Case 1

Name of the Case: State V. Sunil Kumar

Name of the court in which the case is listed: Saket Court, Delhi

Facts of the Case: The accused, Sunil Kumar, committed an offence under Muslim Women
(Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019. The marriage between the second respondent
and the appellant’s son was solemnized on 14 May 2016. They have a child who was born in
May 2017. On 27 March, 2023, the second respondent lodged a first information report,
complaining of offences under the provisions of Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code2 and the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019.
An application of bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 was filed
by the accused.

Legal Issues: Whether the Court can grant an anticipatory bail on an issue related to the
Muslim Women and Protection?

Current Position of the Case: The court rejected the bail application on the grounds that
bail cannot be granted when the court has not heard the complainant itself. The matter is still
pending.
Case 2

Name of the Case: Inventive Industries V. ICICI Bank.

Name of the court in which the case is listed: National Company Law Tribunal, Delhi.

Facts of the Case: Inventive Industries filed an application before the Delhi Bench of the
National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) for the insolvency resolution procedure to be
initiated as inventive was found to be a default under the IBC. The main argument of
inventive was that no debt was legally due as all Inventive obligations and remedies for
compliance actions were temporarily suspended for 2 years.

Legal Issues: Whether the appeal could be continued as it was lodged by Inventiv’s former
directors after the appointment of an insolvency lawyer to manage the company?

Current Position of the Case: Matter part heard and listed for final arguments on the next
date.
Case 3

Name of the Case: Tulsi Narayan Garg v. The M.P. Road Development Authority.

Name of the court in which the case is listed: Delhi High Court.

Facts of the Case: The appellant in this instance was a sole proprietorship business. An
agreement was entered into between the appellant and respondent, where the appellant was
expected to build and maintain two streets. As needs be, the date of completion was a year,
finishing on 21st October 2021. However, the respondent, a state party to the agreement,
invoked clause 52 and terminated the same, citing the appellant's sluggish work progress as
the reason. Additionally, the first respondent cited clauses 44.1 and 53.1 of the agreement and
sent the appellant a notice requesting liquidated damages, which the appellant challenged in
the Delhi High Court. The same was decided with the option for the appellant to challenge
the order through an arbitral tribunal, which the appellant did in accordance with arbitral
tribunal. The respondent notified the appellant while the case was pending that certain
packages could be used to recover additional damages. The appealing party then, at that
point, tested this activity expressing the topic of harms were sub judice before the arbitral
tribunal.

Legal Issues: Whether a party to an agreement may be an arbiter in his own cause?

Current Position of the Case: On hearing the arguments of both the sides, the court perused
the clause in the agreement that provides for dispute resolution. As per clause 24, in case a
dispute arises out of the contract relating to the work, termination, abandonment or breach,
the same shall be referred to a competent authority, who shall decide on the matter in 45
days, which subject to review, will be binding on the parties.
Case 4

Name of the Case: Icomm Telecom Ltd. V. Punjab Water Supply & Sewage Board.

Name of the court in which the case is listed: Supreme Court of India.

Facts of the Case: The State Board had issued a notice inviting tender for certain works
related to expansion of water supply, sewerage schemes, pumping stations and M/S Icomm
Telecom Ltd (the Contractor) was eventually awarded the tender. The contract stated that
when a party invokes the arbitration clause in it, it shall deposit 10% of the claim amount.
When disputes arose and arbitration was subsequently invoked, the Contractor sought waiver
of the pre-deposit. On such a request being denied, the Contractor approached the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana challenging the validity of such a pre-deposit requirement. However, it
was strike down.

Legal Issues: whether such a clause was violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India
and therefore liable to be set aside.

Current Position of the Case: The Supreme Court has indicated that while pre-arbitral
deposit requirements are not invalid per se, such pre-conditions to initiation of arbitration
cannot be disproportionate and/or burdensome so as to make arbitration a less viable dispute
resolution mechanism vis-à-vis litigation in Courts.
Case 5

Name of the case: Emkay Global Financial Service Limited v. Gayatri Sandhi

Name of the court in which the case is listed: Delhi High Court

Facts of the Case: M/s Emkay Global Financial Services Ltd. was a registered broker with
the National Stock Exchange and Mr. Gayatri Sandhu was Appellant’s client. The
Respondent had initiated arbitration proceedings against Appellant. The Respondent filed an
application to set aside the Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996, which was dismissed by the District Court in Delhi on the ground that it would not
have the jurisdiction in light of the exclusive jurisdiction clause. The order was challenged
before the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues: Whether evidence may be lead under Section 34 proceedings?

Current Position of the Case: The objective underlying the enactment of Arbitration Act in
1996 was speedy resolution of disputes. If issues are framed and oral evidence is led in a
summary proceeding under Section 34, then obviously, this objective would be vitiated. With
the present judgment, the Court has tightened the lid around Section 34 proceedings and set
the law in its right place. Hence, under limited circumstances, certain material facts should be
allowed to be examined in proceedings under Section 34.
Case 6

Name of the case: Tarun Jhaa V. Union of India

Name of the court in which the case is listed: Supreme Court of India

Facts of the Case: The issue was regarding the torture inflicted upon the elephants kept in
captivity at the temples of South India. The elephants were kept in captivity for entertainment
purposes and religious purposes but the condition of elephants in captivity is severe and they
do not get proper food and care from the caretakers. Thus, the PIL was filed in the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India.

Legal Issues: Whether the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 allows torture on captive elephants?

Current Position of the Case: The PIL has been admitted and listed for further date.
Case 7

Name of the case: Shahu Kamal Shiv V. The State of Maharashtra.

Name of the court in which the case is listed: Supreme Court of India.

Facts of the Case: The Appellant, in this case, filed a complaint in 2022 and accused the
Respondents of forgery and preparing false documents. The complaint was sent for
investigation and the police submitted a report stating that the matter appeared to be of a civil
nature. However, the Trial Court directed issuance of process to the Respondents. he High
Court of Bombay set aside the process issued by the Trial Court pursuant to its powers under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC") on the ground that the dispute
was of a civil nature, and criminal proceedings against the Respondents would be an abuse of
the process of law.

Legal Issues: Whether the High Court can quash a criminal complaint.

Current Position of the Case: the judgement of the High Court was set aside by the
Supreme Court.
Case 8

Name of the case: ICICI Bank ltd. V. Punj Lloyed limited (MHI)

Name of the court in which the case is listed: National Company Law Tribunal, Delhi.

Facts of the Case: A creditor, ICICI appealed to the NCLT against the decision of the
liquidator who rejected the claim of the bank on the basis of delay. But the appeal was filed
on the basis of delay due to the process involved in CIRP and liquidators impending decision.

Legal Issues: Whether the NCLT can direct the liquidator to accept or reject the claim?

Current Position of the Case: Order was passed and a date was given for further hearing.
Case 9

Name of the case: Geotech Exploration V. Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd

Name of the court in which the case is listed: National Company Law Tribunal, Delhi

Facts of the Case: This is an application under Rule 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
(Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules,
2016 seeking the withdrawal of company petition along with affidavit. The Counsel for the
Applicant (Operational Creditor) has prayed for withdrawal of the main matter since they
have entered into a settlement with the Corporate Debtor and do not want to pursue this any
longer. Accordingly, this application was allowed.

Legal Issues: Whether the adjudicating authority can withdraw the application of claim in
debt recovery if the operational creditor settles the claim mutually with Corporate debtor.

Current Position of the Case: The matter is dismissed as withdrawn.

Name of the case: Commr of Customs Vs Dilip Kumar & Co.

Name of the court in which the case is listed: Supreme Court of India

Facts of the Case: The respondents imported a consignment of Vitamin – E50 powder and
they claimed the benefit of concessional rate of duty at 5%, instead of standard 30%, The
benefit of Customs was, however, denied to the respondents on the plea of the department
that the goods under import contained chemical ingredients for animal feed and not animal
feed/prawn feed, as such, the concessional rate of duty under the extant notification was not
available.

Legal Issues: Rate of custom duty on consignment was higher than the standard rate.

Current Position of the Case: The case is pending in the supreme court of India and is listed
for hearing on 17th May,2023.
Case 11

Name of the case: Sayani Kumar De Nee Sarkar V. Arjit Sarkar & Ors

Name of the court in which the case is listed: Calcutta High Court

Facts of the Case: The petitioner filed an FIR against the accused (main respondent) under
section 498A, 406 and 120B which was filed to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Barrackpore under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C which was allowed. The accused applied for
anticipatory bail and it was also allowed. Furthermore, the accused has filed for quashing of
the FIR under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Legal Issues: whether the charge sheet filed by the police is fabricated and the charges filed
are false.

Current Position of the Case: Quashing application is pending in the High Court of
Calcutta.
Case 12

Name of the case: Shri Ravi Kumar vs Shri Shubash Chander

Name of the court in which the case is listed: Tis Hazari Court, Delhi

Facts of the Case: Ravi Kumar rented property to Shubash Chander for some period and he
charged some amount for the same but Subhash Chander continued to stay there by giving
rent on time. But, later on Delhi Rent Control took over the property and the tenant started
paying rent to the rent control. The case is filed by Ravi Kumar claiming rent amount on
property.

Legal Issues: whether the Delhi Rent Control collected rent from Shubhash Chander? Did
the respondent use the property unauthorized? Is the petitioner real owner of the property?

Current Position of the Case: The Delhi Rent Control Authority has given order on the
respondents favor but it is listed on 10 May,2023 for hearing at Tis Hazari Court.
Case 13

Name of the case: ARUNA JAISWAL V. PUNIT JAISWAL & ORS.

Name of the court in which the case is listed: Supreme Court of India.

Facts of the Case: • The case is the outcome of a family tussle. Appellant is the mother while
the respondent No.1 is the son, who was holding 39.88% shares in Oswal Agro Mills. Ltd.
and 11.11% shares in M/s. Oswal Greentech Ltd.

• The respondent No.1, filed a partition suit claiming one fourth share in the shareholdings of
his father in the above two companies. Further he filed a petition before the NCLT claiming
oppression and suppression against his mother and others.

• The appellant challenged the maintainability of the petition, inter alia, under the ground that
the respondent No.1 is not holding the required shares to file such petition.

• The NCLT dismissed the application. NCLT held respondent No.1 as legal heir was entitled
to one-fourth share of the property/shares.

• Aggrieved thereby, appeals were filed before NCLAT, which have been dismissed vide the
impugned judgment and order. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants are before this Court.

Legal Issues: According to Section 72 of the Companies Act, 2013 every holder of securities
has a right to nominate any person to whom his securities shall “vest” in the event of his
death. Section 72(3) overrides anything contained in any other law in force or any
disposition, whether testamentary or otherwise, where a nomination is validly made in the
prescribed manner.
Current Position of the Case: Thus, SC left all the questions to be decided in the pending
civil suit. Impugned orders passed by the NCLT as well as NCLAT are set aside, and the
appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent and requested that the civil suit be decided as
expeditiously as possible.

Case 14

Name of the case: Moondeep Batra vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors

Name of the court in which the case is listed: Tis Hazari Court, Delhi

Facts of the Case: Moondeep Batra filed a case of domestic violence against her husband
Ajay Chaddha. Filed application under sections 18,19,20 of Domestic Violence Act. Her
husband has thrown her away from the in-law’s house and Moondeep is seeking
compensation for physical abuse in term of money and to get back her residence at her in-
laws.

Legal Issues: Domestic Violence on physically disabled wife by Husband.

Is the husband right in not letting the wife stay at her in-laws?

Is the wife entitled for monetary compensation for the physical abuse?

Current Position of the Case: The court ordered the husband to pay 50,000/- for medical
expenses. Next date of hearing is 5/08/2023
Case 15

Name of the case: Keshpati Dasi V. Ashoke Kumar Bhattacharya

Name of the court in which the case is listed: Calcutta High Court

Facts of the Case: the plaintiff entered into an agreement to buy a property from the
defendant for which she paid certain amount of token money also. Later, the defendant
executed a contract of sale but the defendant failed to give encumbrances free land to the
plaintiff on time. Thus, the plaintiff filed a petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1&2 read with
Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908.

Legal Issues: the plaintiff’s right to free land is invaded on the occasion of failure of
contract.

Current Position of the Case: the defendant is directed to show cause notice within 15 days.
Case 16

Name of the case: Shabnam Jahan Moiuddin Ansari v. State of West Bengal

Name of the court in which the case is listed: Calcutta High Court

Facts of the Case: A young girl's biological parents wanted her aunt, who was a working
divorcee, to adopt her. They addressed the District Court by Section 56(2), Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Although the aforementioned part allows for the
adoption of a child by a relative, the district judge denied the application, citing that the aunt's
job prevented her from giving the kid the attention it needed and that the child's biological
parents were better suited to care for their daughter. The verdict was challenged by
petitioners before the Bombay High Court.

Legal Issues: Whether the refusal to grant Adoption Order by the lower court was valid and
based on the lack of any statutory requirement as posed by the relevant laws and regulations?

Current Position of the Case: The ruling of the lower court was overturned by the Calcutta
High Court. The Calcutta High Court stated, "According to the JJ Act of 2015, single parents
and divorcees are also allowed to adopt," while criticizing the Court's antiquated and
constrictive viewpoints. Additionally, the district court's role is restricted to confirming that
all adoption requirements were satisfied.
Case 17

Name of the case: Radha Karmakar V. Dharandro Basu

Name of the court in which the case is listed: Calcutta High Court

Facts of the Case: the respondent, was a minor who obtained a loan from Brahmodutt, a
lender in Calcutta, by claiming to be an adult and having executed a mortgage deed in his
favour. The fact that the respondent was a minor was discovered at the time the mortgage was
being examined for an advance payment. As a result, Kedarnath, the agent of Brahmodutt,
cannot execute the deed. But still, he executed a mortgage deed from Dharandro Basu. The
minor then filed a lawsuit against Brahmodutt through his mother and legal guardian and
urged the court to nullify the mortgage deed because he was a minor when it was executed.
The mortgage deed was revoked by the trial court after accepting the respondent's appeal.

Legal Issues: Whether the contract is void or not?

Whether the defendant was bound to repay the deed amount?

Whether the deed violated Sections 2, 10, and 11 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872?

Current Position of the Case: The appeal is dismissed.

Name of the case: Parveen V. State of West Bengal

Name of the court in which the case is listed: Calcutta High Court

Facts of the Case: Four accused were being escorted by the police from the Central Jail,
Alipur by train to be produced in the Court of CJM, Kolkata. On reaching the Railway
Station, four young boys entered their compartment, attacked the police party and tried to
rescue the accused. The accused, who were in custody also tried to escape and an attempt was
also made to snatch the official carbine. It was alleged that one of the accused fired upon the
Head Constable, who got injured and later succumbed to his injuries. One accused was
apprehended and the other three fled. The accused were charged under offences Sections 224,
225, 332, 353, 392, 307, 302, 120-B of the IPC and for certain offences under the Arms Act.

Legal Issues: The criminal intent of accused and conspiracy to attack police.

Current Position of the Case: The accused were held guilty by the Sessions Court and on
appeal, the High Court of Calcutta is yet to hear the case.