A. Navinchandra Steels (P) Ltd. v. SREI Equipment Finance Ltd.

“A petition either under Section 7 or Section 9 of the IBC is an independent proceeding which is unaffected by winding up proceedings that may be filed qua the same company. Given the object sought to be achieved by the IBC, it is clear that only where a company in winding up is near corporate death that no transfer of the winding up proceeding would then take place to the NCLT to be tried as a proceeding under the IBC. Short of an irresistible conclusion that corporate death is inevitable, every effort should be made to resuscitate the corporate debtor in the larger public interest, which includes not only the workmen of the corporate debtor, but also its creditors and the goods it produces in the larger interest of the economy of the country. It is, thus, not possible to accede to the argument on behalf of the Appellant that given Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 / Section 279 of the Companies Act, 2013, once a winding up petition is admitted, the winding up petition should trump any subsequent attempt at revival of the company through a Section 7 or Section 9 petition” filed under the IBC.”

Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs State Of Gujarat

Marital relationship means the legally protected marital interest of one spouse to another which include a marital obligation to another like companionship, living under the same roof, sexual relation and the exclusive enjoyment of them, to have children, their upbringing, services in the home, support, affection, love, liking and so on. Extra-marital relationship as such is not defined in any law. Whilst extramarital relationships can have a severe impact marital relationship of a person, this tort popularly known as the “Heart Balm” tort paves a way for the person so injured to claim damages.

In re Kenneth Humphrey

Any lawyer practicing in court in India could attest to the fact that various people accused of various crimes, even after getting a favorable bail order are not able to exercise their liberty, the same may be originating from various reasons but mostly from the poor financial condition the accused suffers. It is further to be noted that intersectionality of various other factors along with financial unwell being might again be one of the most prominent reasons why the person ended up in Jail in the first place. Various reforms have taken place in India’s justice delivery system, to tackle the arrest at first instance as well, but the problem is very prominent. California’s Supreme Court recently took cognizance of the same, and observed that indigent people cannot be allowed to languish in jail just because they are not able to post bail, and equated such practice “pretrial detention order”.

Tata Consultancy Services Limited v Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Independent director refers to Board of Directors, who do not have any material relationship with the company and are not involved in the day-to-day function. In this particular judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court analysis two different sections of the Companies Act, and interprets that higher duty/standard does exist for the independent director as compared to non-independent one’s.

Arcelormittal India Private Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta

What is important is that it is the commercial wisdom of this majority of creditors which is to determine, through negotiation with the prospective resolution applicant, as to how and in what manner the corporate resolution process is to take place. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the legislation has consciously provided limited grounds for allowing an appeal.

Pepsi Foods Ltd. v Special Judicial Magistrate

In this landmark judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down that the power to issue a summon is a matter of grave importance, and such power ought to be exercised cautiously only after the Magistrate is satisfied that the real case is being made.

Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited v. Brojo Nath Ganguly

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this landmark judgment held that if from the face of the contract, it seems that the contract has been entered in between parties with unequal bargaining power, and the contract evidence that the party didn’t have any meaningful choice but to sign the contract, such contracts ought to be set aside if the contract or clauses are unreasonable, unfair, and unconscionable.

Babu Ram Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zilla Parishad Muzaffar Nagar

Before a High court exercises its jurisdiction, it ought to take into consideration, whether an adequate legal remedy is available somewhere else. If the remedy is so available the High Court may restrain itself from granting the remedy. The crucial word herein is restrained, as it is the self-restraint that is being observed by the courts and not a hard and fast rule which bars the jurisdiction of the court. Though in wanting situations the Hon’ble Supreme Court through this judgment has carved out exceptions to this rule.

T T Antony v State of Kerala

Although in this particular landmark judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that multiple complaints/ FIRs in respect of the same act might go on violating the Fundamental Rights of the accused, as the same may subject to unnecessary harassment. But at the same time, a grave concern remains, what if in a situation accused himself takes first opportunity to register a false complaint, and thereby depriving the victim to exercise his/ her rights, and in consequence thereof fail the justice system itself.

Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms

In this landmark judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India mandated the Election Commission to publicly disclose the information relating to candidates running for office, including information on their criminal records, assets, and educational background. Tracing this particular right to information back constitutional right to freedom of expression.