Banks Cannot Be Directed To Accept OTS Proposals Or Disclose Evaluation Criteria: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently affirmed that it cannot compel banks to accept One Time Settlement proposals or disclose the internal benchmarks used to evaluate such proposals, emphasizing that these decisions rest within the commercial wisdom of the bank.A division bench of Justices Anil S Kilor and Rajnish R Vyas in an order passed on October 17, 2025, observed, "It is clear that no...

CCI Rejects Complaint Challenging Karate India Organisation's Use Of 'India' In Its Name

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has recently dismissed a complaint against the Karate India Organisation (KIO), the governing body for Karate sport in India, over its use of the word “India” in its name.The Commission found that the allegations raised did not involve any competition law issues and therefore did not merit further investigation.In an order issued by a bench...

Income Tax Act | Failure To Raise Timely Objection To Jurisdiction U/S 143(2) Bars Assessee From Challenging Assessment: Chhattisgarh HC

The Chhattisgarh High Court held that failure to raise a timely objection to jurisdiction under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act bars the assessee from challenging the assessment. Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Radhakishan Agrawal stated that the assessee also did not raise any objection regarding jurisdiction upon completion of his assessment. As such, the plea with regard to...

Bombay High Court Allows Tata AIG Insurance's Appeal Against Compensation Award To Claimant With Income Exceeding ₹40,000

The Bombay High Court has held that an application for compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, cannot be entertained without verifying that the annual income of the claimant does not exceed Rs. 40,000. The Court observed that the benefit of the structured formula under Section 163A is restricted to a specific class of victims and cannot be claimed by persons whose...

Courts Not Expressly Barred From Dismissing Petitions Under Arbitration Act For Non-Prosecution: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court held that negligence or inaction on the part of counsel cannot justify condonation of unexplained and long delay. The court further held that the court is not prohibited from dismissing the petitions under section 34 for non prosecution. Justice Maulik J. Shelat held that “there is no express bar under the Act, 1996 not to dismiss such applications...

Promotion Takes Effect Only From Actual Promotion Date Or DPC Approval, Not Retrospectively From Date Of Current Duty Charge: Patna HC

A Division bench of the Patna High Court comprising Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma held that promotion takes effect only from actual promotion date or DPC approval and not retrospectively from date of current duty charge. Background Facts The respondent was appointed as an Assistant Engineer in the Civil Construction Wing of All India Radio on 19.12.1990. He...

Order Terminating Proceedings For Non-Payment Of Arbitral Fees Can Be Challenged U/S 14 A&C Act, Not Through Writ Petition: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court held that when the arbitration proceedings are terminated under section 38(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) for non-payment of arbitral fees, the proper remedy is to file application under section 14 of the Arbitration Act and not a writ petition. Justice Manish Pitale held that “in situations where the arbitral proceedings...

NCLT President Cannot Transfer Cases Beyond Territorial Jurisdiction Of Bench: Gujarat High Court In Essar Steel Insolvency Case

The Gujarat High Court has recently held that the President of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has no authority to transfer cases from one State to another through administrative orders.The ruling came in proceedings linked to the Essar Steel insolvency process, where the court also found that repeated recusals by NCLT Members in Ahmedabad were neither "legal" nor "justified."A...

Departmental Proceedings Against Retired Employees Can't Be Initiated For Incidents Occurring More Than Four Years Before Issuance Of Charge Memo: Madras HC

A Division bench of the Madras High Court comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice R. Poornima held that the departmental proceedings against a retired government servant cannot be instituted for an event that took place more than four years prior to the issuance of the charge memo. Background Facts The petitioner was a judicial employee. He purchased two...

S.238 IBC Is Non-Obstante Clause, Overrides Provisions Of Electricity Act: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 overrides the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 read with Electricity Supply Code, 2005.A bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Prashant Kumar held“Section 238 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is a non- obstante clause meaning it grants the IB Code a power of overriding effect on other laws, for...

When Two Or More Courts Have Jurisdiction, Parties' Choice Of Court Prevails Even If Cause Of Action Arises Elsewhere: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court held that when parties to a contract have agreed to exclusive jurisdiction of a particular court, suit instituted in other courts is not maintainable even if the cause of action has arisen in other jurisdiction. Setting aside the interim injunction granted by the commercial court at Bengaluru, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and...

Documents Not Filed Before NCLT Cannot Be Entertained As Evidence By NCLAT For Deciding Appeal: NCLAT Chennai

The NCLAT, Chennai Bench, comprising Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Member-Judicial) and Jatindranath Swain (Member-Technical), has held that any document available but not filed before the NCLT cannot be entertained as evidence by the NCLAT at the appellate stage. The CIRP of the corporate debtor was initiated, and due to the failure to receive the resolution plan, a liquidation order...