#delhicourt Archives - Page 15 of 15

3 Aug

No State Employee Has The Right To Assume That The Regulations Controlling His Employment Will Stay the Same Indefinitely

Blog #delhi, #delhicourt, #delhihighcourt, #NCLT

Title: Nirmala Vincent vs Union Of India & Ors..
Decided on: 3^rd July, 2023

+ W.P. (C) 2742/2021 & CM APPL. 20040/2021CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICESANJEEV SACHDEVA & HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

Introduction

The Delhi High Court recently dealt with a case where a petitioner sought relief by challenging the condition issued by the Union of India, which required a degree in law as a qualification for an Assistant to be promoted to the post of Court Officer in the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The court analyzed the competence of the State to change service rules and qualifications and refused to grant the relief sought by the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner joined the Registrar of Companies, Delhi, as a Lower Division Clerk and later was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk at the Company Law Board (CLB) on a deputation basis. Subsequently, she was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk on a regular basis at the CLB. Later, in 2014, she was promoted to the post of Assistant on a regular basis. In 2016, she applied for the post of Court Officer in NCLT, New Delhi Bench on a deputation basis, and was selected for the same. However, she later resumed back to the post of Assistant. The petitioner sought the quashing of Recruitment Rules issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) to the extent they required a degree in law as a mandatory qualification for promotion to the post of Court Officer.

Analysis

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General, wherein it was held that the State has the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction to prescribe qualifications, conditions of service, avenues of promotions, and criteria for promotions. The Court emphasized that it is not for the Courts to direct the government on these matters or impose its views in place of the State’s discretion.

Held

Considering the Supreme Court’s ruling in the P.U. Joshi case, the Delhi High Court held that the State has the authority to change the rules relating to service, qualifications, and other conditions of service, as per the administrative exigencies. The Court declined to quash the condition that required a degree in law for an Assistant to be promoted to the post of Court Officer in NCLT. It found that the petitioner did not have the right to challenge the State’s authority to amend or alter service rules and held that the condition was not arbitrary or discriminatory. Therefore, the Court denied the relief sought by the petitioner. The Court further clarified that government servants have no inherent right to claim that the rules governing their service conditions remain the same throughout their tenure, except for safeguarding rights or benefits already earned or accrued. The Court held that it is within the competency of the State to modify and amend rules from time to time as per administrative exigencies.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Ankit Kaushik

Click here for judgement

2 Aug

IBC | It Is Not Arbitrary To Send A Demand Notice To A Personal Guarantor In Line With Rule 7(1)

Prime Legal

Blog #arbitration, #delhi, #delhicourt, #education, #HighCourt, #IBC

Title: Vineet Saraf v. Rural Electrification Corpn. Ltd.
Decided on: 21st July, 2023

+ W.P. (C) 3293 of 2023

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Purushaindra Kumar Yadav

Introduction

The case of Vineet Saraf v. Rural Electrification Corpn. Ltd. involves a writ petition filed by the petitioner to challenge an impugned demand notice issued by the respondent under Rule 7(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Application to Deciding Authority for Insolvency Resolution Procedure for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors Rules, 2019. The petitioner, acting as a personal surety for a debt backed by a corporate guarantee, initiated a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against FACOR Power Ltd. The resolution process resulted in a Resolution Plan approved by NCLT, Cuttack, and upheld by NCLAT and the Supreme Court. The petitioner contended that the respondent had promised to transfer the entire debt and related rights to FACOR Power Ltd. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the financial creditors retained the right to pursue securities, citing continuous personal guarantees and third-party collateral provided as security for the debt. The respondent issued a demand notice based on the petitioner’s personal guarantee, which was contested by the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, a personal guarantor, challenged the respondent’s demand notice under the 2019 Rules, arguing that the respondent had assigned all obligations to FACOR Power Ltd. without excluding personal guarantees. The petitioner claimed that this assignment hindered the use of his guarantee. The Court emphasized the distinction between an unconditional release and a commitment not to sue, stating that a reserve clause in a deed that releases the primary borrower protects the creditor’s right to pursue action against the guarantor.

Analysis of Court Order

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Yadav of the Delhi High Court’s Single Judge Bench rejected the petitioner’s argument that the guarantor had a legal right to be heard at a later stage. The Court opined that granting the petition would violate the procedural requirements of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of 2016 and deprive the respondent of the opportunity to present their case before the relevant NCLT. The Court set down important guidelines for consideration but left the decision on the case’s merits to NCLT.

Held

The Delhi High Court denied the writ petition and refused to issue a writ of prohibition, emphasizing that it was not appropriate to create private commercial law to demonstrate the respondent’s lack of jurisdiction. The Court’s decision reiterated that the petitioner’s argument of having the right to be heard at a later stage was insufficient to proceed with the petition. The issue was left to NCLT’s determination based on the merits of the case.

Written by- Ankit Kaushik

Click here to view judgement

6 Jun

The Delhi High Court prohibits Dabur from disseminating a WhatsApp advertisement for ‘Amla Hair Oil’ and denies an interim injunction against a print advertisement.

Prime Legal

Blog #delhicourt, #law

Title: MARICO LIMITED v. DABUR INDIA LIMITED

CS(COMM) 471/2022

Date of decision: 02.06.2023

Introduction

Marico Limited filed the claim, citing disapproval of the goodwill and credibility of its product “Nihar Natural Shanti Badam Amla Hair Oil” and registered “Nihar” trademarks, and Justice Navin Chawla issued the ruling.

Marico requested an injunction to prevent Dabur from disseminating or transmitting its WhatsApp or print advertisements about Amla’s hair. Marico Limited filed the claim, citing disapproval of the reputation and good name of its product “Nihar Natural Shanti Badam Amla Hair Oil” and registered “Nihar” trademarks, and Justice Navin Chawla issued the ruling. Marico requested an injunction to prevent Dabur from disseminating or reposting its WhatsApp or print advertisements about Amla’s hair.

The High Court of Delhi has barred Indian global consumer goods business Dabur from distributing their WhatsApp advertising for “Dabur Amla Hair Oil” starring Bollywood actress Deepika Padukone.

Facts of the Case

Concerning the print campaign, Marico said that Dabur’s opening phrase “Yaad Rakhna, Sasta Aawla, balo ko mehenga padega” was scary and dangerous for customers, branding all other cheaper Amla Hair Oils to be deficient and hazardous. It was argued that this constituted general slander.

Although rejecting to enjoin the newspaper piece on the hair oil, the court barred Dabur or any other person working for it from disseminating the WhatsApp message or commercial on Amla hair oil while Marico’s complaint was pending.

Observing that there was no obvious reference to Marico in the contested Print Advertisement, the court stated, “The reference to the plaintiff, if any, can only be drawn by a leap of creativity, but which in my initial view is not warranted.” It is just a warning that there may be serious consequences to buying cheaper Amla Hair Oils–cheaper in both quality and price. The plaintiff’s request for this Court to use its imagination is too broad.”

Courts Analysis and Decision

According to Justice Chawla, advertising should be considered from the perspective of an ordinary customer and his impression of the commercial, which would be to regard the promotion as puffery, as opposed to from the perspective of a sensitive rival like Marcio.

The advertising simply implies that purchasing Amla Hair Oil, which is less expensive or of lower quality, may be detrimental to the hair. This can be presented as an opinion, but it is not derogatory of all hair oils that are less expensive than the plaintiff’s,” the court said.

Regarding the distribution of the contested WhatsApp advertising, the court stated: “Though the WhatsApp message/Advertisement demonstrates that the contested Print Advertisement is targeted at the plaintiff, the ordinary consumer would not have the same perception.” Only those who got the WhatsApp advertisement/message in addition to the print advertisement will be able to make the connection among the two.

Judgement- Click here to review the judgement

Written by- Anushka Satwani

1 … 13 14 15