R & D Law Chambers

R & D Law Chambers We are a full-service firm providing commercial, legal and tax advisory services in India, UK/EU.

In the said case the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed:-“14. This Court in Satheedevi (supra), therefore, gave its seal of...
13/07/2023

In the said case the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed:-
“14. This Court in Satheedevi (supra), therefore, gave its seal of approval to the judgment of learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Allam Venkateswara Reddy (supra), wherein learned Single Judge took the view that in a suit for cancellation of sale deed which was executed for a specified amount, the Court Fee has to be paid on that amount and not on the basis of the market value of the property at the presentation of the plaint.”

“16. We are of the view, Section 37 of the Court Fees Act, which deals with the suits for cancellation of decrees etc. is not governed by other Sections of the Court Fees Act, such as Section 7 and other related provisions. If Section 37 of the Court Fees Act is interpreted in the light of the expression “save as otherwise provided” used in Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, it becomes clear that the rule enshrined therein is a clear departure from the one contained in Section 7 read with Sections 24, 26, 28, 29, 34, 35, 42 and 45, which provide for payment of Court Fee on the market value of the property. In that context, we are also of the view that Section 37 is stand-alone provision, wherein the legislature has designedly not used the expression “market value of the property”. Section 37 of the Court Fees Act, therefore, contains a special rule for valuing the property for the purpose of Court Fee and jurisdiction and we do not see any reason why the expression “value of the property” used in Section 37 be substituted with the expression “market value of the property”.”

Supreme Court of IndiaPolamrasetti Manikyam & Anr. Vs. Telangana Venkata Ramayya & Anr. (Civil Appeal Nos. 2456 – 2457 o...
12/07/2023

Supreme Court of India
Polamrasetti Manikyam & Anr. Vs. Telangana Venkata Ramayya & Anr.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2456 – 2457 of 2014)

In the suit for cancellation of sale deed, which amount will be considered for purpose of court fees and jurisdiction, whether amount mentioned in the sale deed or value of the property as on the date of presentation of the suit?
In the said case, the appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for the cancellation of sale deed, wherein the value of the property in the said sale deed was INR 1,00,000/-. The respondent raised an objection that the suit is not maintainable as the court fees of the suit is not paid on the current market value of the property i.e. INR 19,36,000/- and the said amount of suit is also not in the jurisdiction of the court.

In the said case the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed:-
“14. This Court in Satheedevi (supra), therefore, gave its seal of approval to the judgment of learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Allam Venkateswara Reddy (supra), wherein learned Single Judge took the view that in a suit for cancellation of sale deed which was executed for a specified amount, the Court Fee has to be paid on that amount and not on the basis of the market value of the property at the presentation of the plaint.”

“16. We are of the view, Section 37 of the Court Fees Act, which deals with the suits for cancellation of decrees etc. is not governed by other Sections of the Court Fees Act, such as Section 7 and other related provisions. If Section 37 of the Court Fees Act is interpreted in the light of the expression “save as otherwise provided” used in Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, it becomes clear that the rule enshrined therein is a clear departure from the one contained in Section 7 read with Sections 24, 26, 28, 29, 34, 35, 42 and 45, which provide for payment of Court Fee on the market value of the property. In that context, we are also of the view that Section 37 is stand-alone provision, wherein the legislature has designedly not used the expression “market value of the property”. Section 37 of the Court Fees Act, therefore, contains a special rule for valuing the property for the purpose of Court Fee and jurisdiction and we do not see any reason why the expression “value of the property” used in Section 37 be substituted with the expression “market value of the property”.”

While decisions based on commercial wisdom of committee of creditors have immunity attached to them, process through whi...
07/07/2023

While decisions based on commercial wisdom of committee of creditors have immunity attached to them, process through which such decision is arrived can be a ground for challenge and resolution plan can be challenged if decision is arrived at without access to or consideration of relevant material. ( Dr. Periasamy Palani Gounder vs Mr. Radhakrishnan Dharmarajan- NCLAT Chennai Bench)

In above case, challenge was to the decision of NCLT, Chennai approving the resolution plan based on approval of the Committee of Creditors. NCLAT considered the fact that that the valuation report was never circulated either to the appellant or to other members of the COC and applying the principle that while the commercial wisdom of the CoC cannot be questioned, the process by which they undertook the decision and the fact that maximisation of asset value was not the objective of the process can be the grounds for challenging the resolution plan.
It held that it was apparent that the two valuers appointed by IRP did not physically verify the corporate debtor's assets despite that Regulation 35 (1) (a) of the CIRP Regulations mandating explicitly that the estimated fair value and liquidation value shall be computed after physical verification of the assets of the Corporate Debtor. NCLAT Noted that it was revealed that the valuation report was never circulated either to the Appellant or to other members of the COC and held that mere production of naked values without the detailed adjunct report would materially handicap the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors.

Read More: https://rdlawchambers.com/


ITAT, Mumbai held s.112(1)(c) of ITA, 1961 overrides general provisions as regards computation of capital gain as contai...
05/07/2023

ITAT, Mumbai held s.112(1)(c) of ITA, 1961 overrides general provisions as regards computation of capital gain as contained in s.48 of the ITA, 1961 and held that if 1st proviso and 2nd proviso of s.48 of ITA, 1961 were not given effect to (foreign exchange fluctuation not allowed to be considered) in the case of the assessee- UAE based investment company which sold shares in an unlisted company in India, in place of losses of INR 3,63,87,392, there will be a long term capital gain of INR 17,13,59,838 taxable in hands of the non-resident company/foreign company based in UAE.

ITAT adopted above reasoning relying on a a well-settled rule of interpretation that if a special provision (s.112(1)(c)) is made respecting a certain matter, that matter is excluded from the general provision (s.48) under the rule which is expressed by the maxim “Generallia specialibus non derogant”. Further, it is also a well-settled rule of construction that when, in an enactment, two provisions exist, which cannot be reconciled with each other, they should be so interpreted that, if possible, the effect should be given to both.

Read More: https://rdlawchambers.com/



Madras High Court on Monday ruled that a wife is entitled to an equal share in the property bought by her husband and sa...
04/07/2023

Madras High Court on Monday ruled that a wife is entitled to an equal share in the property bought by her husband and said the many roles played by her cannot be less equated with the 8-hour job of the husband. Justice Krishnan-ramasamy" Krishnan Ramasamy gave the order recently over a property dispute involving a couple, with the original appellant, since deceased.

Read More here: https://lnkd.in/dkTnRMF4

Click Here: https://rdlawchambers.com/

Supreme Court of India, in this decision recognized the primacy of commercial wisdom but held that it must be a consider...
22/06/2023

Supreme Court of India, in this decision recognized the primacy of commercial wisdom but held that it must be a considered decision taken by COC and approval of resolution plan could not either be in contravention of law.
SC held that:-
“Commercial wisdom of CoC is given such a status of primacy that the same is considered rather a matter non- justiciable in any adjudicatory process, be it by the Adjudicating Authority or even by this Court. However, the commercial wisdom of CoC means a considered decision taken by CoC with reference to the commercial interests and the interest of revival of the corporate debtor and maximization of value of its assets..
Putting it in different words, we are clearly of the view that even while respecting the commercial wisdom of CoC, in the present case, the resolution plan in question could not have been approved by the
Adjudicating Authority for two major reasons: one, for the ineligibility of the resolution applicant; and second, for not placing of the revised resolution plan in the CoC before seeking approval from the Adjudicating Authority.

CBDT notified above scheme on 29.05.2023. The official CBDT notification publishing the same can be accessed at https://...
16/06/2023

CBDT notified above scheme on 29.05.2023. The official CBDT notification publishing the same can be accessed at https://lnkd.in/d_Mx9mMw.

The Scheme applies in respect of such persons or class of persons, incomes or class of incomes, cases or class of cases, as covered under section 246 of the Act except the cases excluded under sub-section(6) of that section.
It does not require the assessee or its authorised representative to personally remain present; the hearing is to be conducted through video conferencing or video telephony using any telecommunication application software that supports video conferencing or video telephony.

However if the appellant or the authorised representative wish for personal hearing, they could request for the same and in terms of the Scheme, the JCIT(Appeals) shall allow the request for personal hearing and communicate the date and time of hearing to the appellant.

Read More : https://rdlawchambers.com/

27/04/2023

While ruling on an appeal filed in Union Bank of India v. Mr. P.K. Balasubramanian, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench, composed of Justice M. Venugopal and Ms. Shreesha Merla, held that when the Insolvency Resolution Process begins against a Personal Guarantor, the claims of all Creditors are taken care of. The bench came to the conclusion that multiple applications against the same Personal Guarantor are not allowed under the IBC. As a result, under the IBC's plan, all creditors' claims are addressed when the Insolvency Resolution Process against a Personal Guarantor begins.

Read More:- www.rdlawchambers.com

24/04/2023

The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023 were published in a notice by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), Government of India, on April 6, 2023. The 2023 amendment gives MeitY the authority to alert the Central Government's fact-checking unit, which will detect any fraudulent, incorrect, or deceptive online content pertaining to any activity of the Central Government. The addition of Section 3 includes a requirement that telecom service providers and social media intermediaries inform users not to host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, store, update, or share any information about any activity of the Central Government that has been flagged by the fact-checking unit as being fake, false, or misleading.

Read More:- www.rdlawchambers.com

Address

R & D Law Chambers 604, Entice Ambali Bopal Road
Ahmedabad
380058

Opening Hours

Monday 11am - 7pm
Tuesday 11am - 7pm
Wednesday 11am - 7pm
Thursday 11am - 7pm
Friday 11am - 7pm
Saturday 11am - 7pm
Sunday 11am - 7pm

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when R & D Law Chambers posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category