Corporate Litigation - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Explains When a Criminal Court Cannot Change Its Own Order :”Functus Officio”

23Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Explains When a Criminal Court Cannot Change Its Own Order :”Functus Officio”

The Supreme Court held that proceedings under Section 340 CrPC are criminal in nature and thus governed by the CrPC. Consequently, a review petition filed under Order XLVII of the CPC is not maintainable. The Court reiterated that Section 362 CrPC bars criminal courts from altering or reviewing their own judgments, except for correcting clerical errors, and the High Court's recall order constituted an impermissible substantive review. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated between two groups, the Khosla Group and the Bakshi Group, regarding a joint venture to develop a resort in Kasauli. A key point of contention was the validity of the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of their joint venture company, Montreaux Resorts Private Limited (MRPL), held on 30.09.2006. The Bakshi Group relied on ...

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...

Supreme Court Rules: Companies Can Also Be ‘Victims’ in Criminal Cases

The Supreme Court ruled that a company qualifies as a "victim" under Section 2(wa) CrPC if it suffers loss or injury due to an offence, entitling it to file an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. The Court clarified that such appeals are independent of Section 378 CrPC and need not be restricted to cases where the victim is the complainant. The judgment reinforces the expansive interpretation of "victim" to include corporations, ensuring their right to challenge wrongful acquittals in criminal cases involving infringement or fraud. Facts Of The Case: Asian Paints Limited, a leading paint manufacturer, discovered counterfeit products being sold under its brand name at a shop owned by Ram Babu in Jaipur. The company had authorized M/s Solution, an IPR consultanc...