| Newsletter |  |
 |
|
| ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 | OCTOBER, 2023 |
| WHETHER STAMP DUTY IS REQUIRED TO BE PAID OR A DOCUMENT EXECUTED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT? In a recent judgment titled SVK Infrastructures v. Delhi Tourism and Anr. passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the Hon’ble Court held that no stamp duty is required for a document executed by or on behalf of the government as mentioned under Section 3 of the Indian Stamp Duty Act, 1899. The reliance was placed on the judgment of NN Global Mercantile Private Limited v. M/s Indo Unique Flame Ltd. & Ors. that wasrecently been delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein it was observed that the Arbitration agreement is not enforceable, if the same is an un-stamped agreement and does not meet the requirement of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Therefore, the Hon’ble Court was pleased to dismiss the objections and appointed an arbitrator. |
| Read More... |
| INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2016 |
| WHETHER A RESOLUTION PLAN PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE COC AND ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY NON-ARBITRABLE IN NATURE? In a recent case of IOCL Vs. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. the Delhi High Court held that the court, in its capacity to exercise jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, possesses the authority to decline the nomination of an arbitrator in instances where the claims intended for adjudication by the arbitral tribunal became null and void, following the approval of the resolution plan under the IBC. The appeal was filed by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) aggravated with the order of NCLAT; against the Essar Steel India Ltd. (ESIL) group due to their dispute related to a gas supply agreement. However, in the midst of this dispute, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Ahmedabad admitted ESIL to the insolvency resolution process and appointed a Resolution Professional (RP). IOCL lodged a claim of over Rs 3,500 crore with the RP, however, the RP admitted the claim for a notional value of Rs 1. This notional value was approved by the CoC in the resolution plan, which was further given a go-ahead by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2019. Thereafter, IOCL preferred an appeal before the Delhi High Court for the appointment of an arbitrator for this matter, and the Hon’ble Court was of the view that the issue had already been put to rest by the passage of the resolution plan by the Hon’ble Apex Court in 2019. The Hon’ble Court further clarified that once a party approves the Resolution Plan, it extinguishes their right to claim for an arbitrator or to reopen the Resolution Proceedings again. |
| Read More... |
| NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT, 1881 |
| WHAT SHOULD BE THE COMPENSATION PAID IN THE CASE OF CHEQUE BOUNCE? In the recent case of Sasi Kumar Vs. Usha Devi, the Hon’ble High Court elucidated the importance of compensatory aspect of Section 357 of CrPC. The Hon’ble Court held that the compensatory amount shall be proportionate to the cheque amount and shall not exceed twice the amount to the cheque. A criminal revision petition was filed before the Hon’ble Court to revise the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge who reduced the punishment of Respondent charged under Section 357 of CrPC, to just 1 day and compensation of just Rs. 25,000 /-. The Hon’ble Court in the present matter precisely highlighted the cases of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H (2010) and R. Vijayan v. Baby (2011) stating that the main aspect in dishonour of cheque related cases shall be compensatory. The Hon’ble Court reasoned it by saying that once a criminal case is filed u/s 138 of NI Act, then a civil suit is seldom filed for recovery of the amount so the Hon’ble Court suggested that the courts shall consider compensation under Section 357 of CrPC. The Hon’ble High Court further observed that the decision of the lower court was based on sympathy and bias because the Respondent was a widow. The Hon’ble Court concluded that apart from punitive punishment and the Hon’ble Court passed an Order enhancing the fine amount to Rs. 1,10,000/- and sustaining the imprisonment of Respondent for a day. |
| Read More... |
| CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019 |
| WHETHER BEING A SIGNATORY TO AN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT OBLIGATES A CONSUMER TO UNDERGO ARBITRATION? In a recent case of Smt. M. Hemalatha Devi & Ors. Vs. B. Udayasri the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that despite being a signatory to an arbitration agreement, the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, being a special and advantageous law, grants consumers specific remedies that cannot be denied to them if they are willing to prefer such recourse. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with a question pertaining to whether the existence of the arbitration clause in the agreement would exclude the jurisdiction of the Consumer Courts and whether the Consumer Court is bound to refer the matter for reference to arbitration. The Hon’ble Court held that in a consumer dispute, the consumer has the option to either approach the consumer forum, or choose arbitration. In the case at hand, the consumer chose to approach the consumer redressal forum and refused to proceed with arbitration; hence in such cases consumer cannot be compelled to undergo arbitration merely on the basis that he has signed an arbitration clause. The Court held that “the jurisdiction of a Court is not determined by the fastest finger first, but the nature of the dispute, the public policy in the matter, the will of the legislature, the election or choice of the consumer amongst various factors”.The Hon’ble Apex Court ruled that the Consumer disputes are assigned by the legislature to public fora, as a measure of public policy. Therefore, by necessary implication such disputes will fall in the category of non-arbitrable disputes, and these disputes should be kept away from a private fora such as ‘arbitration’, unless both the parties willingly opt for arbitration over the remedy before public fora. |
| Read More... |
| LIMITATION ACT, 1963 |
| WHETHER A DELAY CAN BE CONDONED IN THE COMMERCIAL DISPUTES DESPITE THE NON-APPLICABILITY OF THE LIMITATION ACT? The Kerala High Court in the recent judgment of Md. Shafeek Vs. Nasty Nut Industries held that though the intent behind the limitation act is to speedily dispose of commercial matters, however, the delay can be condoned in certain exceptional matters. The issue before the Hon’ble Court was related to a delay of 25 days in filing the appeal in a commercial dispute by the appellant. However, the respondent contended that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, had been enacted for the speedy disposal of commercial disputes, as a result of which the Limitation Act would not have any application in commercial courts. However, the division bench comprising of Justice Anil K.N and Justice Sophy Thomas after hearing the reasons for the delay pertaining to the financial condition of the appellant and admission of his 9-month-old daughter in KIMS hospital due to chronic respiratory disease; found this reason justifiable, and condoned the delay. The Hon’ble Court observed that the present matter is a fit case for condonation of delay of 25 days and reliance was placed on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex court in the matter of Executive Engineer v. Borse Brothers Engineers and Anr. (Civil Appeal /995/2021) wherein the Hon’ble Court held that condonation of delay can be granted in commercial and arbitral matters only in exceptional cases. However, this matter being of a commercial nature, observed that the delay can be condoned with a cost of Rs 10,000/-. |
| Read More... |
| THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957 |
| WHETHER THERE CAN BE A MONOPOLY IN STORYTELLING PLATFORMS? In a recent judgment of Humans of Bombay Stories Pvt. Ltd. V. POI Social Media Pvt. Ltd. & Anr, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that both platforms cannot use each other's content shared on social media however, there shall be no monopoly in storytelling platforms. Humans of Bombay had filed a suit alleging copyright infringement by People of India, claiming that the latter had replicated a significant amount of content, including images and videos, on their social media platforms. Counsel representing People of India submitted that Humans of Bombay's platform is not a unique platform and various similar platforms with similar concepts exist, as Humans of Bombay is inspired by a platform called The Humans of New York. The Hon’ble Court emphasized that while ideas cannot be copyrighted, copying of the "expression of an idea" constitutes copyright infringement. It emphasized that there should be no monopoly in operating a storytelling platform, and each platform should employ its own creative expression in conveying its stories. The Hon’ble Court further clarified that if photographs or videos are commissioned by either platform, the copyright belongs to the respective platform. The Petitioner argued that they have no issue with the similar nature of the respondent's storytelling, but they insist that their copyrighted photos shall not be used. In conclusion, the Hon’ble Court held that no injunction can be granted to Humans of Bombay however, the People of India and the Humans of Bombay cannot use each other’s copyrighted contents. |
| Read More... |
| WHETHER AN INJUNCTION FOR COPYRIGHT CAN BE SOUGHT ON THE IDEA? In a recent matter of Hulm Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Fantasy Sports MyFab11 Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. passed by the Delhi High Court, the Hon’ble Court observed that copyright safeguards the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. Originality is pivotal for copyright protection, requiring the work to originate from the author. The Hon’ble Court further observed that only the expressions of an idea can be protected and mere similarity of shared subject or sources cannot be protected. To constitute copyright infringement there shall be ‘substantial’ similarity between competing works. The Plaintiffs, operators of the mobile app "EXCHANGE22," claimed uniqueness through its fusion of fantasy sports with stock market trading for cricket, football, basketball, and kabaddi. However, the Defendants successfully argued that the Plaintiffs' claims were false as similar apps existed prior to the Plaintiffs' and challenged that GUI cannot be copyrighted. The Hon’ble Court ultimately ruled against the Plaintiffs, finding their gaming application lacked originality. It scrutinized the concept note and GUI claims, concluding they were not original and that no substantial similarity existed with the Defendants' app. Regarding the GUI, the Hon’ble Court determined that there was no substantial similarity, noting significant differences in colour schemes, graphics, text, and layout between the rival interfaces. This judgment sets a precedent, providing crucial insights into copyright protection and infringement in the digital domain. It underscores the importance of originality and offers clarity on the evaluation of competing works. |
| 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. |