THE ULTIMATE

QUICK REFERENCE INDEX

MDCS OPEN FOR SUPPLEMENT

BOOK EXAM RELEASED BY ICSI

FOR JUNE 2024

CS PROFESSIONAL ATTEMPT

MODULE 3 PAPER 8

SUPPLEMENT INDEXED IN
JUST 12 PAGES SW
ERS IN
JU
For
N

JUNE
A

WRITTEN BY ST
FIND

CS ADITI PANT 2024 ATTEMPT

TRUSTED BY CS STUDENTS
ACROSS INDIA FASTFORWARD
 TABLE OF CONTENTS | Page | 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CORPORATE LAWS INCLUDING COMPANY LAW ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

COMPETITION LAW .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7

FEMA & OTHER ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS LEGISLATIONS ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9

INSOLVENCY LAW ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11

INTERPRETATION OF LAW ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14

SECURITIES LAWS ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17

WRITTEN BY INDIA’S BEST TEACHER FOR CS PROFESSIONAL OPEN BOOK ELECTIVES – CS ADITI PANT
 CORPORATE LAWS INCLUDING COMPANY LAW | Page | 3

CORPORATE LAWS INCLUDING COMPANY LAW

KEY WORDS CASE STUDY SUBJECT MATTER PAGE
Ravindranath Bajpe (Appellant)
–vs Mangalore Special Economic Can a Company Director be Held to be Vicariously Liable for Offence Committed
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
Zone Limited & Others by the Company? 4
(Respondent)

OPPRESSION AND Vijaya Sai Poultries Pvt. Ltd

Companies Act, 2013- Oppression and Financial Mismanagement- Forensic
FINANCIAL (Appellant) –vs Vemulapalli Sai
Audit of the Accounts ordered by NCLT- Whether Tenable- Held, No\ 7
MISMANAGEMENT Pramella& Others (Respondent)

TATA Consultancy Services Ltd Companies Act, 2013- Section 242- oppression and mismanagement- removal of
SECTION 242-
(Appellant) vs. CYRUS chairman- minority group alleges acts of oppression and mismanagement- NCLT
OPPRESSION AND
Investments Pvt Ltd dismissed the petition- NCLAT allowed the appeal of the minority group- 8
MISMANAGEMENT-
(Respondent) Whether correct- Held, No

SECTION 230 OF THE

COMPANIES ACT, 2013
Section 230 of the Companies Act,2013 read with section 29A of the Insolvency
READ WITH SECTION Arun Kumar Jagatramka
and Bankruptcy Code, 2016- CIRP - person ineligible to submit a resolution
29A OF THE (Appellant) vs. Jindal Steel and
plan- can he submit a scheme of compromise and arrangement- Held, No. Law 13
INSOLVENCY AND Power Ltd and Anr (Respondent)
explained.
BANKRUPTCY CODE,
2016

SECTION 66- Brillio Technologies Pvt.Ltd Companies Act, 2013- section 66- reduction of share capital- scheme envisaged
REDUCTION OF SHARE (Appellant) vs. Registrar Of reduction of capital by way of reducing promoter shares- NCLT rejected the 16
CAPITAL Companies& Anr (Respondent) petition whether correct Held, Yes.

OPPRESSION AND Vijaya Sai Poultries Pvt.Ltd

Companies Act, 2013- oppression and financial mismanagement- forensic audit
FINANCIAL (Appellant) vs. Vemulapalli Sai
of the accounts ordered by NCLT- whether tenable- Held, No. 19
MISMANAGEMENT Pramella & Ors (Respondent)

Devas Multimedia Pvt Ltd

Challenging an order of winding up passed by the National Company Law
SECTION 271(C) (Appellant) vs. Antrix
Tribunal 20
Corporation Ltd (Respondent)

SECTIONS 184,189 AND Hamlin Trust & Ors (Appellant) Sections 184,189 and 203 of the Companies Act, 2013 - Key Managerial Persons
203 OF THE v. Rose investments S.Ã R.L. & appointment of CFO by a private company- whether private company is covered 22
COMPANIES ACT,2013 Ors (Respondents) by these sections -Held, yes.

WRITTEN BY INDIA’S BEST TEACHER FOR CS PROFESSIONAL OPEN BOOK ELECTIVES – CS ADITI PANT
 CORPORATE LAWS INCLUDING COMPANY LAW | Page | 4

SEBI (Appellant) v. NSE Section 12 of SEBI Act, 1992- Multiple registration as stockbroker in different
SECTION 12 OF SEBI
ACT, 1992
Members Association & Ors stock exchanges-Whether single registration and payment of single registration 24
(Respondents) fee permissible Held, No.

SECTION 252- Companies Act,2013- section 252- restoration of the name of the company-
RESTORATION OF THE Durga Builders Pvt Ltd vs. company was in litigation- not able to file financial statements -name struck off
NAME OF THE Registrar of Companies & Anr from the register without hearing the company – name restoration application 26
COMPANY was also rejected whether correct-Held, No.

SECTION 59 (S.111A OF
Companies Act,2013- section 59 (S.111A of 1956 Act)-rectification of members
1956 ACT)- IFB Agro Industries Ltd vs.
RECTIFICATION OF Sicgil India Ltd
register application filed for rectification of register raised violations of SEBI (PIT) 27
regulations as well-NCLAT allowed the same- whether proper-Held, No.
MEMBERS REGISTER

SECTIONS 241 – 242 OF Garish Oberoi & Ors vs. Hotel

Companies Act, 2013- oppression and mismanagement- Sections 241-242-
THE COMPANIES ACT, and Restaurant Association of
whether the petition is maintainable-Held, Yes. 29
2013 Western India & Anr

SECTION 248 -
Mukesh Kumar Gupta vs. Companies Act, 2013- section 248- removal of name from the register-whether
REMOVAL OF NAME
Registrar of Companies correct Held, No. 32
FROM THE REGISTER

SECTION 241-242 –
Thyagaraja vs. The Church of Companies Act, 2013- section 241-242 – oppression and mismanagement-
OPPRESSION AND
South India Trust & Ors company petition dismissed by NCLT- whether correct- Held, Yes.] 33
MISMANAGEMENT

SECTION 140(5) - Companies Act, 2013- section 140(5)- removal of auditor by Tribunal- auditors
Union Of India vs. Deloitte
REMOVAL OF AUDITOR
Haskins And Sells LLP
accused of fraud resigned before investigation-whether they are liable to be 34
BY TRIBUNAL removed-Held, Yes.

Liquidation of company- Sale of property by OL in public auction on “as is where

Official Liquidator, Calcutta vs. is” basis- charges and encumbrances were not disclosed- Nigam claimed its
SALE OF PROPERTY BY
OL IN PUBLIC AUCTION
Ujjain Nagar Palika Nigam & property tax dues for pre- and post-liquidation period- OL allowed only for the 36
Ors pre-liquidation period and rejected the claim for post liquidation period- whether
correct-Held, No.

SECTION 241 AND 242 -

Shankar Sundaram vs. Companies Act, 2013- section 241 and 242- oppression and mismanagement-
OPPRESSION &
Amalgamations Ltd & Ors whether applicant made a case for relief-Held, No. 38
MISMANAGEMENT

SECTION 252- Vbuiltfine Properties Private Ltd

Companies Act,2013- section 252- restoration of the struck of name- imposition
RESTORATION OF THE vs. Registrar of Companies,
of huge costs whether tenable-Held, No. 40
STRUCK OF NAME Mumbai

SECTIONS 230 AND Companies Act, 2013-sections 230 and 232- amalgamation of companies-
Reliance Industries Limited vs.
232- AMALGAMATION
ROC
dispensation of class meetings- whether consent affidavits of 90% creditors and 41
OF COMPANIES shareholders is mandatory - Held, No.

WRITTEN BY INDIA’S BEST TEACHER FOR CS PROFESSIONAL OPEN BOOK ELECTIVES – CS ADITI PANT
 CORPORATE LAWS INCLUDING COMPANY LAW | Page | 5

SECTION 140(5)- Companies Act, 2013- section 140(5)- removal of auditor by Tribunal- auditors
Union Of India vs. Deloitte
REMOVAL OF AUDITOR
Haskins And Sells LLP]
accused of fraud resigned before investigation-whether they are liable to be 42
BY TRIBUNAL removed-Held, yes.

WRITTEN BY INDIA’S BEST TEACHER FOR CS PROFESSIONAL OPEN BOOK ELECTIVES – CS ADITI PANT
 COMPETITION LAW | Page | 7

COMPETITION LAW
KEY WORDS CASE STUDY SUBJECT MATTER PAGE
Eastern Railway,
SECTION 3 OF Collusive bidding & cartel under Section 3 of Competition Act, 2002- identical
Kolkata(Informant) vs. M/S
COMPETITION ACT,
Chandra Brothers & Ors
price quoted by Opposite Parties (Ops) for the product Axle Bearings- was there 80
2002 any cartelHeld, Yes. Should OPs penalised-Held, No
(Opposite Parties)

In Re: Alleged Anti-Competitive

SECTION 3 OF Conduct By Maruti Suzuki Competition Act, 2002- Section 3- restrictive clauses in dealership agreements
COMPETITION ACT, India Limited In Implementing differential discounts controlled- whether restrictive to the detriment of 81
2002 Discount Control Policy Vis-À- competition– Held, yes
Vis Dealers

SECTION 4
Informant (Confidential) vs.
COMPETITION ACT, Competition Act, 2002- Section 4- abuse of dominance-Viscose Staple Fibre
2002 - ABUSE OF
Grasim Industries Limited
(VSF)- CCI passes cease and desist order. 85
[Opposite Parties(OP]
DOMINANCE

SECTION 4 Meru Travel Solutions Pvt.

COMPETITION ACT, Ltd(Appellant) vs. Uber India Competition Axt,2002- section 4- radio taxi services- below cost pricing by Uber
2002 - ABUSE OF Systems Pvt. Ltd. & whether abuse of dominance-Held, No. 87
DOMINANCE Ors(Respondent)

Competition Act, 2002- section 3 & 4- android based smart phones and
SECTION 3 & 4 - Kshitiz Arya &Anr (Appellant)
television devicespre-installation of google app play store – restrictions on OEMs
COMPETITION ACT, vs. Google Llc & Ors
not to manufacture other forked android devices- whether abuse of dominance: 90
2002 (Respondent)
Held, yes

CP Cell, Directorate General

SECTION 3 OF
OrdnanceService (Appellant) vs. Competition Act, 2002- section 3- bid rigging- two bids of identical value-
COMPETITION ACT -
Sankeshwar Synthetics Pvt. Ltd whether cartelisation established-Held, No. 93
BID RIGGING
(Respondent)

Confederation Of Professional
SECTION 4
Baseball Softball Clubs Competition Act, 2002 - section 4- abuse of dominance -tournaments conducted
COMPETITION ACT,
2002 - ABUSE OF
(Appellant) vs. Amateur by unrecognised bodies- OP restriction players from participating in the 95
Baseball Federation Of tournaments organized whether abuse of dominance- Held, Yes.
DOMINANCE
India(Respondent)

The core issue was whether CCI had jurisdiction to investigate the allegation of
JURISDICTION TO Competition Commission of
INVESTIGATE India v. State of Mizoram & Ors
bid rigging and cartelisation the tender process conducted by the State of 96
Mizoram.

WRITTEN BY INDIA’S BEST TEACHER FOR CS PROFESSIONAL OPEN BOOK ELECTIVES – CS ADITI PANT
 COMPETITION LAW | Page | 8

Consumer Unity & Trust

SECTION 19(1) (A) OF Society(Informant ) Vs. PVR The present information is filed by Informant under Section 19(1) (a) of the
THE COMPETITION Limited (Opposite Party No. 1) & Competition Act, 2002(Act) against Opposite Parties (Ops) alleging contravention 98
ACT, 2002 INOX Leisure Limited(Opposite of the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Act.
Party No. 2)

SECTION 3 & 4 OF THE

Swastik Road Carrier v. Central Section 3 & 4 of the Competition Act, 2002- Bid process informant’s bid rejected
COMPETITION ACT,
Railside Warehouse Co Ltd on the ground of conflict of interest- whether tenable- Held, Yes. 99
2002

IF A STATUTE SPEAKS
TO DO IT IN A
United Breweries Ltd.
PARTICULAR MANNER It is settled that if a statute speaks to do it in a particular manner that has to be
THAT HAS TO BE DONE
(Appellant) vs. CCI &
done in the same manner not in other way 100
Ors(Respondents)
IN THE SAME MANNER
NOT IN OTHER WAY
Competition Act, 2002- cartelisation in sugar industry- CCI holding the
COMPETITION ACT, Indian Sugar Mills Association
appellants liable and passed order against them imposing penalty- while passing
2002- CARTELISATION vs. Competition Commission of
the order prescribed rules/procedure were not followed- whether order deserves 101
IN SUGAR INDUSTRY India & ORS
quashment Held, yes.

COMPETITION ACT,
2002 READ WITH COAL Competition Act, 2002 read with Coal Mines Nationalisation Act- abuse of
Coal India Ltd v. Competition
MINES
Commission of India
dominance whether CCI has jurisdiction to inquire into the allegation with 103
NATIONALISATION ACT- respect to a nationalised coalmine company- Held, Yes.
ABUSE OF DOMINANCE

WRITTEN BY INDIA’S BEST TEACHER FOR CS PROFESSIONAL OPEN BOOK ELECTIVES – CS ADITI PANT
 FEMA & OTHER ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS LEGISLATIONS | Page | 9

FEMA & OTHER ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS LEGISLATIONS

KEY WORDS CASE STUDY SUBJECT MATTER PAGE
The grounds taken in the appeal for enhancement of penalty is to state that the
Union of India through Deputy penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority is highly unreasonable and
CONTRAVENTION OF
Legal Adviser, Directorate of ridiculously low.
PROVISIONS OF FEMA
Enforcement (Appellant) vs. The appellant has stated that the Adjudicating Authority has ignored the 47
1999 AND REGULATION
Kamal Chand (Respondent) provisions of Section 13 (1) of FEMA which provides for imposition of penalty up
to thrice the sum involved in the contraventions.

WRITTEN BY INDIA’S BEST TEACHER FOR CS PROFESSIONAL OPEN BOOK ELECTIVES – CS ADITI PANT
 INSOLVENCY LAW | Page | 11

INSOLVENCY LAW
KEY WORDS CASE STUDY SUBJECT MATTER PAGE
TERMINATION OF
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016- CIRP- termination of agreement due to
AGREEMENT DUE TO TATA Consultancy Services Ltd
deficiency of corporate debtor rendering services- termination arose out of the
DEFICIENCY OF (Appellant) vs. Vishal Ghisulal
contract – application of RP- NCLT rejected the termination and NCLAT also 49
CORPORATE DEBTOR Jain (RP)(Respondent)
confirmed- whether correct-Held, No.
RENDERING SERVICES-

National Spot Exchange Limited Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016- Section 61- Appeals- limitation period –
SECTION 61- APPEALS -
LIMITATION PERIOD
(Appellant) vs. Anil Kohli- RP for Power of NCLAT to condone delay- delay of 44 days in filing appeal- NCLAT 51
Dunar Foods Ltd (Respondent) refused to condone the delay- whether correct- Held, Yes.

SECTION 7- INTEREST
FREE LOAN GIVEN TO
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016- Section 7- interest free loan given to
CORPORATE DEBTOR- Orator Marketing Pvt. Ltd
corporate debtor- non-payment thereof lender filing CIRP application- NCLT &
NON-PAYMENT (Appellant) vs. Samtex Desinz
NCLAT dismisses the application on the ground that it is an interest free loan, 53
THEREOF LENDER Pvt. Ltd (Respondent)
and the applicant is not a financial creditor- whether correct-Held, No
FILING CIRP
APPLICATION

APPROVAL OF India Resurgence Arc Pvt Ltd v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Act,2016- approval of resolution plan by CoC –
RESOLUTION PLAN BY (Appellant) vs. Amit Metaliks exercise of commercial wisdom by CoC- discretion of adjudicating authority- 57
COC Ltd & Anr (Respondent) whether correct Held, Yes.

SECTION 14 OF THE
Sandeep Khaitan (Appellant) vs. Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016 read with section 482 of
INSOLVENCY AND
BANKRUPTCY
JSVM Plywood Industries Ltd the CrPC- CIRP- operation of frozen bank account was allowed to be operated- 59
(Respondent) whether correct-Held, No.
CODE,2016
SECTION 3 OF THE
UTTAR PRADESH
NOIDA (Appellant) vs. Anand
INDUSTRIAL AREA
Sonbhadra (Respondent)
Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 61
DEVELOPMENT ACT,
1976

ISSUES 1. STAGES OF
CORPORATE
Sundaresh Bhatt, Liquidator of
INSOLVENCY
ABG Shipyard Vs. Central Issues 1. Stages of Corporate Insolvency Resolution
RESOLUTION
Board of Indirect Taxes and Process 2. Interplay between IBC and the Customs Act, 1962 64
PROCESS 2. INTERPLAY
Customs
BETWEEN IBC AND THE
CUSTOMS ACT, 1962

WRITTEN BY INDIA’S BEST TEACHER FOR CS PROFESSIONAL OPEN BOOK ELECTIVES – CS ADITI PANT
 INSOLVENCY LAW | Page | 12

Sumat Kumar Gupta Insolvency

Professional, Formerly
Resolution Professional M/S
Section 27 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code does not contemplate any
SECTION 27 OF THE Vallabh Textiles Company Ltd
opportunity of hearing to the Resolution Professionals be given by the
INSOLVENCY & (Appellant) Vs. Committee of
Adjudicating Authority before Approving the proposal of new Resolution 65
BANKRUPTCY CODE Creditors of M/S Vallabh
Professional.
Textiles Company Ltd. Through
Punjab National Bank
(Respondent)

INSOLVENCY AND
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Act,2016 read with State Financial Corporations Act,
BANKRUPTCY ACT,2016
Andhra Pradesh State Financial 1959:
READ WITH STATE
FINANCIAL
Corporation vs. Kalptaru Steel corporate debtor had mortgaged the property and handed over the title deeds to 66
Rolling Mills Ltd & Ors the appellant- approval of resolution plan by NCLT and direction to the appellant
CORPORATIONS ACT,
to release the titled deeds of the property- whether NCLT was correct- Held, Yes.
1959

SECTION 9- CIRP Shahi Md Karim vs. Kabamy Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016- Section 9- CIRP petition- admitted by
(PETITION) India LLP & Anr NCLT whether correct-Held, Yes 68
INSOLVENCY AND
BANKRUPTCY ACT,2016
- MORATORIUM Supriyo Kumar Chaudhuri &
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - moratorium period- rent demanded
PERIOD- RENT Anr vs. Jhunjhunwala Oil Mills
from corporate debtor whether tenable- Held, No. 69
DEMANDED FROM Ltd & Anr
CORPORATE DEBTOR
WHETHER TENABLE

SECTION 327 (7) OF

THE COMPANIES ACT,
Liquidation of insolvent company- Section 327 (7) of the Companies Act, 2013
2013 READ WITH Moser Baer Karamchari Union
SECTION 53 OF THE vs. Union of India & Ors
read with section 53 of the Insolvency and bankruptcy Act,2016- workmen’s 72
dues- removing it from the IBC- whether tenable-Held, No.
INSOLVENCY AND
BANKRUPTCY ACT,2016
INSOLVENCY AND
BANKRUPTCY CODE,
VISTRA ITCL (INDIA) Ltd vs. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016- financial creditor- claim rejected-
2016- FINANCIAL
Dinkar Venkatasubramanian whether correct-Held, No. 74
CREDITOR- CLAIM
REJECTED

COMMITTEE OF Ramkrishna Forgings Limited

CREDITORS (COC) (Appellant) Vs. Ravindra
Committee of Creditors (CoC) decision is not to be subjected to unnecessary
DECISION IS NOT TO BE Loonkar, Resolution
judicial scrutiny and intervention under IBC 76
SUBJECTED TO Professional of ACIL Limited &
UNNECESSARY Anr.(Respondents)

WRITTEN BY INDIA’S BEST TEACHER FOR CS PROFESSIONAL OPEN BOOK ELECTIVES – CS ADITI PANT
 INSOLVENCY LAW | Page | 13

JUDICIAL SCRUTINY
AND INTERVENTION
UNDER IBC

SECTION 95 TO Dilip B Jiwrajka{Petitioner(s)}

Section 95 to Section 100 of the IBC is not unconstitutional as they do not
SECTION 100 OF THE Vs. Union of India & Ors
violate Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution 77
IBC {Respondent(s)}

INSOLVENCY AND
BANKRUPTCY CODE,
2016- CIRP The National Small Industries Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016- CIRP proceedings – moratorium started
PROCEEDINGS – Corporation Ltd Vs. Rekha encashment of BG by the secured financial creditor during the moratorium 78
MORATORIUM Sharma Resolution Professional period whether valid-Held, yes.
STARTED ENCASHMENT
OF BG

WRITTEN BY INDIA’S BEST TEACHER FOR CS PROFESSIONAL OPEN BOOK ELECTIVES – CS ADITI PANT
 INTERPRETATION OF LAW | Page | 14

INTERPRETATION OF LAW
KEY WORDS CASE STUDY SUBJECT MATTER PAGE
OBSERVATIONS WERE
MADE THAT THE BODY
CORPORATE IS A DE If a complaint was made in the name of the Company, it is necessary that a
JURE COMPLAINANT natural person represents such juristic person in the court and the court looks
Bhupesh Rathod (Appellant) vs.
WHILE THE HUMAN upon the natural person for all practical purposes. It is in this context that
BEING IS A DE FACTO
Dayashankar Prasad Chaurasia
observations were made that the body corporate is a de jure complainant while 105
& Anr. (Respondents)
COMPLAINANT TO the human being is a de facto complainant to represent the former in the court
REPRESENT THE proceedings.
FORMER IN THE COURT
PROCEEDINGS.
HIGH COURT SHOULD
NOT INTERFERE WITH High Court should not interfere with the award on the ground of territorial
THE AWARD ON THE Mayan (Appellant) vs. Mustafa jurisdiction on the make-belief stand that the injured has not pleaded in his
GROUND OF and Anr.(Respondents) claim petition that he was residing within the jurisdiction of the Compensation 107
TERRITORIAL Commissioner, Trichirapalli.
JURISDICTION

‘ROYALTY’ HAS ‘Royalty’ has consistently been construed to be compensation paid for rights and
CONSISTENTLY BEEN privileges enjoyed by the grantee. As against tax which is imposed under a
M/s Indsil Hydro Power and
CONSTRUED TO BE statutory power without reference to any special benefit to be conferred on the
Manganese Limited (Appellant)
COMPENSATION PAID
vs. State of Kerala & Others
payer of the tax. Where the Agreements were entered into after long deliberations 108
FOR RIGHTS AND and had the advantage of legal counsel, it cannot be said that parties were in a
(Respondents)
PRIVILEGES ENJOYED position with lesser bargaining power or were so vulnerable that by force of
BY THE GRANTEE. circumstances they were forced to accept such term.

CONSENT OF SEBI IS
NOT REQUIRED FOR Consent of SEBI is not required for compounding of offences under SEBI Act.
Prakash Gupta (Appellant) vs.
COMPOUNDING OF
SEBI (Respondent)
However, views of SEBI should be considered. Supreme Court issues guidelines 112
OFFENCES UNDER SEBI for compounding.
ACT.

The Authority for Clarification

and Advance Ruling & Anr.
EXTERNAL AID IN No external aid for interpretation can be employed when the exemption Entry
INTERPRETATION
(Petitioners) v. M/S. Aakavi
being clear and unambiguous 116
Spinning Mills (P) Ltd.
(Respondents)

WRITTEN BY INDIA’S BEST TEACHER FOR CS PROFESSIONAL OPEN BOOK ELECTIVES – CS ADITI PANT
 INTERPRETATION OF LAW | Page | 15

A DECISION WITHOUT Gandhar Oil Refinery (India) Ltd

A decision without reasons is like grass without root, the requirement to record
REASONS IS LIKE (Appellant) vs. City Oil Pvt. Ltd
reasons is one of the principles of natural justice 117
GRASS WITHOUT ROOT (Respondent)

SECTION 12(5) READ

WITH SCHEDULE VII OF Cholamandalam Investment
Compliance with Section 12(5) read with Schedule VII of Arbitration and
ARBITRATION AND and Finance Company Ltd. vs.
Conciliation Act, 1996 is a sine qua non for validity of arbitral reference 119
CONCILIATION ACT, Amrapali Enterprises and Ors.
1996
Maharashtra State Electricity
DEVIATION FROM THE Distribution Company Limited
A deviation from the plain terms of the contract is warranted only when it serves
PLAIN TERMS IN (Appellant) v. Ratnagiri Gas and
business efficacy better 120
INTERPRETATION Power Private Limited & Ors.
(Respondents)

Sree Sankaracharya University

RETROSPECTIVE of Sanskrit & Ors. [Appellant(s)] Any legislation which is clarificatory or explanatory would generally be
OPERATION v. Dr. Manu & Anr. retrospective in operation 123
Resopondent(s)]

WRITTEN BY INDIA’S BEST TEACHER FOR CS PROFESSIONAL OPEN BOOK ELECTIVES – CS ADITI PANT
 SECURITIES LAWS | Page | 17

SECURITIES LAWS
KEY WORDS CASE STUDY SUBJECT MATTER PAGE
A “FORWARDED AS
RECEIVED” WHATSAPP
MESSAGE CIRCULATED Shruti Vora, Neeraj Kumar A “forwarded as received” WhatsApp message circulated on a group regarding
ON A GROUP Agarwal, Parthiv Dalal and quarterly financial results of a Company closely matching with the vital
REGARDING Aditya Omprakash Gaggar statistics, shortly after the in-house finalization of the financial results by the
QUARTERLY FINANCIAL (Appellants) vs. Securities and Company and some time before the publication/disclosure of the same by the 45
RESULTS OF A Exchange Board of India (SEBI) concerned Company, would not amount to an UPSI under the provisions of SEBI
COMPANY CLOSELY (Respondent) (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations.
MATCHING WITH THE
VITAL STATISTICS

WRITTEN BY INDIA’S BEST TEACHER FOR CS PROFESSIONAL OPEN BOOK ELECTIVES – CS ADITI PANT