Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — S. 12-A — Rejection of plaint for non-compliance with S. 12-A i.e. in cases where no urgent interim relief is sought, requirement of pre-institution mediation has not been complied with: S. 12-A of the 2015 Act, held, is mandatory. Any suit (where no urgent relief is sought) instituted violating mandate of S. 12-A, held, must be visited with rejection of plaint under Or. 7 R. 11 CPC. This power can be exercised even suo motu. Patil Automation (P) Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers (P) Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 1
Re S. 12-A, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 any suit (where no urgent relief is sought) instituted violating mandate of S. 12-A, must be visited with rejection of plaint under Or. 7 R. 11 CPC. This power can be exercised even suo motu. [Patil Automation (P) Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers (P) Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 1]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 439, 437, 438, 440 r/w Ss. 41, 41-A, 88, 170, 204, 209, 309 and 436-A — Bail/Anticipatory bail — Proper exercise of power: Directions issued to investigating agencies and the courts, though such directions to be read subject to State amendments. Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51
Re Ss. 439, 437, 438, 440 r/w Ss. 41, 41-A, 88, 170, 204, 209, 309 and 436-A CrPC, 1973 qua proper exercise of power, directions issued to investigating agencies and courts, though such directions to be read subject to State amendments. [Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51]
Service Law — Promotion — Common gradation/seniority list: Challenge to draft gradation list inviting objections ought not to have been entertained by the High Court. Uttam Kumar Shaw v. Partha Sarathi Sen, (2022) 10 SCC 138
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 100 — Second appeal — Limitation — Suit for specific performance of contract: Answer to question of limitation by High Court without framing substantial question of law and without reference to Art. 54 of the Limitation Act, held, impermissible. Raman v. R. Natarajan, (2022) 10 SCC 143
Re S. 100 CPC, 1908 answer to question of limitation by High Court without framing substantial question of law and without reference to Art. 54 of Limitation Act impermissible. [Raman v. R. Natarajan, (2022) 10 SCC 143]
Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 — Ss. 3 and 4 — Re-assessment of disability at request of employer: Employer must make the said request at the earliest. Suresh Paswan v. KLA Construction Technologies (P) Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 149
Re Ss. 3 and 4, Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 qua re-assessment of disability at request of employer, employer must make the said request at the earliest. [Suresh Paswan v. KLA Construction Technologies (P) Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 149]
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Ss. 141 and 138: Proceedings against non-executive independent Directors of accused Company, when Maintainable, principles clarified. Conditions required to be satisfied to rope in such non-signatory Directors i.e. Directors other than a Managing or Joint Managing Director, namely: (i) involvement in the day-to-day affairs of the company or in the running of its business, and (ii) specific averments in the pleadings to substantiate such contention. Mere statement that all Directors of an accused Company are in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, without anything more, is not sufficient. Sunita Palita v. Panchami Stone Quarry, (2022) 10 SCC 152
Re Ss. 141 and 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 qua proceedings against non-executive independent Directors of accused company, when maintainable, principles clarified. [Sunita Palita v. Panchami Stone Quarry, (2022) 10 SCC 152]
