ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS

Duration June 08-22, 2019

Good laws, if they are not obeyed, do not constitute good Government.
ARISTOTLE, 4TH CENTURY B. C. GREEK PHILOSOPHER

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

• M D Dhanapal v. State Represent by the Inspector of Police

Bail amounts can't be beyond prisoner's capacity-11 June 2019 (SUPREME COURT ORDER)
The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that bail conditions of an undertrial prisoner cannot be made
so onerous as to disable him to avail of the relief and make him suffer further imprisonment.
The Order can be accessed at:
https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/20402/20402_2019_4_19_14604_Order_11-Jun-
2019.pdf
• Abhijeet Singh Alias Ankur Likhari v. State of Punjab
Punjab & Haryana High Court (HC) issues slew of directions for Witness Protection -28 May
2019 (PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT)
In a judgment that will change the way criminal matters are probed and tried, the Punjab and
Haryana High Court (HC) today issued 10 commandments for protection of witnesses, besides
fair and expeditious inquiry, investigation and trial of cases, including day-to-day examination of
eyewitnesses. The other directions include insurance of material witnesses in heinous and
sensitive matters, audio-video recording of statements and even providing them with new
identity. The Court also made the Secretary, Home, personally responsible for implementation
of the directions. Nearly 160 years after the Indian Penal Code came into existence, the Bench
also directed Punjab to carry out suitable amendments to it and the Code of Criminal Procedure
to punish persons inducing, threatening and pressuring witnesses to give a false statement. For
the purpose, the Court set a three-month deadline.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
https://barandbench.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Punjab-and-Haryana-HC-Witness-
Protection-Judgment.pdf
• Dinabandhu Mondal & Ors v. Laxmi Rani Mondal & Ors
Gift deed is not invalid merely because it was registered after donor's death-17 June 2019
(CALCUTTA HIGH COURT ORDER)
The Calcutta High Court (HC) has held that a deed of gift cannot be said to be invalid only
because it was registered after the death of donor.
The court referred to an old Calcutta High Court which had held that subsequent registration of
a deed of gift after the death of the donor at the instance of the donee did not offend the
provisions of Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. It said:
"The post-mortem registration of a deed of gift by the legal representative of the donor has the
same effect as its registration by the donor himself during his lifetime."
The Order can be accessed at:
http://164.100.79.153/judis/kolkata_app/index.php/casestatus/viewpdf/SA_596_2008_1706
2019_J_277.pdf
• Hari Kishan v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Mere custody of ammunition without awareness not an offence under Arms Act-31 May 2019
(DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT)
The Delhi High Court (HC) has held that mere custody of ammunition without conscious and
knowledgeable possession does not amount to any offence under the Arms Act, 1959.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
 http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/AMA/judgement/31-05-
2019/AMA31052019CRLMM38652016.pdf

CORPORATE

• Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) v. Rohit Sehgal & Ors
Will Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) override Securities and Exchange Board of India
(SEBI) Act? National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) order challenged by SEBI in Supreme Court-
12 June 2019 (SUPREME COURT ORDER)
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has approached the Supreme Court
challenging the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) which had ruled that the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) would override the SEBI Act. The Supreme Court’s
Vacation Bench has issued notice in the case on Wednesday and listed the matter to be heard
on June 17. The Court also ordered status quo to be maintained in the meantime.
The Order can be accessed at:
https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/19613/19613_2019_4_4_14605_Order_12-Jun-
2019.pdf
• Promoters of NDTV restrained from accessing securities market for 2 years-14 June 2019 (SEBI
ORDER)
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has said certain promoters of NDTV, are
restrained from accessing securities market for two years. "During the period of prohibition, the
existing holding of the notices shall remain frozen," SEBI said. The channel's promoters Prannoy
Roy, Radhika Roy have been restrained by SEBI from holding position as director or any key
managerial personnel in NDTV for two years. They have also been restrained from holding
position as director in any other listed company for a period of one year. The order is passed in a
2017 case filed by Quantum Securities Ltd, an NDTV shareholder, alleging that RRPR Holdings,
Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy didn’t disclose information about loan agreements entered into
by them with Vishvapradhan Commercial Private Ltd and ICICI.
The Order can be accessed at:
https://www.sebi.gov.in/enforcement/orders/jun-2019/order-in-the-matter-of-new-delhi-
televisionlimited-ndtv-_43295.html
• KKR India Financial Services Pvt Ltd v. Kwality Ltd
Kwality insolvency: National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) gives 90 days more time to
complete CIRP-24 May 2019 (NCLT ORDERS)
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has given debt-ridden dairy firm Kwality a 90 days
extension till September 7 for completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process.
Kwality is currently undergoing the CIRP as per the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code, pursuant to an order of the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, dated December
11, 2018. Global private equity player KKR had filed insolvency plea against Kwality.
The Order can be accessed at:
https://nclt.gov.in/sites/default/files/Interim-order-
pdf/Ms.%20KKR%20India%20Financial%20Services%20Pvt.%20Ltd.%20Vs.%20Ms.%20Kwality
%20Ltd._11.pdf
• Yashodhara Shroff v. Union of India & Registrar of Companies
Disqualification of Directors Under Sec.164(2)(a) Companies Act 2013 for default before April
1, 2014 Is Illegal-12 June 2019 (KARNATAKA HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT)
Disposing of a batch of nearly three hundred writ Petitions, the High Court of Karnataka has
declared that period prior to April 1, 2014 cannot be taken into consideration for disqualification
under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act. The Petitions challenged the list published by the
Ministry of Commercial Affairs in September 2017, disqualifying nearly three lakh directors
under Section 164(2) (a) and Section 167(1)(a) for failing to file annual returns and statements
for a period of three consecutive years.
 The Judgement can be accessed at:
http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/275052/1/WP52911-17-
12-06-2019.pdf

COMPETITION

• Competition Commission of India (CCI) to Android phone makers: Explain agreements with
Google-20 June 2019 (CCI UPDATE)
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has reportedly asked handset companies the details
of their agreements with Google or its group companies as the anti-trust regulator expands the
scope of its investigation into the accusations of abuse of market power by the Android
Operating System. Android as of March 2019 held 99% share of the Indian market. This move by
the investigation wing of the CCI follows the European Union's decision to impose a fine of $5
billion (4.3 billion euros) on Google for misuse of Android's market dominance last year.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

• Jagisha Arora v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr

Supreme Court (SC) tells UP Government to release journalist Prashant Kanojia-11 June 2019
(SUPREME COURT ORDER)
Hearing the case of freelance journalist Prashant Kanojia, who was arrested by the Uttar
Pradesh Police for posting a tweet on Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, the Supreme Court (SC)
today asked the Government to release him immediately. While granting Prashant Kanjia a bail
in the case, the court asked the Government why he was arrested and under what provisions.
Prashant Kanojia was arrested by the police on Saturday for posting a tweet and a Facebook
post against UP CM Yogi Adityanath. A vacation bench of the Supreme Court took note of the
submission of lawyer appearing for Prashant Kanojia's wife Jagisha Arora, that the plea needed
urgent hearing as the arrest was "illegal" and "unconstitutional".
The Order can be accessed at:
https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/20683/20683_2019_4_1_14604_Order_11-Jun-
2019.pdf
• Crocs Inc USA v. Bata India & Ors
Passing off suits in relation to registered design used as trademark maintainable for now-29
May 2019 (DELHI HIGH COURT ORDER)
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court (HC) has said that the judgment of a Single Bench
holding a suit for passing off based on a design registered under the Designs Act to be not
maintainable does not appear to be prima facie correct. Therefore, Division Bench held that the
Single Bench decision will not act as a precedent to bar for suits seeking relief of restraint of
passing off registered design used as trademark/tradedress.
The Order can be accessed at:
http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=143638&yr=2019
• Vijay Kumar Salwani Trading as M/S Modern Namkeen Bhandar v. Union of India and Anr
Trademarks Registry required to send notice u/s 25(3) before removing trademark from
register-28 May 2019 (DELHI HIGH COURT ORDER)
The Delhi High Court (HC) has directed the Trademarks Registry to consider all applications for
renewal of trademarks that have no record of mandatory notice under Section 25(3) of the
Trade Marks Act, 1999. While doing so, the Court has held that Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks
Act is mandatory in nature and that the Trademarks Registry is thus required to send a
mandatory notice before removing a trademark from its register.
The Order can be accessed at:
http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=147020&yr=2019