Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: January 17 To January 23, 2022

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. If Fraudulent Affairs Of Company Are Continuing, Right To Seek Winding Up Becomes Recurring : Supreme Court In Antrix-Devas CaseCase Title: Devas Multimedia Private Ltd vs Antrix Corporation Ltd and anotherCitation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 57The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Devas Multimedia challenging the orders passed by the NCLT and NCLAT allowing the winding up on a petition filed by ISRO's commercial arm Antrix Corporation Ltd. A bench comprising Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V Ramasubramanian dismissed the appeals filed by Devas Multimedia and its shareholder Devas Employees Mauritius Pvt Ltd.The Court undertook a detailed analysis of Rule 5 of the Companies (Winding up) Rules, 2020 and notes that the purpose of advertisement is to provide an opportunity to all the stakeholders to either support or oppose the proceedings and to serve as a warning to all those dealing with the company so that they would know there there is an element of risk involved. The Court also notes that advertisement has been said to cause more harm to the company than the benefits it brings2. Decree For Specific Performance Can't Be Obtained Behind The Back of A Bona-Fide Purchaser: Supreme CourtCoram: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul; Justice M M SundreshCitation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 58The Supreme Court has observed that a decree for obtaining specific performance of a decree cannot be obtained behind the back of a bona fide purchaser especially when the transaction has taken place prior to the institution of the suit for specific performance.A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, setting aside a judgment of the Madras High Court, observed:"...it is not possible for us to accept that a decree could have been obtained behind the back of a bona fide purchaser, more so when the transaction had taken place prior to the institution of the suit for specific performance".3. ORDER XXXVII Rule 3 CPC- Grant Of Leave To Defend Is The Ordinary Rule; Denial An Exception: Supreme CourtCase Name: B.L. Kashyap And Sons Ltd. Vs JMS Steels And Power CorporationCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 59The grant of leave to defend (with or without conditions) is the ordinary rule; and denial of leave to defend is an exception, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment in which it discussed the scope of Rule 3 of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.The bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari observed that a prayer for leave to defend is to be denied in such cases where the defendant has practically no defence and is unable to give out even a semblance of triable issues before the Court.4. 'Probability Of Reformation & Rehabilitation': Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence Of Man Convicted Of Rape & Murder Of 11 Year Old GirlCase name: Bhagwani vs State of Madhya PradeshCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 60The Supreme Court commuted death sentence awarded on a man convicted of rape and murder of eleven year old girl.The court, however, took into account 'the barbaric and savage manner in which the offences of rape and murder were committed', sentenced him to life imprisonment for a period of 30 years during which he shall not be granted remission.Bhagwani was convicted and sentenced to death by the Trial Court under Sections 363, 366A, 364, 346, 376D, 376A, 302, 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5(g) (m) read with Section 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the appeal filed by him and confirmed the death sentence.5. Subordinate Legislation/Statutory Rules Also A 'Law' Under Section 23 Contract Act: Supreme CourtCase name: G.T. Girish Vs Y. Subba Raju (D)Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 61The Supreme Court held that Subordinate Legislation in the form of Statutory Rules is a 'law' under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act.Section 23 of the Contract Act states that the consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless it is forbidden by law.The court was considering an appeal that arose from a specific performance suit in which the defendant pointed out that Bangalore Rules of Allotment, 1972 Rule 18(2) had an embargo against alienation for a period of ten years and therefore the contract is not lawful. The issue raised was whether the enforcement of an agreement to sell expressly or impliedly, lead to palpably defeat this Rule. 6. Guarantor Whose Guarantee Stands Invoked By Any Creditor Barred From Giving Resolution Plan, Though Insolvency Initiated By Another Creditor: SC On Sec 29A(h) IBCCase Title : Bank of Baroda and another versus MBL Infrastructures Ltd and othersCitation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 62The Supreme Court has delivered an important judgment interpreting the scope of Section 29A(h) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Section 29A IBC specifies the categories of persons who are not eligible to be resolution applicants.Sub-section (h) of Section 29A refers to persons whose guarantees stand...

Supreme Court Weekly Roundup: January 17 To January 23, 2022

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags