Legal Reference Library

Two Unitech   Ltd Managing Directors, Ajay Chandra and Sanjay Chandra, were awarded three years' imprisonment for non-compliance of order issued in 2015 by the Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (CSCDRC). The punitive measure was awarded after the real estate giant failed to give possessions of a residential unit in Mohali to two Delhi-based clients even after making the payment on time. Then, the commission sought explanation from the builder and asked them to settle dues of Rs 53 lakhs. Two Unitech Ltd Managing Directors, Ajay Chandra and Sanjay Chandra, were awarded three years' imprisonment for non-compliance of order issued in 2015 by the Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (CSCDRC). Read more at: http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/current-affairs/unitech-mds-get-3-yrsjail-as-company-fails-to-deliver-flats_6453641.html?utm_source=ref_article

Bombay High Court: In a case of a company involved in a dispute and undergoing arbitration, a bench comprising of G.S. Patel, J. directed its lenders to wait for the passing of interim award before taking steps to get their money back. In the instant case, a company was incorporated to construct a bridge on a build, operate and transfer basis. A tax policy announced subsequently gave vehicles operating within a 5 km radius a substantial discount in toll rates, which affected the profitability and feasibility of the project. As the plaintiffs were unable to service their debts, the lender banks moved to sell off the pledged shares. The plaintiff company then approached the Court to restrain the lender banks from selling off the pledged shares before the passing of interim award in an arbitration between the company and State Government as they were expecting a favourable decision. The Court held the request of the plaintiffs to be ‘reasonable’ and ‘moderate’ and in interest of both t...

it will be useful to notice some rules of interpretation of statutes, one of which is the rule of contextual interpretation. This rule requires that the court should examine every word of a statute in its context. In doing so, the Court has to keep in view preamble of the statute, other provisions thereof, pari materia statutes, if any, and the mischief intended to be remedied. Context often provides the key to the meaning of the word and the sense it carries. Its setting gives colour to it and provides a cue to the intention of the legislature in using it. 1) A.P. State Financial Corporation v. Official Liquidator [(2000) 7 SCC 291] 2) Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank and another [(2000) 4 SCC 406] 3) Thane Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Sales Tax & others, C.A. No.2811/2006 4) State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. and others [(2004) 10 SCC 201] 5) Govt. of A.P. and anr. v. J.B. Educational Society and anr. [(2005) 3 SCC 212] 6) Zave...