Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Insolvency and bankruptcy

ALPHA CORP DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED versus GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (GNIDA) AND OTHERS

On the facts the Court found EIL to be the dominant actor in the group and that the three lessee subsidiaries were fronts; lifting the corporate veil was appropriate; the development rights/lands in question were to be treated in light of that economic reality, the resolution plans of Alpha and Roma were restored, GNIDA was disentitled to penal interest due to its failure to monitor and submit timely claims, GNIDA must recalculate dues excluding penal interest/penal charges and Alpha and Roma must clear principal dues over 24 months and then effect registrations as sub-lessees; timelines for…

Source excerpt

  • Lifting of corporate veil
  • Corporate insolvency resolution process (cirp)
  • Assets of subsidiaries
  • Leasehold rights
  • Homebuyers' representation (s.25a(3a) ibc)
  • Approbation and reprobation
Read case analysis
Companies act, 2013

PANNALAL BHANSALI versus BHARTI TELECOM LIMITED & ORS.

The Court held that the reduction under Section 66 was validly adopted: Section 66 does not mandate a valuation report, the company had obtained a valuation and an independent fairness report which were available for inspection, no demonstrable bias by the valuer was shown, application of DLOM was permissible under applicable valuation and accounting standards given the illiquidity, and the statutory safeguards (special resolution and Tribunal confirmation) were complied with; accordingly the appeals were dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Reduction of share capital
  • Minority shareholders
  • Valuation
  • Discount for lack of marketability (dlom)
  • Fairness report
  • Nclt/nclat composition
Read case analysis
Consumer protection

ANSAL CROWN HEIGHTS FLAT BUYERS ASSOCIATION (REGD.) versus M/S ANSAL CROWN INFRABUILD PVT. LTD. & ORS.

Because the complaints were prosecuted and finally adjudicated only against ACIPL and not against respondents 2-9, and there were no pleadings, notice, evidence or findings fixing personal liability on those individuals, the decree could not be executed against them; further, a moratorium under Section 14 IBC bars the modes of execution against the corporate debtor and execution cannot be used to indirectly enforce against non-decretal parties or to pierce the corporate veil absent pleaded and proved fraud or misuse of the corporate form.

Source excerpt

  • Execution of consumer commission orders
  • Moratorium under ibc s.14
  • Directors' personal liability
  • Piercing the corporate veil
  • Service of notice and adjudicatory process
Read case analysis
Insolvency and bankruptcy code, 2016

UV ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED versus ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED

Clause 2.2 of the Deed of Undertaking merely obligates ECL to arrange for infusion of funds to enable ESL to comply with financial covenants and does not constitute a promise to pay or discharge ESL's debt to the lender; therefore it is not a contract of guarantee within Section 126 and ECL cannot be treated as guarantor for the financial facilities availed by ESL; payments made by ECL (INR 38 crores) were voluntary as promoter and do not create a contractual guarantee.

Source excerpt

  • Contract of guarantee
  • Interpretation of undertakings
  • Promoter obligations
  • Financial covenants
  • See to it guarantee
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

NAK ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT. LTD. versus TARUN KESHRICHAND SHAH AND ORS.

The appellant failed to establish that it is a successor-in-interest to respondent No.3 or that respondent No.3 has ceased to exist; there is no material to show any relief claimed against respondent No.3 would be implemented against appellant; consequently appellant is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit, and its long delay and prior acknowledgement of service preclude impleadment; the High Court rightly set aside the trial court's order and the appeals are dismissed, with direction that any decree in the suit shall not be used against the appellant.

Source excerpt

  • Necessary party
  • Proper party
  • Impleadment
  • Successor-in-interest
  • Dominus litis
  • Ex-parte
Read case analysis
Companies act, 1956

MRS. SHAILJA KRISHNA versus SATORI GLOBAL LIMITED & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the company petition under Sections 397 and 398 was maintainable; the NCLT had jurisdiction to decide the validity of the gift deed as the question was central to allegations of oppression and mismanagement; on the facts the gift deed and subsequent share transfer were invalid (contrary to the Articles and shown to be tainted by manipulation/forgery), the board meetings of 15.12.2010 and 17.12.2010 were invalid for want of notice and quorum, and the Appellant was a victim of oppression and mismanagement; accordingly the NCLAT's order was set aside and the NCLT orde…

Source excerpt

  • Sections 397 and 398, companies act, 1956
  • Section 399, companies act, 1956
  • Validity of gift deed and share transfer
  • Board meeting notice and quorum requirements
  • Jurisdiction of nclt/clb
  • Rectification of register of members
Read case analysis
Criminal law

ANIL KHANDELWAL ETC. versus PHOENIX INDIA AND ANR.

The prosecution of the bank officers for offences under the IPC, based on vicarious liability and without impleading the Bank, is impermissible; absent specific statutory vicarious liability and without concrete material showing the officers' personal role or mala fides, process should not have issued; acts done bona fide under SARFAESI Act (and rectification of a clerical error) attract protection under Section 32 and warrant quashing of the proceedings.

Source excerpt

  • Defamation
  • Vicarious liability
  • Quashing of criminal proceedings
  • Sarfaesi act statutory protection
  • Clerical error in statutory notice
Read case analysis
Criminal procedure

VIKRAM BAKSHI AND OTHERS versus R.P. KHOSLA AND ANOTHER

The High Court erred in recalling its earlier judgment in Criminal Miscellaneous (Co.) No. 4 of 2019 by entertaining a review under Order XLVII CPC in proceedings governed by the CrPC. Section 362 CrPC bars review/alteration of criminal court judgments except in narrow exceptions; proceedings under Section 340 CrPC are criminal and governed by CrPC, so Order XLVII CPC is not available. The withdrawal of CP 114 of 2007 was a ground available before the High Court at the original hearing and did not qualify as a fresh ground entitling procedural recall. Consequently, the Impugned Order dated 05…

Source excerpt

  • Section 362 crpc bar on review
  • Section 340 crpc perjury proceedings
  • Order xlvii cpc review petition maintainability in criminal proceedings
  • Functus officio
  • Procedural review v. substantive review
  • Recall of judicial orders
Read case analysis
Insolvency and bankruptcy

IL & FS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED versus ADHUNIK MEGHALAYA STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED

The Balance Sheet of F.Y. 2019-20, read in the context of earlier audited financial statements and the appended cash flow statement, constituted a valid acknowledgement of a subsisting liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act; the Balance Sheet was signed on 12.08.2020 which renewed limitation from that date; applying the Supreme Court's order of 10.01.2022, Para 5(I) excludes the period 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 so limitation reckoning the 12.08.2020 acknowledgment commenced on 01.03.2022 and continued till 28.02.2025, hence the Section 7 application filed on 15.01.2024 was within tim…

Source excerpt

  • Valid acknowledgement of debt
  • Entry in balance sheet as acknowledgement
  • Section 7 ibc application
  • Section 18 limitation act, 1963
  • Extension of limitation orders (10.01.2022)
Read case analysis
Insolvency and bankruptcy law

VISA COKE LIMITED versus M/S MESCO KALINGA STEEL LIMITED

Notice delivered in Form 3 to the Key Managerial Personnel at the corporate debtor's registered office in their official capacities, and which on its face calls upon the corporate debtor to pay the unpaid operational debt, must be construed as service on the corporate debtor under Section 8 of the IBC; therefore the NCLT and NCLAT erred in rejecting the Section 9 petition solely on the technical ground that the notice was addressed to KMP; the matter is remanded to the NCLT to decide the Section 9 petition afresh on merits including issues of date of default and alleged novation.

Source excerpt

  • Service of statutory demand notice
  • Section 8 ibc
  • Section 9 ibc
  • Key managerial personnel
  • Deemed service
  • Date of default
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.