R.S.
WOODS INTERNATIONAL & ORS (RESPONDENTS)
4 M/S. SICAGEN INDIA LTD. (APPELLANT) vs. MAHINDRA VADINENI & ORS (RESPONDENTS)
5 UNION OF INDIA vs. KHAITAN HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LTD. & ORS
6 BIR SINGH (APPELLANT) vs. MUKESH KUMAR (RESPONDENTS)
7 ROHITBHAI J PATEL (APPELLANT) vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT (RESPONDENTS)

SHUBHAMM SUKHLECHA (CA, CS, LLM)

8 BHARAT BROADBAND NETWORK LTD. (APPELLANT) vs. UNITED TELECOMS LTD. (RESPONDENTS)
9 ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS (APPELLANT) vs. INTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT LTD. & ORS.
(RESPONDENTS)
10 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA (PETITIONERS) vs. JAYANTILAL N. MISTRY (RESPONDENTS)
11 GAUTAM KUNDU (APPELLANT) vs. MANOJ KUMAR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DOE (RESPONDENTS)
12 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. (APPELLANT) vs. ANUJ KUMAR TYAGI (RESPONDENT)
13 MAHANIVESH OILS & FOODS PVT LTD. (PETITIONER) vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
(RESPONDENT)
14 SANDEEP GUPTA (PETITIONER) vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS (RESPONDENTS)
15 TODAY HOTELS (NEW DELHI) PVT LTD. (APPELLANT) vs. INTECTURE INDIA DESIGNS PVT LTD.
(RESPONDENT)
16 LAKHMI CHAND (APPELLANT) vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE (RESPONDENT)
17 INDIAN MACHINERY COMPANY (APPELLANT) vs. ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD.
(RESPONDENT)
18 EITZEN BULK A/S (APPELLANT) vs. ASHAPURA MINECHEM LTD. & ANR (RESPONDENT)
19 ROTOMAC ELECTRICALS LTD. (APPELLANT) vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR (RESPONDENTS)
20 GREAVES COTTON LTD. (APPELLANT) vs. UNITED MACHINERY & APPLIANCES (RESPONDENT)
21 THOUGHTWORKS INC (PETITIONER) vs. SUPER SOFTWARE PVT LTD & ANR (RESPONDENT)
22 FALCON PROGRESS LTD (DECREE HOLDER) vs. SARA INTERNATIONAL LTD. (JUDGMENT DEBTOR)
23 COSMO FERRITES LTD. (PETITIONER) vs. PRAGYA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. & ORS. (RESPONDENTS)
24 DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. (APPELLANT) vs. DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PVT.
LTD. (RESPONDENT)
25 ESSAR PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD. (PETITIONER) vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.
(RESPONDENTS)
26 ANANTHESH BHAKTA (APPELLANTS) vs. NAYANA S. BHAKTA & ORS. RESPONDENTS)
27 NEWGEN SPECIALTY PLASTIC LTD. (APPELLANT) vs. INTEC CAPITAL LTD. (APPELLANT)
28 KANCHAN UDYOG LTD. (APPELLANT) vs. UNITED SPIRITS LTD . (RESPONDENT)
29 M/S DURO FELGUERA S.A (PETITIONER) vs. GANGAVARAM PORT LIMITED (RESPONDENT)
30 HIMANGNI ENTERPRISES (APPELLANT) vs. KAMALJEET SINGH AHLUWALIA (RESPONDENT)
31 INNOX WIND LTD. (APPELLANT) vs. THERMOCABLES LTD. (RESPONDENT)
32 INDIAN FARMERS FERTILIZER COOPERATIVE LTD. (APPELLANT) vs. M/S.BHADRA PRODUCTS
33 TOYOTA JIDOSHA KABUSHIKI KAISHA vs. PRIUS AUTO INDUSTRIES LTD & ORS. (RESPONDENTS)
34 ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LTD. (PETITIONER) vs. KAMAT HOTELS (INDIA) LTD & ORS
(RESPONDENTS)

SHUBHAMM SUKHLECHA (CA, CS, LLM)

35 SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD. (APPELLANT) vs. ABDUL SAMAD & ORS (RESPONDENTS)
36 ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. (APPELLANT) vs. NARBHERAM POWER & STEEL PVT LTD.
(RESPONDENT)
37 SHYAM SUNDER AGARWAL (APPELLANT) vs. P. NAROTHAM RAO (RESPONDENT)
38 M/S. NANDHINI DELUXE vs. M/S. KARNATAKA COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION
LTD.
39 DEEPAYAN MOHANTY (PLAINTIFF) vs. CARGILL INDIA PVT LTD. & ORS. (DEFENDANTS)
40 M/S SHRIRAM EPC LIMITED (APPELLANT) vs. RIOGLASS SOLAR SA (RESPONDENT)
41 SONELL CLOCKS AND GIFTS LTD.(APPELLANT) vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
(RESPONDENT)
42 DREDGING CORPORATION OF INDIA (PETITIONER) vs. MERCATOR LTD (RESPONDENT)
43 GOVT OF N.C.T OF DELHI (PETITIONER) vs. YASIKAN ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. (RESPONDENT)
44 TRUSTEE, JACOBITE SYRIAN CATHEDRAL & ANR vs. JIPPU VARKEY [NCDRC] REVISION

Chapter 4 Insolvency Law

1 Babulal Vardharji Gurjar(Appellant) Vs. Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Pvt Ltd &
Anr(Respondent)
2 Sagufa Ahmed(Appellant) Vs. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd (Respondent)
3 SREI Equipment Finance Limited(Appellant) Vs. Rajeev Anand(Respondent)
4 Kiran Gupta(Appellant) Vs. State Bank of India & Anr(Respondent)
5 Kaledonia Jute & Fibres Pvt Ltd(Appellant) vs. Axis Nirman & Industries & Ors(Respondent)
6 GEORGE VINCI THOMAS (Appellant) vs. CAPEDGE CONSULTING PVT. LTD. & ORS (Respondent)
7 ANAND RAO KORADA RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL (Appellant) vs. M/S VARSHA FABRICS (P) LTD.
(Respondent)
8 DUNCANS INDUSTRIES LTD (Appellant) vs. A.J. AGROCHEM (Respondent)
9 EXCEL METAL PROCESSORS LTD (Appellant) vs. BENTELER TRADING INTERNATIONAL GMBH &
ANR. (Respondent)
10 AHLUWALIA CONTRACTS (INDIA) LTD (Appellant) vs. RAHEJA DEVELOPERS LTD (Respondent)
11 SSMP INDUSTRIES LTD (Appellant) vs. PERKAN FOOD PROCESSORS PVT. LTD (Respondent)
12 LALIT MISHRA & ORS (Appellant) vs. SHARON BIO MEDICINE LTD. & ORS. (Respondent)
13 FORECH INDIA LTD. (Appellant) vs. EDELWEISS ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION CO LTD & ANR
(Respondent)
14 SWISS RIBBONS PVT LTD. (Appellant) vs. UNION OF INDIA (Respondent)

SHUBHAMM SUKHLECHA (CA, CS, LLM)

15 SHALINI PUBLICITY CREATIVE PVT. LTD. (Appellant) vs. DENA BANK (Respondent)
16 COAL INDIA LTD. (Appellant) vs. GULF COIL LUBRICANTS INDIA LTD & ANR (Respondent)
17 AFFINITY FINANCE SERVICES PVT LTD. (Appellant) vs. KIEV FINANCE LTD (Respondent)
18 JK JUTE MILL MAZDOOR MORCHA (Appellant) vs. JUGGILAL KAMLAPAT JUTE MILLS LTD & ORS
(Respondent)
19 PRANAMI TRADING PVT LTD. (Appellant) vs. KIEON DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD (Respondent)
20 AXIS BANK (Appellant) vs. SBS ORGANICS PVT. LTD & ANR (Respondent)
21 UCO BANK & ANR (Appellant) vs. DIPAK DEBBARMA & ORS (Respondent)
22 STATE BANK OF INDIA (Appellant) vs. SANTOSH GUPTA & ANR (Respondent)
23 CHUNNU FASHIONS & ORS (Appellant) vs. EDELWEISS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION CO LTD
(Respondent)
24 MOBILOX INNOVATIONS PVT LTD. (Appellant) vs. KIRUSA SOFTWARE PVT LTD (Respondent)
25 SURENDRA TRADING COMPANY (Appellant) vs. JUGGILAL KAMLAPAT JUTE MILLS CO LTD
(Respondent)
26 INNOVENTIVE INDUSTRIES LTD (Appellant) vs. ICICI & ANR (Respondent)
27 M.D. FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT. LTD. (Appellant) vs. HERO FINCORP LTD (Respondent)
28 INTERNATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF INDIA LTD. (Appellant) vs. OFFICIAL
LIQUIDATOR OF ALDRICH PHARMACEUTICALS LTD & ORS (Respondent)
29 MACHHAR POLYMER PVT LTD (Appellant) vs. SABRE HELMETS PVT LTD (Respondent)
30 NEETA CHEMICALS (I) PVT. LTD (Appellant) vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA (Respondent)
31 ITC LTD. (Appellant) vs. BLUE COAST HOTELS LTD (Respondent)
32 J.P. ENGINEERS PVT. LTD (Appellant) vs. MURTI UDYOG LTD (Respondent)
33 PROWESS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. (Appellant) vs. ACTION ISPAT & POWER PVT. LTD
(Respondent)
34 INDIAN BANK (Appellant) vs. K. PAPPIREDDIYAR (Respondent)
35 K. KRISHNA (Appellant) vs. VIJAY NIRMAN COMPANY PVT. LTD (Respondent)
36 TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF ANDHRA PRADESH LTD. (Appellant) vs. EQUIPMENT
CONDUCTORS & CABLES (Respondent) (Respondent)
37 RAJESH ARORA (Appellant) vs. SANJAY KUMAR JAISWAL (Respondent)

SHUBHAMM SUKHLECHA (CA, CS, LLM)

Chapter 5 Competition Law
1 Thupili Raveendra Babu (Appellant) vs Bar Council Of India & Ors (Respondents)
2 Cartelisation in Industrial and Automotive Bearings-Suo Motu Case
3 Travel Agents Association of India vs. Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance and Ors
4 RH Agro Private Limited vs. State Bank of India and Ors
5 Competition Commission of India vs Bharti Airtel Limited and Others
6 Karnataka Film Chamber & Commerce and other associations vs. Competition Commission of
India
7 Uttarakhand Agricultural Produce Marketing Board Vs. CCI & Ors.
8 CADD Systems and Services Pvt. Ltd. vs CCI
9 Competition Commission of India Vs. JCB India Ltd. and Ors
10 Rajasthan Cylinders & Containers Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Respondent: Competition Commission of India
and Ors.

Chapter 6 Business Strategy and Mang.

CASE STUDY 1 AXA – Creating the New CR Metrics
CASE STUDY 2 Indira Gandhi International Airport- Collins Aerospace
CASE STUDY 3 SWOT ANALYSIS : THE FULCRUM OF STRATEGIC DECISION MAKING
CASE STUDY 4 FUNCTIONAL LEVEL STRATEGIES –AN EFFECTIVE TOOL TO ACHIEVE
ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS
CASE STUDY 5 USING AIMS AND OBJECTIVES TO CREATE A BUSINESS STRATEGY : A KELLOGG’S
CASE STUDY
CASE STUDY 6 MCDONALD’S CORPORATION MICHAEL PORTER FIVE FORCES MODEL

Chapter 7 Interpretation of Law

1 Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.(Appeallant) vs. Canara Bank & Ors. (Defendant)
2 STATE OF M.P. & ANR. (Appellant) vs. M.P. TRANSPORT WORKERS FEDERATION (Respondent)
3 NEVADA PROPERTIES PVT LTD (Appellant) vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Respondent)
4 INTERTEK INDIA PVT LTD (Appellant) vs. PRIYANKA MOHAN (Respondent)
5 RAVINDER KAUR GREWAL (Appellant) vs. MANJIT KAUR (Respondent)
6 ANIL KHADKIWALA (Appellant) vs. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI (Respondent)
7 THOMAS CHACKO (Appellant) vs. THE CHIEF MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA & ORS (Respondent)

SHUBHAMM SUKHLECHA (CA, CS, LLM)

8 CEMENT WORKERS MANDAL (Appellant) vs. GLOBAL CEMENTS LTD (HMP CEMENTS LTD) & ORS
(Respondent)
9 M/S SCIEMED OVERSEAS INC (Appellant) vs. BOC INDIA LIMITED & ORS (Respondent)
10 VILLAYATI RAM MITTAL (P) LTD (Appellant) vs. SHAMBHAVI CONTRACTORS PVT LTD
(Respondent)
11 SAVELIFE FOUNDATION & ANR (Appellant) vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR (Respondent)
12 RAMESH RAJAGOPAL (Appellant) vs. DEVI POLYMERS PVT. LTD (Respondent)
13 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA (Appellant) vs. ONICRA CREDIT INFORMATION CO LTD (Respondent)
14 JET AIRWAYS (INDIA) LTD. (Appellant) vs. DHANUKA LABORATORIES LTD (Respondent)
15 BHUPINDER SINGH BAWA (Appellant) vs. ASHA DEVI (Respondent)
16 INNOVATIVE TECH PACK LTD. (Appellant) vs. SPECIAL DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT (Respondent)
17 MGR INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION & ANR (Appellant) vs. STATE OF U P & ORS (Respondent)
18 D.M.ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. (Appellant) vs. SWAPNA NAYAK & ORS (Respondent)
19 FARIDABAD COMPLEX ADMINISTRATION (Appellant) vs. IRON MASTER INDIA (P) LTD
(Respondent)
20 JSW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED & ANR (Appellant) vs. KAKINADA SEAPORTS LIMITED & ORS
(Respondent)
21 THE MAHARASHTRA STATE COOPERATIVE HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LTD (Appellant) vs.
PRABHAKAR SITARAM BHADANGE (Respondent)
22 M.C. MEHTA (Appellant) vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (Respondent)
23 CONSORTIUM OF TITAGARH FIREMA ADLER S.P.A. TITAGARH WAGONS LTD. (Appellant) vs.
NAGPUR METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD (Respondent)
24 MAHARISHI MARKANDESHWAR MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL (Appellant) vs. STATE OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS (Respondent)
25 GLAXO SMITHKLINE PHARMACEUTICAL LTD (Appellant) vs. UNION OF INDIA (Respondent)
26 APOLLO TYRES LTD. (Appellant) vs. PIONEER TRADING (Respondent)
27 METERS AND INSTRUMENTS PVT. LTD & ANR (Appellant) vs. KANCHAN MEHTA (Respondent)
28 ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PVT LTD. (Appellant) vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
(Respondent)
29 CANARA BANK & ANR (Appellant) vs. LALIT POPLI (THRIUGH LRs) (Respondent)
30 B SUNITHA (Appellant) vs. STATE OF TELANGANA &B ANR (Respondent)
31 ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY PVT. LTD & ANR (Appellant) vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION (Respondent)
32 SHIV SINGH (Appellant) vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS (Respondent)
33 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Appellant) vs. SAYYED HASSAN SAYYED SUBHAN (Respondent)

SHUBHAMM SUKHLECHA (CA, CS, LLM)

Chapter 8 Governance (Labour Law)
1 POONA EMPLOYEES UNION (Appellant) vs. FORCE MOTORS LIMITED & ANR (Respondent)
2 MANAGEMENT OF THE BARARA COOPERATIVE MARKETING-CUM PROCESSING SOCIETY LTD.
(Appellant) vs. WORKMAN PRATAP SINGH (Respondent)
3 EMPLOYEsES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION (Appellant) vs. VENUS ALLOY PVT. LTD. (Resp)
4 DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION (Appellant) vs. SATNARAIN (Respondent)
5 CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES (Appellant) vs. STANDING CONFERENCE OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES
(Respondent)
6 THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (Appellant) vs. VIVEKANANDA VIDYAMANDIR
& ORS (Respondent)
7 MODERN TRANSPORTATION CONSULTATION SERVICES PVT. LTD. & ANR. (Appellant) vs. C.P.F.
COMMISSIONER (Respondent)
8 DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION (Appellant) vs. JASBIR SINGH (Respondent)
9 GLOBE GROUND INDIA EMPLOYEES UNION (Appellant) vs. LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES &
ANR (Respondent)
10 THE STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. (Appellant) vs.P. SOUPRAMANIANE (Respondent)
11 REGIONAL MANAGER, U.P.S.R.T.C. & ANR (Appellant) vs. MASLAHUDDIN (DEAD) (Respondent)
12 EMPLOYEE STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION (Appellant) vs. BATRA HOSPITAL & MEDICAL
RESEARCH CENTRE & ORS (Respondent)
13 NANDRAM (Appellant) vs. GARWARE POLYSTER LTD. (Respondent)
14 JAYA BISWAL & ORS (Appellant) vs. BRANCH MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD & ANR (Respondent)
15 ESIC (Appellant) vs. A.K. ABDUL SAMAD & ANR (Respondent)
16 ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB LTD (Appellant) vs. E.S.I.C & ORS (Respondent)
17 TAMILNADU TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY LIC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (Appellant) vs.
S.K. ROY, THE CHAIRMAN, LIC (Respondent)
18 PEPSU ROADWAYS TRANSPORT CORPORATION (Appellant) vs. S.K. SHARMA & ORS
(Respondent)
19 INDUSTRIAL PROMOTION & INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD (Appellant) Vs. NEW
INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD & ANR (Respondent)
20 ELECTROTHEM (INDIA) LTD (Appellant) vs. PATEL VIPULKUMAR RAMJIBHAI & ORS (Respondent)
21 GEN SECRETARY, COAL WASHERIES WORKERS UNION, DHANBAD (Appellant) vs. EMPLOYERS IN
RELATION TO MANAGEMENT OF DUGDA WASHERY OF M/s.BCCL (Respondent)
22 DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION (Appellant) vs. RAJENDER KUMAR (Respondent)

SHUBHAMM SUKHLECHA (CA, CS, LLM)

23 M/S SILVER TOUCH ENTERPRISES (Appellant) vs. RADHA SHARMA & ANR (Respondent)
24 JORSINGH GOVIND VANJARI (Appellant) vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA STATE
ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (Respondent)
25 LANCO ANPARA POWER LTD (Appellant) vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS (Respondent)
26 THE MANAGEMENT OF STATE BANK OF INDIA (Appellant) Vs. SMITA SHARAD DESHMUKH & ANR
(Respondent)
27 ALL ESCORTS EMPLOYEES UNION (Appellant) vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA (Respondent)
28 EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION (Appellant) vs. MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS
(INDIA) PVT. LTD (Respondent)
29 UTTARAKHAND TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS. (Appellant) vs. SUKHVEER SINGH
(Respondent)
30 P. KARUPPAIAH (D) THROUGH LRS. (Appellant) vs. GENERAL MANAGER, THIRIUVALLUVAR
TRANSPORT CORPORATION (Respondent)
31 NATIONAL KAMGAR UNION (Appellant) vs. KRAN RADER PVT LTD & ORS. (Respondent)
32 BATRA HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION (Appellant) vs. BATRA HOSPITAL & MEDICAL RESEARCH
(Respondent)
33 THAI AIRWAYS INTERNATIONAL LTD (Appellant) vs. GURVINDER SINGH (Respondent)
34 PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED(Appellant) vs. STATE OF ORISSA & ORS (Respondent)
35 DTC SECURITY STAFF UNION (REGD). (Appellant) vs. DTC & ANR (Respondent)
36 CHENNAI PORT TRUST (Appellant) vs. The Chennai Port Trust Industrial EMPLOYEES CANTEEN
WORKERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ORS. (Respondent)
37 ANSAL PROPERTIES & INDUSTRIES LTD (Appellant) vs. NEELAM BHUTANI (Respondent)
38 M/S. G4S FACILITY SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD (Appellant) vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND
COMMISSIONER-I (Respondent)
39 MAHENDRA SINGH (Appellant) vs. DELHI POWER SUPPLY CO. LTD. (Respondent)
40 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD & ORS (Appellant) vs. COMMISSIONER WORKMEN’S
COMPENSATION (Respondent)
41 FEDERATION OF OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION (REGD) & ORS (Appellant) Vs. Lt. GOVERNOR
OF DELHI & ANR (Respondent)
42 UNION BANK OF INDIA (Appellant) vs. C.G. AJAY BABU (Respondent)
43 COAL INDIA LTD (Appellant) vs. NAVIN KUMAR SINGH (Respondent)

SHUBHAMM SUKHLECHA (CA, CS, LLM)

 MCS
Amendments for June 2021

The following things have been added for June 2021:

• 13 case laws
• 2 case studies in securities Law
• 2 case studies in chapter 6

Shubhamm Sukhlecha
(CA, CS, LLM)

shubhammsukhlecha.com
 CL 1. ARUNA OSWAL v. PANKAJ OSWAL & ORS [SC]

Brief facts: • The case is the outcome of a family tussle. Appellant is the mother while the respondent No.1 is the son, who was holding 39.88% shares
in Oswal Agro Mills. Ltd. and 11.11% shares in M/s. Oswal Greentech Ltd.
• He filed a nomination in favour of the appellant, who was registered as a holder as against the shares held by her deceased husband.
• The respondent No.1, filed a partition suit claiming one fourth share in the shareholdings of his father in the above two companies. Further
he filed a petition before the NCLT claiming oppression and suppression against his mother and others.
• The appellant challenged the maintainability of the petition, inter alia, under the ground that the respondent No.1 is not holding the
required shares to file such petition.
• The NCLT dismissed the application. NCLT held respondent No.1 as legal heir was entitled to one-fourth share of the property/shares.
• Aggrieved thereby, appeals were filed before NCLAT, which have been dismissed vide the impugned judgment and order. Aggrieved
thereby, the appellants are before this Court.
Decision:

Reason: SC held that respondent No.1 has purchased the holding of 0.03% in M/s. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. in June 2017 after filing civil suit and remaining
9.97% is in dispute, he is claiming on the strength of his being a legal representative. In M/s. Oswal Greentech Ltd., the shareholding of the
deceased was 11.11%, out of which one fourth share is claimed by respondent No.1. Thus, we are satisfied that respondent no.1 does not hold
the shares to the extent of eligibility threshold of 10% as stipulated under section 244 in order to maintain an application under sections 241
and 242.
• Admittedly, in a civil suit for partition, he is also claiming a right in the shares held by the deceased to the extent of one-fourth. With regard
to the dispute as to right, title, and interest in the securities, the finding of the civil Court is going to be final and conclusive and binding on
parties. It would not be appropriate to treat the shareholding in the name of respondent No.1 by NCLT before ownership rights are finally
decided in the civil suit.
• Thus SC left all the questions to be decided in the pending civil suit. Impugned orders passed by the NCLT as well as NCLAT are set aside,
and the appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent and requested that the civil suit be decided as expeditiously as possible.
 CL 2. SANDEEP AGARWAL & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR [DELHI HC]

Brief facts: • The Petitioners are directors in two companies namely Koksun Papers Pvt Ltd (“Koksun Papers”) and KushalPower Projects Pvt Ltd
(hereinafter, “Kushal Power”).
• The name of Kushal Power was struck off from the Register of the Companies on 30th June, 2017, due to non-filing of financial statements
and annual returns.
• The Petitioners, being directors of Kushal Power were also disqualified with effect from 1st November, 2016 for a period of five years till
31st October, 2021 under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter, “Act”). Pursuant to their disqualification, their
Director Identification Numbers (“DIN”) and Digital Signature Certificates (“DSC”) have also been cancelled. In view thereof, they are
unable to carry on the business and file returns etc. in the active company Koksun Papers.
• By the present petition, the disqualification is challenged.
Decision:

Reason: • The judgment in Mukut Pathak & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 265 (2019) DLT 506, insofar as the merits of the case is concerned, is
squarely applicable in the present case. The said judgment clearly holds that the proviso to Section 167(1) (a) of the Act cannot be read to
operate retrospectively. It was further held that the said proviso, being a punitive measure with respect to the rights and obligations of
directors, cannot be applied retrospectively unless the statutory amendment expressly provides so.
Moreover, the Companies Fresh Start Scheme (CFSS) is a new scheme, which has been notified on 30th March, 2020, considering the COVID-
19 pandemic. The scheme is obviously launched by the Government in order to give a relief to such companies who have defaulted in filing
documents and they have been allowed to file their requisite documents and to regularize their operations, so as to not face disqualification.
• In view of the fact that in the present case, the Petitioners are directors of an active company Koksun Papers in respect of which certain
documents are to be filed and the said company is entitled to avail of the Scheme, the suspension of the DINs would not only affect the
Petitioners for the company, whose name has been struck off, but also for the company which is active. It is not uncommon to see
directors of one company being directors in another company.
• Under such circumstances, to disqualify directors permanently and not allowing them to avail of their DINs and DSCs could render the
Scheme purposeless. Hence, the disqualification of the Petitioners as Directors is set aside. The DINs and DSCs of the Petitioners are
directed to be reactivated, within a period of three working days.
 CL 3. ASHISH O. LALPURIA v. KUMAKA INDUSTRIES LTD & ORS [NCLAT]
Brief • The Respondent Company i.e. Kumaka Industries Limited presented a Scheme of Arrangement Under Section 391-394 of Companies Act, 1956
facts: (Existing Sections 230-232 of Companies Act, 2013) for sanction of the Arrangement embodied in the scheme originally filed before Bombay
High Court which by virtue of notification issued by Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) on 7th December, 2016 got transferred to NCLT,
Mumbai.
• The Appellant is a shareholder of Respondent Company and he pointed out certain irregularities and non-compliances and raised the objections
that the Scheme of Arrangements is a mere rectification of action already taken by the Respondent company without obtaining approval of the
Tribunal and other Regulatory Authorities as required under the provisions of Companies Act.
• NCLT, Mumbai passed the order dated 6th July, 2020 stating that the scheme appears to be fair and reasonable and does not violate any
provision of law and is not contrary to public policy or public interest.
• Hence, the Appellant on being aggrieved by the order of NCLT, Mumbai have preferred this appeal under section 421 of Companies Act, 2013.
Decision:

Reason: NCLAT observed that it is pertinent to note under section 230 (5) provides that a notice under sub-section (3) along with all the documents in such
form as may be prescribed shall also be sent to the Central Government, the income-tax authorities, the Reserve Bank of India, the Securities and
Exchange Board, the Registrar, the respective stock exchanges, the Official Liquidator, the Competition Commission of India established under sub-
section (1) of section 7 of the Competition Act, 2002, if necessary, and such other sectorial regulators or authorities which are likely to be affected
by the compromise or arrangement and shall require that representations, if any, to be made by them shall be made within a period of thirty days
from the date of receipt of such notice, failing which, it shall be presumed that they have no representations to make on the proposals.
• The basic intent behind this provisions of law is that these authorities plays a vital role in the overall legal structure and should work
harmoniously with the Tribunal in order to ensure that the proposed scheme does not violate any provision of law and is also not against the
public policy.
• NCLT has overruled the objections raised by the Regional Director on the ground that the objections are mere on the procedural aspects and do
not raise any illegality in the scheme or that it is against public policy. It should have been contemplated that compliance of law in itself is a part
of public policy.
• NCLAT held that it is the duty of the Tribunal or any court that their Orders should encourage compliances and not defaults.
• Before the scheme gets approved, the company must be in compliance with all the public authorities and there must be no actions pending
against the company by the public authorities before sanctioning of a scheme under section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013.
• In light of the above observations the appeal is allowed and NCLAT set aside the impugned order dated 6th July, 2020 passed by National
Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai.
SL 1. MR. VIDYADHAR D VARDAM, M/S. AVENUE SUPERMARTS LIMITED AND MS. ASHU GUPTA (COLLECTIVELY KNOWN AS “NOTICEES”) v.
SEBI [A.O., SEBI]
Brief facts: • SEBI conducted an investigation in the scrip of Avenue Supermarts Limited (Noticee 2/ ASL/ Company), which is listed on the Bombay
Stock Exchange (BSE) and the National Stock Exchange (NSE) with respect to certain possible violations, during the period from 1st January
2018 to 31st December 2018 (Examination Period).
• SEBI observed that one of the employees of the ASL viz. Mr. Vidyadhar Dinkar Vardam (Noticee 1) had not complied with the disclosure
norms as laid down in regulation 7(2)(a) of SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 (PIT Regulations).
• SEBI also observed that the Noticee 1 had failed to file the required disclosure in terms of regulation 7(2)(b) of PIT Regulations and there is
lapse on the part of the Compliance Officer viz. Ms. Ashu Gupta, (Noticee 3) Therefore, SEBI initiated adjudication proceedings against the
Noticees under the provisions of Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SEBI Act’).
Decision:

Reason: • SEBI find that the allegation of violation of Regulation 7(2)(a) of the PIT Regulations against the Noticee 1, for making delayed disclosures
on five (5) occasions stands established.
• SEBI also find that the allegation of violation of Regulation 7(2)(b) of the PIT Regulations against the Noticee 2 and allegation of violation of
Regulation 9(3) read with 7(2)(b) of the PIT Regulations against the Noticee 3 for making delayed disclosures on one (1) occasion stands
established.
• Having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, the material available on record, the submissions made by the Noticees and
also the factors mentioned in Section 15J of the SEBI Act and in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 15-I of the SEBI Act read
with Rule 5 of the Adjudication Rules, SEBI hereby impose penalties on Noticees namely Mr. Vidyadhar D. Vardham, Avenue Supermarts
Limited, Ms. Ashu Gupta ₹ 2,00,000/-, ₹ 3,00,000/-, ₹ 1,00,000/- respectively, under the provisions of Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act.
 SL 2. DR. SATISH CHANDRA, MS. SUCHARITA DAS AND THE ORISSA MINERALS DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. (COLLECTIVELY KNOWN AS
“NOTICEES”) v. SEBI [A.O.,SEBI]
Brief facts: • SEBI conducted investigation into the alleged delayed disclosure of the price sensitive information (PSI) by The Orissa Minerals
Development Company Ltd., (OMDC/Company), in the scrip of OMDC, to the Stock Exchanges [BSE and NSE] for alleged violation of
provisions of the SEBI Act, 1992 and SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 during the investigation period July 02, 2012 to
August 10, 2012 (referred to as “IP”).
• The OMDC, Dr. Satish Chandra (Managing Director) and Ms. Sucharita Das (Company Secretary) has made belated disclosure to the stock
exchanges of the important price sensitive information.
• Further, OMDC, also violated Clause 36 of the Listing Agreement read with Section 21 of Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (SCRA).
By not making the disclosures on time, the Noticee has failed to comply with the mandatory statutory obligation.
Decision:

Reason: • In view of the foregoing, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the material on record, SEBI, in exercise of the powers
conferred under Section 15-I of the SEBI Act read with Rule 5 of the Adjudication Rules,1995 and Section 23-I of the SC(R) Act, 1956 read
with Rule 5 of the Adjudication Rules, 2005, hereby impose a total penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- under Section 15HB of the SEBI Act, 1992 and
Section 23A(a) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, on the Noticees i.e. The Orissa Minerals Development Co. Ltd., Dr. Satish
Chandra and Ms. Sucharita Das for violation of Clause 2.1 of Code of Corporate Disclosure Practice for Prevention of Insider Trading
contained in Schedule II to Regulation 12(2) of the PIT Regulations, 1992 and also against the OMDC for violation of Clause 36 of Listing
Agreement read with Section 21 of SCRA.
 SL 3. MR. PRANNOY ROY AND MRS. RADHIKA ROY v. SEBI [SAT]

Brief SEBI conducted an investigation into the suspected insider trading in the scrip of NDTV (the Company) and the investigation detected that Mr. Prannoy
facts: Roy and Mrs. Radhika Roy were insiders in terms of regulation 2(e) of the PIT Regulations, 1992.
Mr. Prannoy Roy and Mrs. Radhika Roy indulged in the act of insider trading and made a wrongful gain of ₹16.97 crores by trading in the scrip of New
Delhi Television Ltd (NDTV) while in possession of unpublished price sensitive information (UPSI) relating to the proposed reorganization of the
Company and therefore, have violated the provision of sections 12A(d) and (e) of the SEBI Act, 1992 read with regulations 3(i) and 4 of the PIT
Regulations, 1992.
Mr. Prannoy Roy and Mrs. Radhika Roy sold their shares of NDTV on April 17, 2008, during trading window closure period, i.e., within 24 hours of the
public announcement of Price Sensitive Information relating to the proposed reorganization of the Company on April 16, 2008 and as such have
violated NDTV's Code of Conduct and the provisions of regulation 12(2) read with regulation 12(1) of the PIT Regulations, 1992.
Decision:

Reason: SEBI vide order dated 27.11.2020 issued the following directions:
(a) Mr. Prannoy Roy and Mrs. Radhika Roy shall, jointly or severally, disgorge the amount of wrongful gain of ₹16,97,38,335/- , along with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from April 17, 2008, till the date of actual payment of disgorgement amount along with interest, within 45 days from the date of
coming into force of this order; and
(b) Mr. Prannoy Roy and Mrs. Radhika Roy shall be restrained from accessing the securities market and further prohibited them from buying, selling or
otherwise dealing in securities, directly or indirectly, or being associated with the securities market in any manner, whatsoever, for a period of 2 years.
Further, Mr. Prannoy Roy and Mrs. Radhika Roy filed an appeal against the SEBI’s order dated November 27, 2020 whereby SEBI had barred them from
the securities market for two years and also directed them to disgorge illegal gains of ₹ 16.97 crore for indulging in insider trading more than 12 years
ago.
SAT has directed NDTV's promoters Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy to deposit 50 per cent of the disgorged amount before SEBI within four weeks. If
NDTV deposits the amount, the balance amount will not be recovered during the pendency of the appeal before SAT.
 IL 1. BABULAL VARDHARJI GURJAR v. VEER GURJAR ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES PVT LTD & ANR [SC]
Brief facts: • This appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is directed against the judgment and order passed by the NCLAT
whereby, the Appellate Tribunal has rejected the contention that the application made by respondent No. 2, seeking initiation of Corporate
Insolvency Resolution Process in respect of the debtor company (respondent No. 1), is barred by limitation; and has declined to interfere with
the order, passed by the NCLT, for commencement of CIRP as prayed for by the respondent No. 2.
• In the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal has observed that the Code having come into force on 01.12.2016, the application made in the
year 2018 is within limitation.
Decision:

Reason: SC held that when Section 238-A of the Code is read with the consistent decisions of this Court in Innoventive Industries, B.K. Educational Services,
Swiss Ribbons, K. Sashidhar, Jignesh Shah, Vashdeo R. Bhojwani, Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave and Sagar Sharma respectively, the following basics
undoubtedly come to the fore:
 that the Code is a beneficial legislation intended to put the corporate debtor back on its feet and is not a mere money recovery legislation;
 that CIRP is not intended to be adversarial to the corporate debtor but is aimed at protecting the interests of the corporate debtor;
 that intention of the Code is not to give a new lease of life to debts which are time-barred;
that the period of limitation for an application seeking initiation of CIRP under Section 7 of the Code is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act
and is, therefore, three years from the date when right to apply accrues;
 that the trigger for initiation of CIRP by a financial creditor is default on the part of the corporate debtor, that is to say, that the right to apply
under the Code accrues on the date when default occurs;
that default referred to in the Code is that of actual nonpayment by the corporate debtor when a debt has become due and payable; and
 that if default had occurred over three years prior to the date of filing of the application, the application would be time-barred save and except in
those cases where, on facts, the delay in filing may be condoned; and
 an application under Section 7 of the Code is not for enforcement of mortgage liability and Article 62 of the Limitation Act does not apply to this
application.
The discussion foregoing leads to the inescapable conclusion that the application made by the respondent No. 2 under Section 7 of the Code in the
month of March 2018, seeking initiation of CIRP in respect of the corporate debtor with specific assertion of the date of default as 08.07.2011, is
clearly barred by limitation for having been filed much later than the period of three years from the date of default as stated in the application.
The impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the application filed by the respondent No. 2 deserves to be rejected as being barred by
limitation.
 IL 2.SAGUFA AHMED(APPELLANT) v. UPPER ASSAM PLYWOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD [SC]
Brief facts: • Though the appellants admittedly received the certified copy of the order on 19.12.2019, they chose to file the statutory appeal before
NCLAT on 20.07.2020. The appeal was filed along with an application for condonation of delay.
• By an order dated 04.08.2020, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the Tribunal
has no power to condone the delay beyond a period of 45 days. Consequently the appeal was also dismissed.
• It is against the dismissal of both the application for condonation of delay as well as the appeal, which the appellants have come up with
the present appeals.
Decision:

Reason: • The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants are twofold namely
(i) that the Appellate Tribunal erred in computing the period of limitation from the date of the order of the NCLT, contrary to Section 421(3) of
the Companies Act, 2013, and
(ii) that the Appellate Tribunal failed to take note of the lockdown as well as the order passed by this Court on 23.03.2020 in Suo Motu Writ
Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020, extending the period of limitation for filing any proceeding with effect from 15.03.2020 until further orders.
• From 19.12.2019, the date on which the counsel for the appellants received the copy of the order, the appellants had a period of 45 days
to file an appeal. This period expired on 02.02.2020. By virtue of the proviso to Section 421(3), the Appellate Tribunal was empowered to
condone the delay up to a period of period of 45 days. This period of 45 days started running from 02.02.2020 and it expired even
according to the appellants on 18.03.2020. The appellants did not file the appeal on or before 18.03.2020, but filed it on 20.07.2020.
• It is relevant to note that the lock down was imposed only on 24.03.2020 and there was no impediment for the appellants to file the
appeal on or before 18.03.2020. To overcome this difficulty, the appellants rely upon the order of this Court dated 23.03.2020 in Suo
Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020. This takes us to the second contention of the appellants. But we do not think that the appellants
can take refuge under the above order. What was extended by the above order of this Court was only “the period of limitation” and not
the period up to which delay can be condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the statute.
• The above order passed by this Court was intended to benefit vigilant litigants who were prevented due to the pandemic and the
lockdown, from initiating proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed by general or special law. Therefore, the appellants
cannot claim the benefit of the order passed by this Court on 23.03.2020, for enlarging, even the period up to which delay can be
condoned. The second contention is thus untenable. Hence the appeals are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, they are dismissed.
 IL 3. SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED v. RAJEEV ANAND [SC]

Brief facts: • Appellant-financial creditor had granted two loans to the respondent corporate debtor and later on restructured the loans.
• As the corporate debtor was in default an application under section 7 of the IBC was filed. NCLT admitted the application but on appeal NCLAT
dismissed the application.
• Against this dismissal the appellant is before the Supreme Court.
Decision:

Reason: • SC held that a bare reading of the NCLT order shows that it is only after a perusal of the documents, pleadings, and the supplementary affidavit of
03.08.2018, including the counter affidavit in the earlier section 7 application, that the NCLT came to the conclusion that a loan amount remained
outstanding.
• The NCLAT wrongly recorded that documents which were already rejected by the adjudicating authority could not have been the basis of the order
of admission and there was no further evidence in support of the fact that any amount was outstanding. Further, the NCLAT also held that a
‘document’ filed in the earlier petition that was dismissed as withdrawn could not have been relied upon by the adjudicating authority. The NCLAT
is wrong on all these counts.
• For all these reasons, we set aside the NCLAT order and restore that of the NCLT. The resolution proceedings will continue from the stage at which
they were interrupted.
 IL 4. KIRAN GUPTA v. STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANR [SC]

Brief facts: The short question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether a bank/financial institution can institute or continue with
proceedings against a guarantor under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
(for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’), when proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IB Code) have been initiated against the
principal borrower and the same are pending adjudication.
Decision:

Reason: • The question as to whether the respondent/Bank can proceed against a guarantor even after initiation of proceedings under the IB Code
also stands settled. As correctly pointed out, the said issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Supreme Court
in State Bank of India v. V.Ramakrishan & Anr, reported as (2018) 17 SCC 394 (supra).
• Paras 20 and 25 of the said decision read as under:-
“20. Section 14 refers to four matters that may be prohibited once the moratorium comes into effect. In each of the matters referred to, what is
conspicuous by its absence is any mention of the personal guarantor. Indeed, the corporate debtor and the corporate debtor alone is referred to
in the said section. A plain reading of the said section, therefore, leads to the conclusion that the moratorium referred to in Section 14 does not
apply on personal guarantors of a corporate debtor.
25. Section 31 of the Act was also strongly relied upon by the respondents. This section only states that once a resolution plan, as approved by
the Committee of Creditors, takes effect, it shall be binding on the corporate debtor as well as the guarantor. This is for the reason that
otherwise, under Section 133 of the Contract Act, 1872, any change made to the debt owed by the corporate debtor, without the surety’s
consent, would relieve the guarantor from payment. Section 31(1), in fact, makes it clear that the guarantor cannot escape payment as the
resolution plan, which has been approved, may well include provisions as to payments to be made by such guarantor.
• The view expressed by the Supreme Court amply demonstrates that neither Section 14 nor Section 31 of the IB Code place any fetters on
Banks/Financial Institutions from initiation and continuation of the proceedings against the guarantor for recovering their dues.
• That being the position, the plea taken by the counsel for the petitioner is rejected as meritless. The liability of the principal borrower and
the Guarantor remain co-extensive and the respondent/Bank is well entitled to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under the SARFESI
Act during the continuation of the Insolvency Resolution Process against the Principal Borrower. In view of the above discussion, the case
was dismissed along with the pending application.
 IL 5. KALEDONIA JUTE & FIBRES PVT LTD v. AXIS NIRMAN & INDUSTRIES &ORS [SC]
Brief • On the winding up petition of M/s Girdhar Trading Co., the 2nd respondent herein, the High Court of Allahabad, passed the winding up order against
facts: the Respondent No.1 and appointed the Official Liquidator(OL). Thereafter, the 1st respondent paid the entire amount due to the petitioning
creditor (Respondent No.2) along with costs.
• However, the Company Court kept the winding up order in abeyance, directing the OL to continue to be in custody of the assets of the Company.
While things stood thus, the appellant herein, claiming to be a creditor of the1st respondent herein, filed an application before the NCLT, and it
moved an application before the company court seeking a transfer of the winding up petition to the NCLT, Allahabad. This application was rejected by
the Company Court, on the sole ground that the requirement of Rule 24 had already been complied with and that a winding up order had already
been passed.
• The financial creditor has come up with this civil appeal against the order of the High court, refusing to transfer the winding up proceedings from the
Company Court to the NCLT.
Decision

Reason: • The main issues that arise for consideration in this appeal are that-
(i) what are the circumstances under which a winding up proceeding pending on the file of a High Court could be transferred to the NCLT; and
(ii) at whose instance, such transfer could be ordered.
• Thus, the proceedings for winding up of a company are actually proceedings in rem to which the entire body of creditors is a party. The proceeding
might have been initiated by one or more creditors, but by a deeming fiction the petition is treated as a joint petition. The official liquidator acts for
and on behalf of the entire body of creditors. Therefore, the word “party” appearing in the 5th proviso to Clause (c) of Subsection (1) of section 434
cannot be construed to mean only the single petitioning creditor or the company or the official liquidator.
• The above conclusion can be reached through another method of deductive logic also. If any creditor is aggrieved by any decision of the official
liquidator, he is entitled under the 1956 Act to challenge the same before the Company Court. Once he does that, he becomes a party to the
proceeding. Instead of asking a party to adopt such a circuitous route and then take recourse to the 5 th proviso to section 434(1) (c), it would be
better to recognise the right of such a party to seek transfer directly.
• As observed by this Court in Forech India Limited (supra), the object of IBC will be defeated if parallel proceedings are allowed to go on in different
forum. Therefore,the SC is of the considered view that the petitioner herein will come within the definition of the expression “party” appearing in
the 5th proviso to Clause (c) of Subsection (1) of Section 434 of the Companies Act, 2013 and that the petitioner is entitled to seek a transfer of the
pending winding up proceedings against the first respondent, to the NCLT. Therefore, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the
proceedings for winding up pending before the Company Court (Allahabad High Court) against the first respondent herein, is ordered to be
transferred to the NCLT, to be taken up along with the application of the appellant herein under Section 7 of the IBC. There will be no order as to
costs.
 CO 1. THUPILI RAVEENDRA BABU v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS [CCI]
Brief • The instant information was filed by the Informant alleging contravention of provisions of Section 4 of the Act by Bar Council of India and its
facts: office bearers, collectively referred to as ‘Opposite Parties’.
• The informant was 52 years old and could not pursue legal education post his retirement. As per the BCI Rules, candidates belonging to General
category who have attained the age of more than 30 years, are barred from pursuing legal education. The allegations were based on this age
restriction, The BCI has allegedly imposed maximum age restrictions upon the new entrants to enter into the legal education and thus, created
indirect barriers to the new entrants in the profession of legal service in contravention of Section 4 of the Act by ‘misusing its dominant
position’.
• By having done so, the BCI has also allegedly indulged in colourable exercise of power.
• The Informant has further alleged that the members of the BCI, by way of aforementioned Clause 28, conspired to reduce the competition to its
electors and created indirect barriers in the profession of legal service.
• He has also alleged that the members of the BCI who are managing the affairs of the BCI are misusing the dominant position enjoyed by the BCI
in controlling the legal education in India.
Decision:

Reason: • The Commission has carefully perused the information, the documents filed by the Informant and the information available in public domain.
The Commission notes that the Informant has alleged contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, primarily, against the BCI.
However, in order to appreciate the facts in the matter, it is imperative to examine the status of the BCI as an enterprise within the provisions of
Section 2(h) of the Act before proceeding further with regard to the allegations raised in the information.
The term ‘enterprise’ has been defined under Section 2(h) of the Act, inter alia, as a person or a department of the Government, engaged in any
activity relating to provision of any kind of services.
• In the present matter, the Commission notes that the BCI is a statutory body established under Section 4 of the Advocates Act, 1961. Section 7
of the said Act lays down the functions of the BCI which includes promotion of legal education in India and to lay down standards of such
education in consultation with the Universities in India and the State Bar councils. Further, Section 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961 empowers the
BCI to make rules for discharging its functions under the said Act such as prescribing qualifications and disqualifications for membership of a Bar
Council, minimum qualifications required for admission to a course of degree in law in any recognised university, prescribing the standards of
legal education for the universities in India, etc.
• Thus, it is noted that the BCI appears to carry out functions which are regulatory in nature in respect of the legal profession.
• In the present matter, when the BCI appears to be discharging its regulatory functions, it cannot be said to be an ‘enterprise’ within the
meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act and consequently, the Commission is of the opinion that there exists no prima facie case under the
provisions of Section 4 of the Act.
 I 2: MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. v. CANARA BANK & ORS. [SC]
Brief There are two issues which have arisen for the consideration of Hon’ble Supreme Court:
facts: (i) the first issue raised by the Appellant – MTNL with respect to the existence of a valid arbitration agreement between the three parties;
(ii) the second issue has been raised by Respondent No. 1 – Canara Bank that the Order are between Canara Bank and MTNL. Respondent No.
2 – CANFINA, is not a party to the arbitration agreement, and hence cannot be impleaded in the proceedings.
Decision:

Reason: • Hon’ble SC observed that a binding agreement for disputes to be resolved through arbitration is a requirement for referring the parties to
arbitration. The arbitration agreement need not be in any particular form. What is required to be ascertained is the intention of the parties to
settle their disputes through arbitration. Section 7(4)(b) of the 1996 Act, states that an arbitration agreement can be derived from exchange
of letters, telex, telegram or other means of communication, including through electronic means.
• The agreement between MTNL and Canara Bank to refer the disputes to arbitration is evidenced from the various documents. The agreement
between the parties as recorded in a judicial Order, is final and conclusive of the agreement entered into between the parties.
• The Appellant – MTNL after giving its consent to refer the disputes to arbitration before the Delhi High Court, is now estopped from
contending that there was no written agreement to refer the parties to arbitration.
• Further, a non-signatory can be bound by an arbitration agreement on the basis of the “Group of Companies” doctrine, where the conduct of
the parties evidences a clear intention of the parties to bind both the signatory as well as the non-signatory parties.
• SC held, CANFINA is undoubtedly a necessary and proper party to the arbitration proceedings. The matter is remitted to the Sole
Arbitrator to continue with the arbitral proceedings, and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible.

vs
2 case studies
added in Chapter 2
(Securities Law)
 THE FUTURE RETAIL LIMITED

WINDING UP OF SIX YIELD-ORIENTED FIXED INCOME SCHEMES OF FRANKLIN

TEMPLETON INDIA AMID COVID-19
2 case studies
added in Chapter 6
 Major CS 5
Business Strategy and Management
AXA – Creating the New CR Metrics
Introduction
A global leader in the insurance and asset management business, AXA had risen to the top ranks in terms of corporate

responsibility (CR) as well. In 2014, the French-based insurer led the industry on a number of corporate social

responsibility and sustainability indexes. Not content to rest on these laurels, AXA transferred its CR team from the

department that included the Communications function to a newly created department combining the Strategy, CR, and

Public Affairs functions together, to further integrate CR into the core of the business. The company was formed in the

1980s through the merger of a few mid-sized French insurance firms. From the beginning, AXA’s CEO Claude Bébéar

aspired to build the first global insurance brand. The company made a series of acquisitions in the 1990s, including

companies in the United States, Europe, Africa, and Asia. AXA was hailed in the business press for savvy deal-making.

The company took over struggling franchises and utilizing its strong balance sheet, technical expertise and abilities in

product innovation, managed to turn around their acquisitions. Over time, AXA also branded the companies under the

AXA banner, assembling a global brand piece by piece.

Strategic Move
In 2010, the company announced Ambition AXA, a five-year strategic plan to grow the company. The plan called for

harvesting slow-growing businesses in mature markets, investing in emerging markets, and reducing the company’s

overall cost of operations. Under the strategy, AXA made significant acquisitions and deals in Asia, Africa and Latin

America. The company became the leading foreign insurance provider in China and a player in the Indian market. By

2014, AXA employed 157,000 people across the globe, serviced over 100 million clients, enjoyed a €50 billion market

cap, and managed over €1,000 billion in assets. According to Interbrand, AXA’s was the leading global brand name in

insurance, and also the leading "green" insurance brand. Throughout its growth, AXA’s leadership had maintained an

interest in corporate social responsibility, and many AXA employees believed that CR was in the DNA of the

organization. During 1980s, Bébéar set up a number of organizations to bring business leaders together to tackle social

problems and engage in philanthropy. Inside AXA in 1990, the company created AXA Atout Coeur ("Hearts in Action")

to encourage and support community engagement by employees, and in 2001 it established the Group’s first

"sustainable development" function.

But it wasn’t until 2008 that the company created a formal CR strategy. Following an internal study that argued that

corporate responsibility was a key strategic area for the company to pursue, AXA’s first global CR action plan was

launched. Under the direction of Alice Steenland, AXA’s CR team created a proprietary CR metric for the company,

which was adapted for each of the company’s major operating activities. This metric allowed AXA leadership to assess
the company’s CR work and provided a framework for individual units to formulate their own CR goals. The CR team’s

work also helped AXA become more visible within the larger CR community and led to the company’s success on ratings

metrics constructed by various outside organizations.

On the Path of Success

In September of 2014, the CR team's success led AXA leadership to transfer it from the department that included the

Communications function to the department comprised of the Strategy and Public Affairs functions. This new integrated

department was baptized "Strategy, Sustainability, and Public Affairs." The reorganization inspired a reconsideration of

how AXA monitored and measured its CR efforts. The metrics Steenland and her group had constructed were adapted

from outside ratings agencies, notably using the Dow Jones Sustainability Index methodology created for investors. As

part of the company’s strategy apparatus, Steenland and her team were now looking to create new CR metrics that tied

CR work more closely to AXA's operations and growth. To do so, Steenland would have to identify CR issues of

particular concern to the company, examine how addressing these CR issues would add value to the company (e.g. by

fostering innovation, by reducing costs), and then create metrics that would capture a business unit’s success or failure

in addressing the CR issue. Creating new metrics was a tall order, but considered to be another step to establish CR

inside AXA. Eventually, the company aspired to produce an “integrated report” that would define the Group’s next

strategy for the 2020 time horizon, measured by a set of metrics reflecting in an integrated way the financial, but also

the social and environmental, value created by the company.

 Major CS 6
Indira Gandhi International Airport- Collins Aerospace
Introduction
India is growing. A rising upper and middle class combined with increased consumer spending is propelling India

towards greater economic prosperity. That wealth is boosting air traffic – so much so that India may soon overtake

Japan to become the world’s third largest domestic market behind the U.S. and China. Delhi’s Indira Gandhi International

Airport (DEL) is a symbol of India’s burgeoning progress as an economic and travel center, connecting to 127
destinations worldwide and serving as a hub for many major airlines, including Air India, Vistara, IndiGo and SpiceJet.

A recent report published by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) listed Indira Gandhi International Airport

(IGIA) as the 12th busiest airport worldwide in November 2016,1 coinciding with the airport crossing the 50 million

passenger mark – the highest ever in the country. IGIA also enjoys international recognition as the world’s second best

airport in the “largest airport” category (passenger capacity of over 40 million passengers per annum) as recognized by

the prestigious Airports Council International’s (ACI) Airport Service Quality 2016 rankings.

Achieving the Vision

Since the beginning, “Passenger Delight” has been a single minded goal for DIAL, driving the shape of the company,

its services and everything it stands for. A key enabler of the airport’s goal is its “Fast Travel” vision: taking the best

ideas in the airport business and making them a reality for passengers. To achieve this vision, DIAL saw a need to

implement new technologies that would provide significant benefits to its passengers. In 2009, the airport turned to

Collins Aerospace, beginning a deep and strategic relationship between the two companies. Collins Aerospace

understood DIAL’s vision and used it as the basis for its technology recommendations, without losing sight of creating

value for the airport by reducing operational challenges, creating efficiency gains and maximizing return on investments.

Since then, DIAL has benefited from a host of Collins’ solutions throughout the entire airport, including its ARINC v

MUSE™ common use passenger processing system, ARINC SelfServ™ kiosks for self-service check-in, the ARINC

VeriPax TM passenger reconciliation system and ARINC BagLink™ for baggage messaging, as well as a baggage

reconciliation system (BRS) and a local departure control system (LDCS) deployed as part of Collins’ airport system

integration.

Transformation of IGIA
Collins’ initial relationship with DIAL involved the implementation of CUTE (Common Use Terminal Equipment) in

Terminal 1D (T1D) in 2009, making it the first domestic terminal to be equipped with this technology. Previously, airlines

operated dedicated check-in systems that created operational and cost inefficiencies. CUTE provided airlines

interoperability to use any workstations for day-to-day operations, allowing faster passenger check-in and processing.
The implementation of Collins’ solutions helped IGIA T1D handle its capacity issues, reducing processing time as well

as decreasing passenger frustration and airport congestion. In addition, Collins’ commitment to training, support and

collaboration across all relevant stakeholders made the implementation of the new systems seamless. The positive

results led the two organizations to extend their collaboration to IGIA Terminal 3 (T3).

Exceeding Expectations with IGIA

Integrated International Terminal Similar to Terminal 1D, the airport needed to implement a common use solution for its

T3 international terminal to better manage growth. This second implementation presented a unique challenge – time

was a key factor. With India set to host the 2010 Commonwealth Games, the new systems had to be implemented prior

to the beginning of the multisport event. Collins turned the challenge into an opportunity and managed to successfully

deliver 650+ CUTE workstations and 100+ baggage reconciliation system (BRS) scanners ahead of schedule. In

addition, the Collins implementation included the installation of India’s first remote check-in solution at Delhi Metro’s

Shivaji Stadium and New Delhi stations, where Air India and Jet Airways passengers commuting to IGIA have the option

to check in, obtain their boarding passes and check in luggage as well. This significantly reinforced DIAL’S reputation

as a leader in the use of the newest technologies to reduce congestion as well as simplify and improve the passenger

experience.

Surge in India’s Domestic Travel

Collins has also helped DIAL manage the dramatic increase in domestic passengers. India’s domestic travel has grown

at over 20 percent per annum in recent years, overtaking its international growth rate of 10 percent per year.3 To help

accommodate this tremendous growth, DIAL has shifted some of the passenger traffic from T1 to T2. However, T2

initially lacked the necessary technologies to support such a significant increase in capacity. Collins’ implementation of

CUPPS (Common Use Passenger Processing) and BRS in T2 has streamlined its operations, which has created time

and cost savings as well as helped achieve operational excellence in capacity. Collins’ implementation of CUPPS

(Common Use Passenger Processing) and BRS in T2 has streamlined its operations, which has created time and cost

savings as well as helped achieve operational excellence.

Strategic Relationship Delivering Results

Collins has earned a well-deserved reputation with DIAL – and throughout India – as a trusted partner for its ability to

deliver high-quality, high-value solutions that have a dramatic impact on airport operations. The relationship has been

so successful that DIAL has twice honoured Collins with its “Best IT Service Provider” award. Together, DIAL and Collins

have developed a long-term strategic relationship dedicated to achieving DEL’s “Fast Travel” vision, delighting

passengers today and for decades to come.