Sandesara Brothers Settlement Order; Apple Moves Delhi HC, New CJI & More

“Arbitration is often a friend in conferences but a foe in practice”

-Supreme Court bench in a judgment highlighting the occasional misuse and manipulation of the law sometimes rendering the ADR method less effective

A Big Win for Sandesara Brothers, A Potential For Other Declared Fugitives?

Earlier this month on November 19, the Supreme Court permitted declared fugitive Nitin and Chetan Sandesara to make a one-time settlement payment towards their dues and allowed for closing all criminal proceedings against the brothers arising from the FIR filed in the bank fraud case. 

This order from the court did not come as a shocking surprise considering that the top court had, from the beginning of the case, expressed more inclination towards recovering public money rather than pursuing criminal action. 

During the proceedings the brothers, who are oil majors in Nigeria, had consistently expressed interest in repaying the amount and buttressed this interest by showing the voluntary payments made thus far. The government in exchange did raise questions about the colour of the money repaid by the brothers who had fled the country in 2017 on foreign passports. 

Ultimately, the government quoted a figure purportedly higher than the amount that remained pending from the figure for which the brothers faced the FIR and the brothers promised to honour the request. Noting that there isn’t any material benefit in pursuing criminal action, the court laid down a timeline for the duo to deposit the money in an attempt to bring the public money back to the Indian government.

The court, in its order published on the website belatedly, has outlined that this arrangement of dropping criminal charges in exchange of repayment of money is passed in the peculiar circumstances of this case and will not be a precedent. However, this major case does indeed open the potential door for many other declared fugitives from India to raise the same plea and same arguments on the same grounds that what purpose will pursuing a criminal case serve if the accused party is willing to make the payment. After all, someone like Vijay Mallya has been consistently claiming to have repaid, through recoveries and attachments, more than what he defaulted on. Shouldn’t the same model be applied in other cases too so long as public money reverts into the system?

It does beg the question: what should the courts prioritise – bringing the financial offenders to book or recovering as much money from the defaulted amount to bring it back to the public banks. 

Key Rulings:

• Madras High Court rules that an arbitral tribunal is bound by an arbitration agreement and does not have the jurisdiction to lift the corporate veil of companies

Courts: 

• Karnataka High Court’s division bench permits Classic Legends Pvt Ltd of Boman Irani and Mahindra & Mahindra to use Yezdi trademark for its motorbikes

• Supreme Court, once again, rejects a plea by Byju Raveendran against NCLAT’s ruling on Byju’s-BCCI settlement

• Delhi High Courts orders takedown of obscene deepfake videos of actor Ajay Devgn in his case relating to personality rights

• Supreme Court directs comedian Samay Raina and others to host programs to raise funds for the benefit of disabled persons 

• The top court suggested that Aadhaar for verifying age to access content on OTT platforms may be implemented

• Apple Inc has moved the Delhi High Court challenging the provisions of the Competition Law that allow the CCI to impose penalties on multinational companies based on global turnover

• Delhi High Courts holds Birkin bag shape and other Hermes marks as well-known trademarks

• Elon Musk’s Tesla Inc gets relief from Delhi High Court in trademark infringement lawsuit, court says Indian firm Tesla Power’s undertaking that the firm will not enter EV market to remain in place till the trademark dispute is settled finally 

Quasi Courts:

• The NCLT Mumbai permits one time settlement of 19.5 billion rupees proposed by NSEL to resolve claims by investors from a 2013 default of 54 billion rupees

Other:

• Justice Surya Kant takes oath as the Chief Justice of India

• Justice (retd.) S Muralidhar appointed as the Chair of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on occupied Palestinian territory by the UN amid an ongoing war in Gaza by Israel

• Justice Vikram Nath nominates as Executive Chairman of National Legal Services Authority

• Justice JK Maheshwari appointed chairperson of Supreme Court Legal Services Committee

The Big Listings:

• Dec 1: Supreme Court to hear Delhi NCR air pollution matter

• Dec 1: Supreme Court to continue hearing bail pleas by students and activists in Delhi riots of 2020 case

• Dec 3: Delhi High Court to hear Apple Inc.’s plea against India’s competition law’s provisions on global turnover-based penalties on MNC

• December: Supreme Court to hear Sahara’s plea for court’s nod to sell its properties to Adani to raise funds

• Jan 19: Securities Appellate Tribunal to hear appeal by Jane Street challenging SEBI’s move to allegedly refuse access to important documents to the firm in the case against it

* The dates of hearing can change and a concrete list is prepared just a day before

Legal Moves: 

• Vanita Irani joins Strider Search as Associate Partner

• Manav Raheja joins Veritas Legal as Partner