Judgements Econimic laws ( Only Relevant ).

Name
Act

S.no. Judgement Name Facts Question of law/ facts Final Judgement

Three car manufacturers restricted free 1. Cannot be considered solely discharging

Mahindra Electric Mobility 1. CCI exercising judicial functions
1 availability of spare parts in the open judicial powers.
Limited& Ors. 2. Revolving door practice.
markets. 2. Who herd must decide first.

Day & Night news agreement with MSO, Abuse of Dominant position be exercised by
Competition commission Notice served to terminate the agreement
2 of India VS M/s Fast way with Day night channel.
transmission Alleged that MSO abused dominant
position by denying market access.
Competition Act, 2002
As per apex court, market access denial is being
one creditor against the other.
done by a competitor or not is not relevant
MSO and day night are not competitors
once dominance is made out.MSO held not
does not mean abuse of dominant not
guilty and penalty waived.
enacted.

Tender floated by IOCL for purchase of LPG
cylinders, terms of purchase challenged by
Rajasthan Cylinders and purchasers.
3
Containers Limited VS UOI
Bid rigging and cartelization allegations
imposed by IOCL in revert.
Supreme court: CCI had to inquire the relevant
factors. Since there were only limited LPG
Enterprises in violation of the act when manufacturers hence cartelization cannot be
market conditions not conducive. proved. Hence not sufficient evidence to hold
LPG manufacturers violative of Competition act.
Order of COMPAT set aside.

Google alleged for abuse of dominant

position in the mobile operating systems
Umar Javed and Google market. Whether google abused it's dominant
4 Case pending at SC
LLC. Manufacturers of android phones had to position
enter into agreement of MADA with
google.
HOD alleged Esaote abused dominant
House of Diagnostics LLP market position. Easote found to abused dominant position and
5 and Esaote Asia Pacific (Refusing to supply spare parts to HOD and Did Easote acted in contravention of Sec 4? penalty imposed on it.( Opinion of CCI
Diagnostics Pvt ltd. insisted Comprehensive Maintenance members)
Contract.
 Panasonic manufactures Zinc carbon
CCI held Panasonic, everyday and Nippon guilty
batteries, agreement with Godrej for
Anti competitive conduct of Cartel
supply. Bilateral ancillary cartel existed between
6 in dry cell batteries
Panasonic entered into price fixing Panasonic and Godrej
market in India. Godrej Suggested Vertical agreement and not
agreement with it's competitors Everyday
horizontal agreement.
and Nippo.

Alleged that Hyundai perpetuates "hub and

FX Enterprises Solutions spoke agreement" wherein bilateral vertical NCLT observed section 19 ( relevant market
Whether Hyundai acted in contravention
7 India Pvt Ltd and Hyundai agreements between Hyundai and it's factors) have not been considered by CCI, hence
of section 3 of the act?
Motor India Ltd. dealers & horizontal agreements between view of CCE overruled by NCLT.
dealers resulted price collusion.

CCI observed cluster market existed for spare

OEM and automobile manufacturers parts for each brand of car manufacturer by
Sanshaer Kataria Vs
alleged for restricting the availability of Whether OEM abusing dominant OEM.
Competition Act, 2002

8 Honda Siel Cars India Ltd.

genuine parts of automobiles in open positions.?
And ors.
market. Hence found Indian spare parts market as
separate market from that of cars.

CCI is ill equipped to proceed on account of

Deny of access to Jio by not providing CCI has jurisdictions to enter into matters
9 CCI vs Bharti Airtel Ltd. absence of determination of Jurisdictional
adequate ports for POI's not decided by TRAI?
aspects hence, first TRAI decides then CCI.

Alleged WhatsApp and Facebook Inc. for Whether introduction of payment Voluntary installation of WhatsApp not
Harshita Chawla Vs
10 abusing the dominant position in launching mechanism of WhatsApp pay can be mandatory, cci did not find any contravention of
WhatsApp.
their payment app services. considered as "coercion." provisions of sec 4.

Locus standi to approach the CCI lies with person

either consumer of goods/ services or beneficiary
Alleged uber and Ola forming hub and of competition.
11 Samir Agrawal Vs CCI
spoke cartel.
No pricing agreement found between the
operators hence CCI held not guilty.

Swiss Ribbons Pvt Ltd and
1 Anr Vs Union of India &
ors.
Pioneer Urban Land and
2 Infrastructure Ltd. And anr
vs Union of India.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
Macquirie Bank Limited Vs
Hamera International private ltd and
3 Shilpi Cable Technologies
Macquirie Bank agreement for dealership
Ltd.
BK educational service
4 private ltd. Vs Parag
Gupta and Associates.
State Bank of India Vs
5
Ramakrishna
Amount raised from allottees and
questioned as financial or operational
debt.
Advocate/ Lawyer can raise a notice under
section 8 on behalf of the operational
SBI gave loan to Veesons energy. Upon
default proceedings initiated under
SARFAESIA. MD claimed that during
moratorium period his personal guarantee
is also covered and hence can not be
attached.
1. No difference of Operational and
Financial Creditors. 1. Financial and operational creditors different (
2. Constitutional validity of IBC challenged. section 5(8))
3A. How resolution professional can take 2. Article 14 not affected.
quasi judicial power. 3A B. Section 28 66.66 % approval needed of COC
3B. Resolution professional appointed in hence acts as facilitator only.
Quasi judicial capacity.
1. Debt from homer buyers is different from Amount raised from allottees is covered by the
operational debt or debt from home buyers term "borrow" hence as per section 5(8)(f), such
shall be financial debt.? amount is financial debt.
Lawyer can raise on behalf of operational
creditor notice under section 8 of the code.
creditor.?
1.Limitations act 1963 can be invoked for
1. Yes limitations act is applicable on applications
applications before commencement of the
filed under sections 7 and 9.
code?
2. From date of submission and transactions even
2.In exam refer: From the submission of
though 3 years lapsed the application can be
claims or date of transactions
admitted.
Whether moratorium period applies to Section 14 of the code does not apply to personal
personal guarantee of corporate debtor? guarantor of the code.
 Supreme court: Plausible contention (
documentary evidence ) required for further
investigation, dispute is not patently feeble
Mobilox Innovations Pvt Kirusa raised demand notice to Corporate argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by
To what extent can NCLT go into depth of
6 Ltd Vs Kirusa Software Pvt debtor. Mobilox relied existence of dispute evidence. Hence SC allowed the application of
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

existence of dispute?
Ltd. though no such evidence of dispute existed. CIRP.
In exam if reply is with email and the same is
not supported with any documentary evidence
the allow such application for CIRP.

Section 30(4) of the code makes mandatory to

K. Sashidhar Vs Indian Approval of 66.67 % received in COC ( old Can NCLT reject the resolution plant gain approval of requisite 66.66% ( 75 percent
7
Overseas Bank & ors. law 75%) approved by COC. old law). Hence NCLT can not adopt a different
approach in these matters.

NCLT: Coded does not defines the meaning of

Whether landlord providing the lease will goods and services and hence as per general
M ravindranath Reddy Vs Appellant alleged the respondent for not
8 be treated as providing services and hence parlance such claim is a debt and will be
G Krishna and Ors paying the dues of rental charges.
the operational creditors? considered as operational debt for providing
services.
 An appeal was filed by the promoter of
the Corporate Debtor and the dissenting
financial creditor on the preliminary
ground that the amount provided in the
resolution plan is lower than the average
of the liquidation value arrived at by the
valuers.
NCLAT held that since the amount
provided in the resolution plan was lower
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

than the average of the liquidation value The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is
Maharashtra Seamless arrived at by the valuers, therefore, the no breach of the provisions of the Code or the
Whether scheme of resolution plan should
9 Limited Vs Padmanphan resolution plan approved by the regulations, and upheld the order of the
match the value of liquidation?
and ors Adjudicating Authority is against Section Adjudicating Authority approving the resolution
30(2)(b) of the Code. plan.

Aggrieved by the decision of NCLAT, the

successful resolution applicant preferred
an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. The primary issue for consideration
before the Apex Court was whether the
scheme of the Code contemplate that the
sum forming part of the resolution plan
should match the liquidation value or not.

Bijay Kumar Agarwal, Ex- Whether a financial creditor is permitted For the same set of claims, if an application is
Director of M/s Genegrow Financial creditor filed an application for to initiate CIRP proceedings under Section filed against one of them, a second application
10 Commercial Pvt. Ltd. v. CIRP against the principal debtor as well as 7 of the IBC against the principal debtor as filed by the same Financial Creditor for the
State Bank of India and the guarantor for the claim of debts. well as the guarantor, for the same set of same set of claims and default is not to be
Anr claims? admitted

Flat Buyers Association,
Winter Hills – 77, Gurgaon
11
v. Umang Realtech Pvt.
Ltd. and Ors.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
NCLAT held that CIRP against corporate debtor is
limited to a project in accordance with the
approved plan by the Competent Authority and
Whether the Corporate Insolvency not other projects which are separate at other
Resolution Process (CIRP) proceedings places for which separate plans approved.
CIRP initiated by allottees against Umang
initiated by a flat buyer in relation to one If the same real estate company (Corporate
Realtech Pvt ltd and Ors.
project of a real estate company will affect Debtor herein) has any other project in another

the other group projects of the company.? town such as Mumbai or Kerala or Delhi, they
cannot be clubbed together nor the asset of the
Corporate Debtor (Company) for such other
projects can be maximized.

Corporate debtor did not create funds for

gratuity payment as per the legal
savan godiawala vs mr
12 requirements of Payment of Gratuity Act.
apalla siva Kumar
Application filed to NCLT to treat gratuity
payment as high priority payment.
Gratuity, PF and pension fund do not form part
Can liquidator be directed to pay for the
o the assets of liquidation. Liquidator cannot
funds even though gratuity fund not
avoid payment of liability of Corporate Debtors
created by the corporate debtor.?
for not maintaining the funds for payments.

CLAT stayed the order of attachment passed by

the ED and also prohibited it from attaching
NCLT approved the resolution plan Whether ED has jurisdiction to attach the
JSW Steels Ltd Vs property of Bhushan Power without seeking prior
submitted by JSW of the IBC cirp thereafter property of a corporate debtor or part
13 Mahender Kumar approval of the NCLAT. NCLAT also directed the
the ED attached the property of Bhushan thereof which is undergoing a ‘corporate
Khandelwal and Ors. that the property already attached by the ED be
Power insolvency resolution process?
realised in favour of the resolution professional
immediately.
 The appeals were dismissed and the appellants
could not claim the benefit of extension of the
limitation period for the period of condonation
of delay.
The Court held that the order passed by this
court on 23.03.2020 extends only the period of
1) NCLAT erred in computing the limitation
limitation and not the period of condonation of
period from the date of NCLT order,
The appellants filed an appeal, against the delay. Section 421(3) of the Companies Act, 2013
contrary to Section 421(3) of the
NCLT order, before the National Company provides that the period of limitation for an
Companies Act, 2013 which states that such
Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on appeal before NCLAT is 45 days from the date on
limitation period should be computed from
20.07.2020. The appeal was filed along with which a certified copy is available to the
Sagufa Ahmed Vs Upper the date on which a copy of NCLT order is
an application for condonation of delay. aggrieved party, i.e., 19.12.2019. This period shall
14 Assam Plywood Products available to an aggrieved person.
NCLAT, through an order dated 04.08.2020, expire on 02.02.2020
Pvt Ltd.
dismissed such application as the period for Further, the proviso to Section 421(3)
2) NCLAT failed to take note of the
condonation of delay was 45 days and the empowers the tribunal to condone the delay up
lockdown due to COVID-19 as well as the
tribunal would have no power to accept to 45 days. This period shall expire on
order passed by SC on 23.03.2020 to
any application beyond such period. 18.03.2020. The lockdown was imposed on
extend the limitation period for filing an
24.03.2020 and no such impediment was there
appeal before a tribunal w.e.f. 15.03.2020.
for the appellants to file an appeal on or before
18.03.2020. The court held that the extension
was only for “the period of limitation and not
the period up to which delay can be condoned
in exercise of discretion conferred by the
statute”.
 Narayan Mundailer sold ancestral property
and purchased suit property in name of Whether transaction can be claimed as
Magathai Ammal (Died)
1 Rajesahwari (wife). Consideration was paid benami transaction when sale deed / 6 guiding circumstances.
Through Lrs Vs Rajeshwari
by Narayan Mundailer and stamp duty was transaction in name of Rajeshwari?
also in his name.

GV Rao purchased property in name of 3 Whether financial assistance can be said to Not Benami as intention was to provide
Smt. P. Leelavathi vs V
2 sons and daughter claimed 1/4 share in be the benami transaction which was given financial assistance.
Shankarnarayan Rao.
property acquired from ancestral property. by father to three sons.? In exam mention: 6 situations of case law 01.
Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act,1988

Real owner should have purchased the property

Father of the respondent( daughter
Savitha). Father purchased the property
when the respondent was a minor child
G Mahalingappa vs GM thereafter after her marriage she asked the
3 inference that he is the real owner. Also the
Savitha father to vacate the property and for
payment of property rent to her.
Respondent filed a recovery proceeding suit
against the father.
in name of ostensible owner for being a benami
transaction. The father in this case purchased
Dows plaintiff (daughter) prove that she is
the property for his own benefit supported the
the owner of the property?
Is she entitled for damages as claimed by
property was mortgaged and father had rented
her?
the premises for his own benefit.
Apex court held the property as Benami
Transaction.

Apex court: Mentioned two transactions as

benami.
Created shell firms to distribute the profits
1. A sold the property to B ut mentioned in name
Meenakshi Mills, Madurai CIT opined to club the profits of all the
4 Does the four firms form as benamidar ? of X. (Benami Transaction)
vs CIT firms in the computation of Meenakshi
2. A purports that he sold the property to B but
Mills
there is not actual transfer of property. - check
whether there is any consideration involved.

Plaintiff came provided funds to father and

Expression "fiduciary relationship" and a "
purchased the property in name of
relationship" of trustee cannot be so interrelated
property. Cases existed between the
Sh. Amar N Gugnani Vs Whether suit falls in the transactions of so as to in fact negate the Benami Act because all
5 Brothers. The Plaintiff's was of the view
Naresh Kumar Gugnani Benami Transactions act 1988? the properties are in nature of trust otherwise all
that such property was held by father in
the transactions would amount to holding that
name of father as trustee/ fiduciary
there is no Bemai act at all.
relation.(Perpetual lease)
 In definition of benami transaction, term
"provided" in the clause cannot be constructed
Whether plaintiff is the real owner of the
Pyarelal father of Pawan paid the in relation to the source of funds for the
Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs suit premises?
6 consideration for the purchase of property purchase of property.Eg. Other interpretation
Rochiram Nagdeo Whether defendant is tenant of plaintiff of
by Pawan. would harm the actual genuine transactions like
disputed premises?
bank providing funds for purchase of property.
Hence not benami transaction.
Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act,1988

Kan Singh brother of Bharat Singh The intention of the transferor matters .An
purchased property and kan Singh upon is order is passed directing the defendant to
death transferred the property in his name. deliver possession of the suit house to plaintiff
Ownership of the house issue.(Not related
7 Bhim Singh Vs Kan Singh Patta court transferred the property to No. 2 (Bhim singh Son) as Bharat singh who
to Benami property)
Bhim Singh ( Nephew of Bharat Singh). Kan purchased the property and handed the pattas
Singh claimed property as it was his family (title deeds) to Bhim Singh,his intentions were
property. clear to give property to Bhim Singh’s Son.

Malaya (Son1 of Angappa) purchased

property (from family consideration) after
an auction and registered in name of Wife
Whether property in name of Ramayee was
Vallliammal (D) By Lrs vs (Ramayee). Marappa( Son2) objected and
8 benami transaction? As basis of 6 parameters such property is benami.
Subramanium &Ors. claimed it as family property. Malaya failed
Cases between daughters of two sons.
to prove why he named the property in
name of wife.Claim of property denied and
property declared as family property.

Before the amendment in Benami Property

Niharika Jain W/o Shri act search was conducted u/s 132 of
Whether the amendment will be
9 Andesh Jain Vs Union Of income tax act. Section 3 amendment of Entire transaction treated as prospective act.
prospective or retrospective ?
India the benami act came after the transactions
took place.

Deepak Mahajan Arrested by Directorate
Directorate of
of Enforcement for an offence under
1 Enforcement Vs Deepak
FERA.Special leave petition filed with
Mahajan.
Supreme court on certain grounds.
1. As per 136 of the code of criminal procedures
the SLP is maintainable
1. Special leave petition maintainable.
2.Magistrate has jurisdictional rights under
2.Whether magistrate of FERA has
section 167(2) of the code to authorise the
jurisdictional rights to authorize the
detention o person arrested by any authorised
detention of person under 167 of the code
officer of the enforcement under FERA.
of criminal procedures.
3.Not a pre-requisite that person should be
3.Whether ED of FEMA OR CUSTOMS are
arrested by the police officer, apex court stated
the competent persons to take judicial
that the enforcement officer or customs officer
remand of an arrested person.?
can be termed as 'police officer' for the purpose
of the arrest.

Validity of attachment when properties

Prevention of Money Laundering, 2002

Search and seizure conducted under

PMT Machines Ltd vs The were under moratorium period.?
income tax act and provisional attachment Such property was not from the proceeds of
Deputy Director, In exam: Remember if properties are
2 was issued on properties of Corporate crime hence stance of Resolution Professional
Directorate of under moratorium period and such
debtor under moratorium period. (Section upheld
Enforcement, Delhi property relates to proceeds of crime then
14 of the code)
PMLA prevails else IBC wins.
1. Whether such offence covered by the
Delhi police along with forest department scheduled offence?
officials arrested Chacha on grounds of 2.Whether the wildlife examiner can be
B.K Singh vs Suraj Pal 1.Yes scheduled offence under PMLA
3 wildlife contraband alonwith upon search examined in court?
@Chacha. 2 and 3. No need as per Wild life act.
conducted confiscated INR 52 lakhs 3.Is there any requirement to physically
money. produce wildlife contraband under the
trial of court.

1. Section 45 of PMLA made all offences

non cognizable and accordingly without 1. AD power to arrest does not depend on the
magistrate's cognizance from special court question as to whether the offence is cognizable
PWD minister arrested on rounds of
Chhagan Chandrakunt the arrest could not have been effected. or non cognizable.
generating huge illicit funds of 840.16
4 Bhujbal vs Union of India 2. Grounds of arrest not mentioned in 2.Only condition required under section 19 was
crores as he awarded public works for self
and ors. writing in the arrest warrant. to have reasonable basis to arrest.
gain.
3.AD not competent to exercise powers of 3.DD and AD do not require any approval of CG
section 19 , hence had no power to arrest for arrest.
without CG approval.

Dalmia Cement Bharat Based of the allegations charge sheet was All summoned persons are bound to state truth
Whether statement made before ED PMLA
5 Ltd. Vs state of AP, filed against the company for being accused or make statements and produce such
is binding on the accused without proofs?
Hyderabad. under offence of PMLA documents may be required.(section 50)

Financial Intelligence Unit-
6
Prevention of Money Laundering, 2002
IND vs Corporation Bank
Smt k Soubhagya vs Union
7 PMLA and now claimed the PMLA
of India.
Sting operation conducted on banks for
accepting black money in form of Fixed
deposits. Penalty imposed and later an
amendment reduced the penalty.
Even if person is not held guilty of offence
under PMLA for proceeds of crime u/s 8 of
Political family accused of offence under
unconstitutional.
Supreme court: T Barai v Henry Ah Hoe & Anr, no
Exam question: Any reduction in penalty person can be convicted by such ex facto law nor
through any modification, in enactment can the enhanced punishment prescribed by the
will have retrospective effect, discuss in amendment be imposed, but there is no reason
the view of the relevant case law? why should accused not have any benefit from
the reduced punishment.
Money laundering is an independent standalone
offence, definition of proceeds of crime can be
extended to include money laundering arising out
of proceeds of crime. Measures of search and
the act proceedings may be initiated
seizure can not be considered as draconian (
against such person are unconstitutional,
harsh). Provision of PMLA clearly enable
discuss in the light of relevant case laws.?
unambiguously initiate proceeding for attachment
Validity of section 17, 18 and 19
and confiscation of the property in possession of
questioned. person not accused to commit violations of
section 3 and Article 14 of the constitution.

Prevention of Money Laundering, 2002
B. Rama Raju V Union of
8 India
(satyam computers)
9 J Sekar And others V ED
1. Proceeds of crime serves broad objectives of
the code. Thus property owned or in possession
of the other person not accused of scheduled
offence was equally liable for attachment.
2. Parliament has authority to legislate and
provide for forfeiture of the proceeds of crime
1.Property owned by or in possession of
which is a procedure of specified criminality
the other person not charged for
acquired prior to the enactment of the act as
scheduled offence is liable for attachment
well. Thus provision of second proviso to
and confiscation?
section 5 are applicable to properties acquired
2.Provisions of section 5 are applicable on
even before the coming in force of the
properties acquired before the
provisions of the act and can not be penalized
enforcement of the provisions.
for retrospective application.
Raju rama of satyam computers alleged for 3. Whether provisions of section 8 are
3. Vaid attachment even before conviction of
money laundering acts. invalid for procedural vagueness?
the accused.
4.Whether presumption of section 23 are
4.Section 23 enjoins the rule of evidence and
unreasonable and excessively
rebuttable presumption considered essential
disproportionate? (interconnected
and integral to effectiveness of the act, thus
persons)
provision valid.
5.Whether shifting the burden of proof by
section 24 of the act is arbitrary and
5. The other person in whose possession the
invalid? (Burden of proof on the alleged)
property exists has a presumption attached to it
under section 23 ( that the proceeds of crime
are involved), therefore there is no need to
apply burden of proof. Such property is already
liable for money laundering provisions
allegations.
5. The other person in whose possession the
Exam: Without forwarding the report to property exists has a presumption attached to it
Writ petition filed on validity of section 5 is magistrate as required us 173 of CRPC under section 23 ( that the proceeds of crime
ultra virus to Article 14 of the constitution Director proceeded for provisionally are involved), therefore there is no need to
of India. attaching the property is in violation of sec apply burden of proof. Such property is already
5 of PMLA. Discuss? liable for money laundering provisions
allegations.

FMO(PROI) invested in CCPS and Equity of
Vinca (PRI), Vinca invested in 100 Percent
Under which circumstances defendant
IDBI Trusteeship Services wholly owned OPCD of it's two subsidiaries
1 may be granted leave to defend in a suit
Limited Vs Hub town Ltd. and assigned trusteeship to IDBI. Such
Trusteeship was secured by corporate
guarantee of Hubstown (PROI).
Cruz City I Mauritius Foreign arbitral award challenged in the
2 FEMA and related regulations cannot be claimed
Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999
HoldingsV Unitech limited. Indian judicial system.
DoCoMo and TSSL agreement violated and
DoCoMo offered it's shares as per the
NTT DoCoMo Inc. V Tata agreement. RBI contended neither award
3
sons ltd. nor the consent terms should be given
effect since it would lead to violation of
foreign exchange regulations.
Venture Global v Tech Agreement between the parties entered
4 Mahindra. and upon non fulfilment patent illegality
( NOT VERY IMPORTANT ) invoked under public policy.
Mr.S. Bhaskar Vs Appellant found in possession of USD 20
5 enforcement directorate thousand, DD imposed penalty and
FEMA released the balance amount.
Natwar Singh alleged for holding foreign Whether a noticee is entitled to demand to
Kanwar Natwar Singh vs
exchange in violation of the FEMA and in
8 Director of Enforcement
cross challenged the non furnishing the all
&Anr.
documents in Delhi High court.
SK Sinha, Chief Enforcement
Officer Vs Videocon Not relevant as it relates to the FERA and case is one and the same thing or can be
9
International Ltd. FEMA transition.
( NOT VERY IMPORTANT )
High court held ensuring fixed payment of
return to the PROI is in violation of FEMA hence
held the transaction in violation to FEMA.
Supreme court upon examination of the facts
held, vinca could own the 99% stake upon
conversion hence at the current stage such
for summary judgement?
transaction is valid. No prima faci breach of law,
court directed Huston to deposit the principal
amount claimed under guarantee as a
precondition to defend suit.
Foreign arbitral awards can be enforced in India
Whether violation of any regulation or
pertaining to put options, exit at assured return,
provision of FEMA would affect the public
and guarantee arrangements and provisions of
policy ( fundamental policy) of India.?
Exam: Can foreign arbitral awards be
as defence by Indian parties.
declared as null and void as opposed to
Can be declared as null and void only if such
public policy.?
award affects the fundamental policies of India.
Legitimacy of RBI objections under award Arbitral award was capable of being performed
questioned.? without special permission of RBI
Amendment to Arbitration act patent illegality
What is the applicability of patent illegality would not apply to international commercial
of public policy to international commercial arbitrations which did not apply to the case as
arbitrations.? this amendment came after the commencement
of proceedings.
Appellant was justified in law in modifying Section 13(1) and (2) are in addition to each
the order of DD by directing confiscation of other hence correctly order passed by arbitral
foreign currency? tribunal.
Principles of natural justice do not require supply
furnish all the documents upon which no
of documents upon which no reliance has been
reliance has been placed to issue show
placed by the Authority to set law in motion.
notice ?
Whether issuance of process in criminal Taking cognizance does not involve any formal
action of any kind, occurs as soon as magistrate
equated with taking cognizance by criminal applies his mind to the suspected commission of
court? offence.
 M/s M3M India Pvt ltd. & Dinesh allottee filed upon a dispute Whether proceedings of CPA can be
Real Estate (Regulations &

Remedies available under both the authorities

Development) Act, 2016

1 Anr v Dinesh Sharma & complaint under Consumer protection act commenced after commencement of RERA
concurrently.
Anr and with RERA authority. proceedings.?

Jatin Mavani Vs Rare Multiple proceedings on the same issue

2 Multiple proceedings on the same issue. Not allowed: Maharashtra RERA
Township Pvt Ltd. permissible?

Yes considering the facts, 99 years lease such

Lavase corporation Entered into agreement for Lease not for
Provisions would apply to Agreement of agreement will be considered agreement for
3 Limited vs Jitendra Jagdish sale. Such agreement for 99 years and paid
lease as well.? same mere such nomenclature will not affect
Tulsiani substantial amount initially for 99 years.
tights of allottees.

Delay in agreement terms allotment and

Real Estate (Regulations & Development) Act, 2016

Neel Kamal Realtors allottees claimed for refund along with

4 Subarban Pvt. Ltd. And
anr vs UOI.
Provision of rera against article 14 to the
interest. Promoter challenges the existence Provisions held valid and legal.
constitution of India?
of RERA against Article 14 of the
constitution of India.

The projects mentioned in section 3 are

Complainant filed by allottee against
exempted from registration requirements and
Simmi Sikka vs M/s Emaar promoter for projects issued completion Objections raised by the promoter on
5 not fro the purview of the provisions of the act.
MGF Land Ltd. certificates prior to rules commencement of projects not ongoing as per rules of rera ?
Hence aggrieved may claim damages for such
rera.
projects as well under RERA.

Rule 11 of the NCLAT rules means: Inherent

power to NCLAT to decide the case under natural
justice in favour of the party. CIRP proceedings
RERA recovery claimed against delay of 1. Case fit to settlement under rule 11 of require section 7 application by 100 allottees or
Sushil Ansal Vs Ashok completion. Thereafter promoter failed to the NCLAT rules? 10 percent of the allottees ( higher). Such
10
Tripathi( Important) provide the compensation. CIRP initiated 2.Application filed under section 7 of the application received by less than required
by allottees. code is valid? allotees. Such allottees determined as decree
holders. Decree holders are creditors but not
financial creditors to the party hence CIRP
proceedings set aside by appellate tribunal.