Dispute Resolution

The division bench of the Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) comprising of Hon’ble Justice Dr D.Y. Chandrachud and Hon’ble Justice Mr Hemant Gupta, in its judgment dated 13 March 2019 in Ripudaman Singh v Balkrishna, has inter alia held that a payment which is made in pursuance of an agreement to sell is a payment made in pursuance of a duly enforceable debt or liability for the purposes of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act).

The Supreme Court, in its recent judgment in ICOMM Tele Ltd. v Punjab State Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Anr., delivered on 11 March 2019, has ruled on the validity of an arbitral clause mandating deposit of a certain percentage of the claim amount as a pre-condition for initiating arbitration.

The issue of compounding of non-compoundable offences by a high court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) has been addressed by the Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) in a catena of decisions. However, there was a conflict in law due to varying observations made by the Supreme Court.

Recently, in the case of Giriraj Garg v Coal India Limited and Others (Civil Appeal No. 1695 of 2019 decided on 15 February 2019), the Supreme Court has fortified the principle of incorporation of an arbitration clause by reference, where the arbitration clause was contained in the standard terms and conditions referred to, in the main contract between the parties.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) in its judgment, in M/s SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 1638 Of 2019] held that the failure to file written statements within the statutory time period of 120 days for filing written statements in a commercial suit will result in the forfeiture of the right of the defendant to file a written statement.

On 22 January 2019, the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (NGT)  in the case of Saloni Singh & Anr v Union of India & Ors (OA No. 141 of 2014) inter alia, directed the Railway Administration, Ministry of Railways, Government of India (Railway Administration) to develop ‘eco-smart stations’ which would serve as model stations to ensure effective compliance with the Plastic and Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016.

On 11 February 2019, the Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeal bearing No. 1484 of 2019 filed by Rai Bahadur Shree Ram and Company Pvt. Ltd. (the shareholder and promoter of Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited) and affirmed the landmark judgment passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in the matter of Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited v Rural Electrification Corporation Limited (Comp. App (AT) (Ins) No. 92 of 2017) and other connected appeals, in favour of Rural Electrification Corporation Limited (REC), the financial creditor.

On 8 January 2019, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) delivered a landmark judgment in Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited v Rural Electrification Corporation Limited (Comp. App (AT) (Ins) No. 92 of 2017) and other connected appeals. The subject matter of the judgment addresses the question whether a corporate insolvency resolution process can be initiated against the corporate guarantor without initiating the insolvency process against the principal debtor under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (Code).

The Supreme Court in the recent case of Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr v State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (Criminal Appeal No 1395 of 2018) decided on 15 November 2018 has held that there is no bar to the maintainability of a quashing petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CRPC) even where the chargesheet has been filed.

Vide a recent judgment dated 3 January 2019 in the matter of Government of Haryana PWD Haryana (B and R) Branch v M/s G F Toll Road Pvt Ltd & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 27/2019 in S.L.P. (C) No. 20201 of 2018), the Supreme Court has, to an extent, clarified the issue regarding the appointment of a former employee of a company which is a party to an arbitration as an arbitrator under the present as well as the previous arbitration regime.