Newsletter ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 APRIL, 2022 WHETHER PENDENTE LITE INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT OF AWARDED INTEREST AMOUNTS TO AWARDING INTEREST ON INTEREST- Recently, the Delhi High Court in ‘Delhi Development Authority v. Watcon Water Specialists Pvt. Ltd.’, observed that arbitral tribunal cannot award interest on the amount of interest already granted in an award. In the instant case, the Arbitral Tribunal allowed majority of claims filed by the Respondent and awarded simple interest, pendente lite interest and future interest from the date of award till its realization. The Petitioner challenged the said award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1994 on the ground that the Tribunal has awarded interest on interest when it had no jurisdiction to do so. The single bench comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru in a Petition filed by the Delhi Development Authority set aside the pendente lite interest awarded on all the claims by observing that the award of pendente lite interest on the amount of awarded interest, amounts to awarding interest on interest-that is impermissible in law. Thus, only the interest awarded on the claim along with future interest was upheld in view of Section 31(7)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1994. Read More... INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS WHETHER AN EX PARTE AD INTERIM INJUNCTION LIE AGAINST AAJ TAK GURGAON IN A TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT SUIT? Recently, the Delhi Court in Living Media India Ltd. & Anr v. Satbir Bhardwaj & Ors. in IA 5791 of 2022 held that the Plaintiff being part of India Today Group having leading news channel namely ‘AAJ Tak’ made a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad-interim injunction against Defendants using the mark ‘AAJ TAK Gurgaon.’ The case of the Plaintiff was that the Defendant was a media house wherein news updates were not just limited to Gurgaon but extended to the whole of India including third party advertisements and commercials. Further, the Defendant also used to publish newspaper having registration with the Registrar of Newspapers for India. Thus, the Defendants adopted deceptively similar marks for similar services offered to its customers including news reporting, publication and telecast. The single judge bench comprising of Justice Jyoti Singh restrained the Defendants from using the trademark ‘AAJ TAK’ in relation to any goods or services, until next date of hearing. Further, the Bench also suspended the domain name registration being ‘aajtakgurgaon.com.’ Read More... INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016 WHETHER THE RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL CAN DECIDE IF THE RESOLUTION APPLICANT IS INELIGIBLE- Recently, the NCLAT Principal Bench in the case of Shravan Kumar Vishnoi v. Upma Jaiswal & Ors. observed the Resolution Professional can form its opinion so as to find out if the Resolution Plan is in compliance of the provisions of the Code or not. The Bench held that the said opinion can be given to the CoC and eventually the CoC will decide if the plan is to be approved or not. Reliance was placed on the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Arcelormittal India Pvt. Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta (2019) 2 SCC 1’ wherein it was held that the Resolution Professional is not to take a decision regarding the ineligibility of the Resolution Applicant. Read More... WHETHER RESTRUCTURING OF LOAN AND REVIVAL LETTERS ENSURE BENEFIT OF EXTENSION OF LIMITATION FOR MAINTAINABILITY OF SECTION 7 PETITION? Recently, the Supreme Court of India in the case titled ‘M/s Invent Asset Securitisation and Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Girnar Fibres Ltd.’ dismissed the application filed by the Financial Creditor under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. The division bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Anirudhha Bose noted that the provisions of the Code intend to bring the Corporate Debtor on its feet and are not recovery proceedings. The bench further observed that documents towards restructuring of loan and revival letters, etc cannot ensure to the benefit of the Applicant who prefers an application under Section 7 of the Code. Read More... The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 WHETHER THE REASONS ACCORDED FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL TO THE CO ACCUSED WOULD ALSO BE APPLICABLE TO OTHER ACCUSED IN RELATION TO SAME INCIDENT- Recently, the division bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice in Rishipal @ Rishipal Singh Solanki vs Raju & Anr. observed that the reasons which have weighed with the Court in cancelling the bail that was granted to the co-accused would equally apply to the case of other accused which also arises out of the same FIR and incident. Hence, by virtue of the present order the bail of other accused was also cancelled as that of Co-accused on same grounds. Read More... WHETHER ACCUSED CAN CLAIM EXEMPTION FROM PERSONAL APPEARANCE UNDER SECTION 205 CrPC IN CASES UNDER SECTION 138 NI ACT- Recently, the division bench of Supreme Court of India comprising of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose in the case titled ‘Mahesh Kumar Kejriwal and Anr. v. Bhanuj Jindal and Anr.’ held that the Magistrate may allow  first appearance through counsel should be exercised only in rare instances. Thus, there has to be a good and cogent reasons for dispensing the presence of accused. The Bench placed reliance on the judgment titled ‘M/s Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. M/s Bhiwani Denim Apparels Ltd., (2001) 7 SCC 401’ to observe that this Hon’ble Court shall not interfere with High Court’s decision to reject the claim for blanket exemption from personal appearance. Read More... Miscellaneous WHETHER THE RELIEFS SOUGHT IN A SUIT THAT FRUSTRATES THE DEFENDANT FROM INITITATING PROSECUTION AGAINST PLAINTIFF CAN BE SOUGHT- Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Frost International Ltd. v. M/s Milan Developers and Builders (P) Ltd. & Anr. observed that a relief of a nature where the Plaintiff frustrates the Defendants from initiating a prosecution against Plaintiff or seeking any other remedy available in not permitted. In the instant case, the Plaintiff was trying to frustrate Defendant’s right to prosecute the Plaintiff upon dishonour of cheque issued by the Plaintiff by seeking a declaration that the said cheque was handed over as a security. However, the Hon’ble Court held that such a declaration cannot be granted as the same would violate Section 118(a)of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, the Bench allowed rejection of plaint filed by the Defendant but, the Plaintiff was given liberty to file a suit against Defendant for seeking appropriate reliefs. Reliance was placed on the judgement delivered by Delhi High Court in Atul Kumar Singh v. Jalveen Rosha AIR 2000 Del 38 . Read More... WHETHER DENIAL OF CONJUGAL RELATIONSHIP FALLS UNDER THE AMBIT OF EXCEPTIONAL HARDSHIP UNDER SECTION 14 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT- Recently the Delhi High Court in ‘Rishu Aggarwal v. Mohit Goyal’ observed thatdenial of conjugal relationship is certainly a ground for divorce but it does not qualify as ‘exceptional hardship’ to waive off the cooling off period for the purposes of Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. A division bench comprising of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh stated that the prescribed cooling off period is one year before filing for divorce. While the said provision includes a proviso that waives off the said period in case of exceptional hardship to the Petitioner or in the case of exceptional depravity to the Respondent, however, denial of conjugal relationship does not fall under the ambit of exceptional hardship to waive off the cooling off period. Read More... WHETHER AN OWNER OF THE PROPERTY BEQUEATH HIS PROPERTIES TO STRANGERS BY WILL- Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled ‘Saroja Ammal v. M Deenadayalan and Ors.’ noted that an absolute owner of a property can bequeath his properties even to strangers by will. In the instant case, the Appellant claiming to be the wife of one Chi. Munisamy Chettiar, filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of certain properties, based on the last will and testament. The Defendants being the son and daughters of Munisamy born through his first wife contested the suit on the ground that Appellant was not the wife of their father. Thus, solely on this ground the validity and genuineness of the will was challenged. Pursuant to multiple litigations preferred by aggrieved parties i.e. in the trial court and the first appellate court, the validity of the will stood proved. However, the High Court reappreciated entire evidence and noted that suspicious circumstances exist over execution of the will. Thus, aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed by Madras High Court in the second appeal, the Appellant sought reversal of the said Judgment before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Bench comprising Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V. Ramasubramanian noted that reappreciation of same evidence to reach different conclusion in second appeal was wrong on part of High Court and the same was set aside. Further, the Bench held that absolute owner of a property is entitled even to bequeath his properties in favour of strangers, hence, the relationship of the Appellant with the testator was that of a ‘wife’ or ‘mistress’ was immaterial. Read More...     NEW DELHI X -3, Green Park Main, New Delhi, 110016, Telephones: +91 11 2652 0041-42 For further / specific information, please contact us at: info@tandonandco.com Disclaimer: The contents of this newsletter are intended for information purposes only, and parts of this newsletter are based on news reports and have not been independently verified. The newsletter is not in the nature of a legal opinion or advice. They may not encompass all possible regulations and circumstances applicable to the subject matter and readers are encouraged to seek legal counsel prior to acting upon any of the information provided therein. Tandon & Co. neither assumes nor accepts any responsibility for any loss arising to any person acting or refraining from acting as a result of any material contained in this newsletter.  This newsletter is the exclusive copyright of Tandon & Co. and may not be circulated, reproduced or otherwise used by the intended recipient without the prior permission of its originator.