10 Important Judgments of July, August & September

1. ONGC Petro Additions Limited vs. Ferns Construction Co. Inc., 2020 (3) RCR (Civil) 522 (Delhi)-  Limitation to pass award-Applicability to International Arbitration-Amendment brought to Section 29A of Act by Amendment Act of 2019 applicable from 30.08.2019-It is specified that Award in mattes other than international commercial arbitrations shall be made by Arbitral Tribunal within period of twelve months from date of completion of pleadings-By amendment time period for making arbitral award in international commercial arbitration been made inapplicable. Held Provisions of Section 29 A (1) shall be applicable to all pending arbitrations seated in India as on 30.08.2019 and commenced after 23.10.2015.  However, there is no strict time line of 12 months prescribed to proceedings which are in nature of international commercial arbitration as defined under Act, seated in India.

2. M/s Radha Exports (India) Pvt. Limited vs. K.O. Jayaram, 2020 (3) RCR (Civil) 675 SC- Winding up proceedings-allegation of fraud- allegations of forgery and fraud are not decided in proceedings for winding up of company. Such disputes necessarily have to be adjudicated in regular suit, on basis of evidence, including forensic examination reports.

3. Har Sarup Bhasin vs. M/s Origo Commodities India Pvt. Ltd., 2020 (3) RCR (Criminal) 675- Dishonour of cheque- Offence by Company- Quashing of process/complaint, sought by petitioner who found to be appointed as Additional Director falling in the category of an Independent Director and a Non-Executive Director- Considering factual and legal position, prayer for quashing alllowed.

4. Nrarendra vs. Balbirsingh, 2020 (3) RCR (Criminal) 579- Dishonour of cheque- No for an unregistered partnership firms for under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act- Term ‘suit’ under Section 69 (2) must receive its plain and simple meaning. It cannot be stretched for securing immunity from criminal prosecutions. Bar under Section 69 (2) is liable to be confined only to enforcement of contractual obligations.

5. M/s Radha Exports (India) Pvt. Limited vs. K.P. Jayaram, 2020 (3) RCR (Civil) 675- Debt-Meaning- Financial debt means debt along with interest if any, which is disbursed against consideration for time value of money. Payment received for shares, duly issues to third party at request of payee cannot be debt. Shares of company are transferable subject to restrictions, if any, in its Articles of Association and attract dividend when company makes profits. 

6. Surender Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2020 (3) RCR (Civil) 642- Pollution and Ecology-Cancellation of mining contract sought on the ground of ecology and environment. Checks and balances to stop indiscriminate mining. NOC issued. Held that once an expert body, who is empowered to consider the aspects of impact on environment, ecology, etc. has considered the issue and given no objection, then High Court cannot assume the role of an expert and delve into factual aspect by either conducting an inquiry at its own level or refer the matter to any other expert body. 

7. Mercator Oil & Gas Limited vs. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited, 2019 (50 AIR Bom.R 683- Petition filed to restrain Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited from terminating the contract between the parties and to restrain it from invoking the bank guarantees. Injunction restraining invocation of unconditional bank guarantee. Can be granted in case of fraud. Several Breached of contract committed by party seeking injunction. No false representation made to bank by beneficiary Oil and Natural Gas Corporation. Governing the invocation of bank guarantee, the discretion used by the learned single judge refusing to grant an injunction, cannot be held to be arbitrary.

8. C. Shamsuddin vs. Now Realty Ventures LLP, 2020 AIR (Bombay) 121- The existence of the arbitration clause is not disputed. Question whether agreement is time barred is to be decide by arbitrator under Section 16 and not by Court at stage of Section 11. 

9. Smt. Dr. Vasanthi Shridhar Bangera vs. Smt. Vishala Bakapatna Laxman, 2019 (6) AIR Bom. R. 774- Precedent-Per incuriam-Two or more mutually irreconciable decisions of the Supreme Court. Inviolable recourse is to applu to earlist view as the succeding onces would fall in teh category of per incuriam. 

10. M/s M3M India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dr. Dinesh Sharma, 2020 (1) AIR Del. R. 107- Dispute regarding real estate. Appropriate forum- Remedies available to home buyers under CPA and RERA are concurrent. Buyer can approach any of the forums.