When the moratorium period is imposed then in such case certain activities as prescribed under the Act has been kept on stay i.e., during this time the corporate debtor shall not initiate the arbitration proceeding. In other words, that when the imposition of moratorium takes place then during that time the corporate debtor will not be allowed to invoke the provisions of remedy available under various different provisions.

This case gave a rather more concrete and segregated definition as to what all duties formed the body of fiduciary duty for a professional, and in what circumstances do these fiduciary duties arise and when are they are supposed to be followed by the professional in question. Although the solicitor as a professional had a fiduciary duty to uphold, but not every breach of care done by the solicitor as a professional can be counted as a breach of fiduciary duty. In the case of Mr. Mothew, the building society was made aware of all the risks involved, after which they had consented to the acts of Mothew. This, in turn, removed the causal link for the breach so alleged against Mr. Mothew.

The court in this case discusses the judgement of the Competition Commission of India in light of the previously decided cases on the same issues. The Competition Commission of India had allowed complaints against an alleged dominant player.

The position of the directors is indeed an important issue for the assessment liabilities of the directors. In this case, the position of the Director of the Bank was an important aspect for consideration. After the death of the director, the Court held that the claim made against the legal representatives of the director was barred by limitation, and therefore untenable before the court of law.

In this case[1], an application was filed by the company M/s. Vintage Hotels Private Ltd. praying for setting aside of the winding up order dated 04-12-1998 The application has been hotly contested and a large number of documents have been

This judgment broadened the scope of liability of director in case of default. It was not the first decision to view directors as trustees in case of misfeasance but it is remarkable as it extensively scrutinized various arguments.

The case mentioned is concerned with the dilemma about the jurisdiction of the court with reference to Indian Trusts Act, 1982. The current petition is filed over a dispute for the maintainability of a suit and the right jurisdiction for the same.

After their continuous absence and non-responsiveness to the notices of the Court, the court allowed plaintiff’s application for a default judgment The court allowed for recovery only under one statute because the offences under the two statures were essentially the same, and thus, allowing recovery under both the statutes would have been nothing less than ‘double recovery’ from the defendants. The Court pondered over damages under three heads – statutory damages, enhanced damages, and other fees related to Attorney’s costs and other costs so incurred.