Tag: commercial law

Supreme Court Sets Guidelines: What Constitutes an “Accidental Fire” for Insurance?
16Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Sets Guidelines: What Constitutes an “Accidental Fire” for Insurance?

The Supreme Court held that in fire insurance claims, the precise cause of fire is immaterial unless fraud or instigation by the insured is proven. The insured is not required to prove the exact origin if the loss is due to fire. Exclusion clauses must be interpreted narrowly, and coverage provisions broadly, with ambiguities resolved in favor of the insured. Facts Of The Case: The case involves cross-appeals arising from a fire insurance claim dispute. Orion Commerx Pvt. Ltd. (the Insured) suffered a fire at its premises on September 25, 2010. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. repudiated the claim, primarily relying on the report of its final Surveyor, which concluded the fire was not accidental and originated from multiple sources, thus excluding it from policy coverage...
Read More
Landmark Ruling Protects IP Owners: Supreme Court Says Continuous Infringement Creates Inherent Urgency
4Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landmark Ruling Protects IP Owners: Supreme Court Says Continuous Infringement Creates Inherent Urgency

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, a suit alleging continuing infringement of intellectual property rights inherently contemplates urgent interim relief. The Court held that mere delay in filing the suit does not negate urgency, as each ongoing act of infringement causes immediate and irreparable harm, and public interest in preventing market deception also factors into the assessment. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, a Danish company named Novenco Building and Industry A/S, held patents and design registrations in India for its industrial fans sold under the brand ‘Novenco ZerAx’. It had entered into a dealership agreement with respondent No. 1, Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd., in 2017. The appellant later discov...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules on Power Theft: Generator Must Pay Full Compensation for Diverted Electricity
19Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules on Power Theft: Generator Must Pay Full Compensation for Diverted Electricity

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court clarified that compensation for wrongful diversion of electricity under a Power Purchase Agreement is distinct from the reimbursement of fixed charges. The Court held that the beneficiary is entitled to both remedies concurrently, reinforcing the 'proportionate principle' and preventing unjust enrichment by the power generator. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated from a 1996 Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB, later GUVNL) and Essar Power Limited (EPL). EPL's plant had a total capacity of 515 MW, with 300 MW allocated to GEB and 215 MW to its sister concern, Essar Steel Limited (ESL). The core issue arose when EPL began supplying more power to ESL from GUVNL's allocated 58% share, violating the ag...
Read More
Cheque Bounce Notice Must Demand Exact Cheque Amount, Rules Supreme Court
10Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Cheque Bounce Notice Must Demand Exact Cheque Amount, Rules Supreme Court

In a significant ruling under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Supreme Court held that a demand notice under Section 138 Proviso (b) must specify the exact cheque amount. Demanding a different sum, even due to a typographical error, renders the notice legally invalid and fatal to the complaint, as the provision mandates strict compliance. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Kaveri Plastics, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the respondents. The case originated from a Memorandum of Understanding related to the sale of land. As part of this agreement, the accused company issued a cheque for Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in favour of the appellant. However, upon presentation, the cheque was dishonoured by the bank due to "insufficient fund...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Time-Barred Tax Assessments Cannot Be Revived
28Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Time-Barred Tax Assessments Cannot Be Revived

The Supreme Court held that Section 21 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, which permits a four-year extension for assessment with the Commissioner's sanction, applies only where no assessment was ever made within the original limitation period. It cannot be invoked to resurrect an assessment that was already completed and subsequently declared time-barred under Section 19. The Court emphasized a strict interpretation of fiscal statutes, ruling that the revenue cannot tax a subject by inference if the case falls outside the provision's four corners. Facts Of The Case: The case involved M/s. Shiv Steel challenging reassessment orders for the financial years 2003-2004, 2004-2005, and 2005-2006 under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993. The initial assessments for these years were c...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Tender Conditions Must Be Clear, Can’t Reject Bids on Unstated Requirements
16Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Tender Conditions Must Be Clear, Can’t Reject Bids on Unstated Requirements

The Supreme Court ruled that tender conditions must be explicit and unambiguous. A bidder cannot be disqualified for non-submission of a document not expressly mandated by the tender. The tendering authority must act fairly and cannot impose hidden requirements, especially when a submitted certificate adequately demonstrates compliance with the stated criteria. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a tender issued by Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd. (MPPGCL) for coal beneficiation work. Maha Mineral, the appellant, submitted its bid relying on its past experience as a 45% partner in a Joint Venture (JV) named Hind Maha Mineral LLP. To prove this, it submitted a work execution certificate from the Maharashtra State Mining Corporation (MSMC), which explicitly stated its 45% share an...
Read More
Supreme Court Revives Cheque Bounce Cases, Says ‘Sick Company’ Status is Not a Get-Out-of-Jail Card
9Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Revives Cheque Bounce Cases, Says ‘Sick Company’ Status is Not a Get-Out-of-Jail Card

The Supreme Court held that proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not automatically barred against a company declared sick under SICA, even if a restraint order under Section 22A exists. The nature of the restraint and the purpose of the cheque issuance are mixed questions of law and fact to be decided during trial based on evidence. Furthermore, a Magistrate lacks the inherent power to review or recall the issuance of summons. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Shree Nagani Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., supplied goods to the first respondent, L.D. Industries Ltd., which was declared a sick company by the BIFR. Towards the payment for these supplies, the accused company issued several cheques in 2001, which were subsequently dishonoured due to "insufficient funds"....
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies: Limitation Act Applies to MSMED Arbitration But Not Conciliation
13Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: Limitation Act Applies to MSMED Arbitration But Not Conciliation

The Supreme Court ruled on the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963, to conciliation and arbitration proceedings under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006. It held that the Limitation Act does not apply to conciliation proceedings, allowing time-barred claims to be referred for settlement. However, the Act applies to arbitration proceedings under Section 18(3), as Section 43 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, incorporates the Limitation Act into such arbitrations. The Court emphasized that the MSMED Act’s provisions override general laws, ensuring a balanced approach to dispute resolution while protecting suppliers' rights. The disclosure of unpaid amounts in financial statements under Section 22 may extend limitation periods, subject to case-specific scrutiny. Facts Of The...
Read More
SARFAESI Act’s Section 11: Supreme Court Affirms Mandatory Arbitration for Financial Institutions
11Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

SARFAESI Act’s Section 11: Supreme Court Affirms Mandatory Arbitration for Financial Institutions

The Supreme Court, in Bank of India vs. M/s Sri Nangli Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd., ruled that Section 11 of the SARFAESI Act is mandatory, requiring inter-se disputes between banks and financial institutions concerning secured assets to be resolved through arbitration. No explicit arbitration agreement is needed; the provision legally mandates it, thereby divesting DRT of jurisdiction in such matters. Facts Of The Case: In the case of Bank of India vs. M/s Sri Nangli Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., the core dispute involved the priority of charge over secured assets (stocks of paddy and rice) belonging to a common borrower, M/s Sri Nangli Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd., between two public sector banks: Bank of India (appellant) and Punjab National Bank (respondent). Both banks had extended credit facil...
Read More
Cheque Bounce Case: Supreme Court Reinstates Case Against Director in ₹6 Crore Cheque Dishonour Case
7Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Cheque Bounce Case: Supreme Court Reinstates Case Against Director in ₹6 Crore Cheque Dishonour Case

The Supreme Court clarified that for vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, complaints need not reproduce statutory language verbatim. Substantive allegations demonstrating a director's responsibility for company affairs suffice. The Court emphasized substance over form, ruling that technical pleading deficiencies don't invalidate proceedings if the complaint, read holistically, establishes the director's operational role. The judgment reinstated criminal proceedings against the director, overturning the High Court's quashing order. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a complaint filed by HDFC Bank against M/s R Square Shri Sai Baba Abhikaran Pvt. Ltd. and its directors, including Mrs. Ranjana Sharma (Respondent No. 2), for dishonor of a cheque worth ₹6...
Read More