Case Analysis

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that one of the main objectives of enactment of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 was to finish the legal proceedings in a time bound manner. Hence holding this objective, the court held that if there is any delay in the filing of the appeal or filing of the application under the provisions of the code, then in that case the adjudicating authority shall not accept the application and reject the same.

As in the present case, the court protected the rights of the operational debtor by using literal approach towards the provision of section 9 of the Code. Also, to not to deprive the Advocates from practice of their profession, the Court held that depriving them for such practice will attract the violation of Article 19 of the Constitution of India.

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.

The company is a separate legal entity which confers its own rights and duties. The members of the company have limited liability in the normal course of business but can be held liable in extraordinary circumstances where the court feels that there is a misuse of the Principle.

This is a landmark case law where the corporate veil was lifted to make the actual person behind the sham companies liable for a super-tax on an aggregated income. It was an instance of the sham transfer, even though the transaction ends with the formal registration of the document before the Registrar.

The action by LIC of issuing a requisition notice for the replacement of nine directors by nominating new Directors is not contrary to the provisions of section 284 of the Companies Act, 1956, nor was it ultra vires and the powers vested with LIC under section 6 of the Life Insurance Corporation was not arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

In This case after reviewing the provisions of the Act, the Supreme Court concluded that the District forums, State Commission and the National Commission are not considered “courts” even though they are vested with some authorities of the Civil Court they are precisely “quasi-judicial” bodies for rendering speedy and inexpensive redressal of disputes to the consumers. The idea of these bodies or agencies is to provide justice and fair treatment to consumers in the matters of goods and services. The scheme of “business-to-consumer” disputes helped the court in interpreting that words like “consumer” and “commercial purposes”

This case dealt with the jurisprudence of defining ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act and also with the validity of the precedents decided before the Amendments in the Act.

This case deals with the process by which a company can change its status. This means that the company will now need to follow all the guidelines in its Memorandum of association and Article of Association that are applicable on the Private Limited companies. This will also mean that the company would now need to roll out its share or debenture applications, if it wishes to, as per the guidelines that are applicable to Private industries. It would have to maintain the capital and assets as required by a private limited company under the Companies act, 2013.

The case analyses the scope of issuing bonus shares out of the Revaluation Reserve of a firm if the Article of Association permits. It doing so it discusses with the provisions laid down under the Companies Act, on issue of Bonus Shares. As per the provisions laid down by the Companies Act, A company is authorized by law to issue fully paid-up bonus shares to its members out of Free Reserves, Securities Premium Account or Capital Redemption Reserve Account.