Additional Cases for

Company Law

(D1 –D25)
No. Case Name CRUX
D1 Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra vs. The NCLAT held that before making any order for restoration,
Registrar of Companies, Mumbai opportunity of being heard has to be given, and since in the
& Ors. given case opportunity for being heard was not given, the order
of NCLT is set aside.
D2 Alibaba Nabibasha vs. Small HC held that after resignation, Director cannot be held
Farmers Agri-Business responsible for daily affairs of Company including Cheques
Consortium & Ors. issued and dishonored.

D3 Dr. Rajesh Kumar Yaduvanshi vs. Person as a Nominee Director of the Company cannot be
Serious Fraud Investigation Office summoned for offences in respect of Sections 128, 129, 448
(SFIO) & Anr. read with Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013, without
any specific allegations against him in Investigation report.
D4 QVC Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Removal of Nominee Director (appointed by minority
Cosmic Ferro Alloys Ltd. & Ors. shareholders) with majority vote in duly convened EGM giving
special notice is completely legal and valid.
D5 Economy Hotels India Services Merely a ‘typographical error’ in the extract of ‘Minutes’,
Private Limited vs. Registrar of characterising the ‘special resolution’ as ‘unanimous ordinary
Companies & Anr.
resolution’ will not render a special resolution as invalid. The
special resolution passed is very well valid.
No. Case Name CRUX
D6 K.V. Brahmaji Rao vs. Union of Any person assets (who is head of some other organizations)
India cannot be attached in exercising the powers under Sections 337
& 339 of the Companies Act, 2013.

D7 Vijay Goverdhandas Kalantri & The jurisdiction of the High Court is limited to the territorial
Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. jurisdiction of the State of which it is the High Court.

D8 Aruna Oswal vs. Pankaj Oswal & Dispute of Inheritance of Shares is a civil dispute, it cannot be
Ors. decided under section 241/242 of the Companies Act, 2013.
The decision of NCLT is set aside.
D9 The Registrar of Companies, The compounding fees has to be more than or equal to the
West Bengal vs. Karan Kishore minimum fine prescribed under the Act.
Samtani
D10 Economy Hotels India Services The NCLAT upheld the decision of the NCLT, Chennai bench that
Private Limited vs. Registrar of decision of the Board of Directors to write off the bad debt is a
Companies & Anr.
commercial decision, which does not warrant any judicial
interference.
D11 Late Mona Aggarwal through her NCLAT held that even after removal of the name of the company
Legal heir Mr. Vijay Kumar from the register of companies the NCLT can proceed with the
Aggarwal & Anr. vs. Ghaziabad petition for winding up under Companies Act, 2013.
Engg. Company Ltd. & Ors.
No. Case Name CRUX
D12 Bank of Baroda vs. Aban Offshore NCLAT held that Preference shareholders are not remediless for
Limited redemption of preference shares, they can file an application
under Section 55(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 or alternatively
they may also file application under Section 245 of the
Companies Act, 2013 as a class action suit.
D13 Joint Commissioner of Income Mere fact that a Scheme of Compromise or Arrangement may
Tax, Mumbai vs. Reliance Jio result in reduction of tax liability does not furnish a basis for
Infocomm Ltd. & Ors. challenging the validity of the same.

D14 Registrar of Companies, Kerala NCLT per se has no power to waive the filing fee & additional
vs. Ayoli Abdulla fee.
D15 Regional Director, Southern If an Indian Limited Liability Partnership (‘LLP’) is proposed to be
Region and Ors. vs. Real Image merged into an Indian company then firstly, the LLP has to apply
LLP and Ors.
for registration under Section 366 of the Companies Act, 2013.

D16 G. Vasudevan vs. Union of India Section 167(1)(a) is constitutionally valid.

D17 Mukut Pathak & Ors. vs. Union of Penalty u/s 164(2) of Companies Act not to apply retrospectively
India & Anr. and other issues were also clearly answered.
D18 Jindal Steel and Power Limited During the Liquidation proceeding under IBC, 2016 a petition
vs. Arun Kumar Jagatramka and under Section 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, 2013 is
Ors.
maintainable, but a promoter can not file a petition under
Section 230 to 232 during the liquidation.
No. Case Name CRUX
D19 M/s Ind-Swift Limited vs. The Appellant had at the time of first grant of time got relief of
Registrar of Companies huge extension by CLB and that there was no reason to accept
the plea for further extension.
D20 S. Gopakumar Nair & Anr. vs. Obo To give a notice under section 236 for compulsory acquisition
Bettermann India Pvt. Ltd. of shares of minority, merely holding 90% or more is not
enough, other requirement of section 236 also needs to be
complied.
D21 CADS Software India Pvt. Ltd. and Managing Director in this case is eligible for compensation for
Ors vs. Mr. K.K. Jagadish & Ors. loss of office as removal of director due to loss of confidence
does not appear in Companies Act as a ground of removing.
D22 Shashi Prakash Khemka Through Power to deal with issues pertaining to rectification of register
LRs. and Anr. vs. Nepc Micon & of members, is with NCLT, and not the civil courts.
Ors.
D23 Karn Gupta vs. Union of India & If the director has resigned before the actual default, but the
Anr. company fails to inform ROC about his resignation, the director
will not be disqualified.
D24 Rishima SA Investments LLC vs. A person other than member or creditor can also challenge the
Registrar of Companies, West ‘Striking’ off the Company Name through a writ petition.
Bengal & Ors.
Additional Cases for

Securities law

(D26 –D39)
No. Case Name CRUX
D26 Merely the delay on part of SEBI to issue show cause notice and
ICICI Bank Limited vs. SEBI (SAT)
to order penalty does not invalidate the proceedings, but in this
case considering the delay the penalty was modified. (Reduced)
D27 India Ratings and Research SEBI can call for and examine records of any proceedings if it
Private Ltd. vs. SEBI (SAT) considers the orders passed by the adjudicating officer is
erroneous and not in the interests of securities markets.
After making inquiry, SEBI may modify the penalty imposed.

D28 Dr. Udayant Malhoutra vs. SEBI There is no doubt that SEBI has the power to pass an interim
(SAT) order and that in extreme urgent cases SEBI can pass an ex-
parte interim order but such powers can only be exercised
sparingly (rarely/infrequently) and only in extreme urgent
matters.
D29 Indus Weir Industries Limited Penalty imposed by SEBI on violating SEBI (Issue and Listing of
(Appellant) vs. SEBI (SAT) Non-Convertible Redeemable Preference Shares) Regulations,
2013, further reduced by SAT to meet the end of justice in the
matter.
D30 Mr. Mahendra Girdharilal vs. NSE, Where the buy-back offer is made with the intention to provide
SEBI and T. Stanes And Company
Limited (SAT)
an exit opportunity to the existing shareholders at a fair price,
the stock exchange is correct to remove the company from the
Dissemination Board of the stock exchange.
No. Case Name CRUX
D31 Synergy Cosmetics (Exim) Limited vs. The company delayed in filingthe appeal because of the reason
BSE Limited (SAT)
that it took time to find a specialized lawyer in securities
market and also took time to pool resources to file the appeal.
SAT finds this to be sufficient cause to file an appeal.

D32 Nicer Green Housing Infrastructure In the absence of any evidence that the appellants had
Developers Ltd. & Ors. vs.
refunded and that they are ready and willing to pay the
SEBI (SAT)
balance amount to investors in a time bound manner, SAT is of
the opinion that there is no infirmity in the order passed by
SEBI disposing of their representations.
D33 M/s SungoldCapital Limited case If an acquirer has triggered an open offer obligation under
(SEBI)
SAST Regulation, 1997, and has not given the open offer,
meanwhile SAST Regulation 1997 has been replaced with
SAST Regulation 2011, SEBI held that even after SAST
Regulation 2011 has been notified, still the pending offers will
be given as per SAST 1997.
D34 Ricoh India Limited case (SEBI) Insider Trading case, Penalty imposed
D35 Vishal Vijay Shah case (SEBI) • The objective of opening and maintaining a separate account
for the clients’ securities is to segregate and identify them
separately an d to prevent its use by the Stock Broker for any
purpose.
• The payments should be received directly from the
respective clients and not from third parties.
• The debiting of any client’s account for transactions which
are not related to that client defeats the very purpose of
maintaining client’s account separately.

D36 M/s Beckons Industries Limited case

(SEBI) Fraudulent issue of GDR case, Penalty imposed.

D37 Mr. GurmeetSingh (“Noticee-1”), Mr.

I.S. Sukhija(“Noticee-2”) and Mr. H.
S. Anand(“Noticee-3”) in the matter Fraudulent issue of GDR case, Penalty imposed
of Beckons Industries Limited case
(SEBI)

D38 M/s Ashlar Commodities Private

Limited case (SEBI) Non-genuine trades, market abuse case, Penalty imposed.

D39 Adjudication Order in respect of Mr.

B Renganathan (‘Noticee’) in the
matter of Edelweiss Financial CS was fined for not closing the trading window.
Services Ltd. case (SEBI)
Additional Cases for

Insolvency Law

(D40)
No. Case Name CRUX
D40 GEORGE VINCI THOMAS vs.
CAPEDGE CONSULTING PVT. LTD. &
Merely asking for further information on the services rendered
ORS (NCLAT) by the operational creditor to corporate debtor can not be
considered as existence of dispute, Hence application for CIRP
can be filed.
Additional Cases for

Competition Law

(D41 –D47)
No. Case Name CRUX
D41 Cartelisation in Industrial and Evidences clearly proved a cartel of automotive bearings in India.
Automotive Bearings- (CCI)
D42 Travel Agents Association of India vs. DOE issuing circular that government employees have to use
Department of Expenditure, specified service provider for travel is not violating any
Ministry of Finance and Ors (CCI) provision of competition law.
D43 RH Agro Private Limited vs. State CCI observes that a bank acting as per the remedies available
Bank of India and Ors (CCI) to it under the SARFAESI Act for recovery cannot be termed as
a dominant entity when it acts in accordance with provision
thereof as it is acting in recovery of its funds/money in order to
mitigate losses in such transaction (where account has been
declared NPA).
D44 Karnataka Film Chamber & No writ of prohibition can be issued against statutory
Commerce and other associations
vs. CCI (Karnataka HC) commission from exercising its jurisdiction
D45 Uttarakhand Agricultural Produce Appeal against CCI orders not maintainable if the orders are not
Marketing Board Vs. CCI & Ors. passed under sections specifically enumerated in Section 53A of
(NCLAT)
the Competition Act, 2002.
D46 CADD Systems and Services Pvt. Ltd. The absence of a Judicial Member did not preclude CCI from
vs CCI (Delhi HC) performing its adjudicatory function until such time the
Judicial Member was appointed by the Central Government
D47 Competition Commission of India Vs. DG has the right to search and seizure under 240A of
JCB India Ltd. and Ors (SC)
Companies Act read with Section 41(3) of Competition Act.
Additional Cases for

Interpretation of
Law

(D48)
No. Case Name CRUX
D48 STATE OF M.P. & ANR. vs. M.P. SC agreed with the wisdom of the Legislature, that the process
TRANSPORT WORKERS FEDERATION
would be better served by maintaining the regular criminal
(SC)
Courts as a forum for adjudication of such labour disputes
which have a criminal aspect, accordingly the amendment has
been upheld.