Dispute Resolution

The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) vide three office orders dated 11 May 2020, 12 May 2020 and 26 May 2020 has set out the framework for future hearings and filings during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The said orders bring about the much needed clarity regarding the functioning of the IPAB in the present times, especially considering that many urgent matters could not be filed or listed due to the non-functioning of the IPAB.

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising of Justices NV Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna and Krishna Murari, vide judgement dated 26 May 2020 in the case of Guru Nanak Industries and Another v. Amar Singh dealing with the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 inter alia reiterated well-established principles of partnership law regarding ‘retirement of partner’ and ‘dissolution of partnership firm’.

On 14 May 2020, the Learned Single Judge of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Horlicks Limited & Anr. v Zydus Wellness Products Limited (CS(COMM) 464 of 2019). The Learned Single Judge, after a thorough examination of precedents relating to trade mark disparagement, restrained Zydus Wellness Products Limited (Zydus) from telecasting a television commercial (TVC) for its product COMPLAN which was disparaging Horlicks.

The High Court of Delhi, in its judgment, Parsvnath Developers Limited & Anr. v Rail Land Development Authority, dated 19 May 2020, has reiterated the powers of a Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act). Consequently, it has been held that preliminary issues fall within the domain of the arbitral tribunal and are not to be delved into by a court under Section 11 of the Act.

A major impact of the lockdown and Covid-19 has been, one that most shy away from admitting, the cash flow crunch.

A three-member bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), presided over by the Hon’ble Acting Chairperson, vide its judgment dated 22 May 2020 passed in the matter of State Bank of India  v M/s Metenere Limited [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 76 of 2020], declined to interfere with an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Principal Bench (NCLT) refusing to appoint an ex-employee of the Financial Creditor as the Interim Resolution Professional.

A single-judge bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, comprising Hon’ble Mr Justice Navin Chawla, vide judgment dated 20 May 2020 in the matters of Tripta Kaushik v Sub Registrar VI-A, Delhi & Anr and Ramesh Sharma v Government of N.C.T. of Delhi & Ors., dealt with the distinction between a relinquishment deed and a gift deed.

The Delhi High Court (Court) passed an order dated 11 May 2020, in the matter of M/s SMS Ltd v Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd (O.M.P. (COMM) 279/2017), wherein it set aside an arbitral award (Award) pertaining to a dispute regarding the construction of a railway line in Jammu and Kashmir (Railway Project). The Award granted M/s SMS Limited (Claimant) compensation amounting to approximately INR 1.73 Crores, as against its aggregate claim of approximately 89 crores.