• Acting in concert: Under the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares & Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 [the Takeover Code], ‘acting in concert’ implies that there shall necessarily be a design of two or more entities to act together for purposes of acquiring substantial interest/shareholding in the target company. Accordingly, held that the said concept and consequentially the regulation would not be applicable in case of acquisition of company along with it’s subsidiary with respect to the subsidiary, unless it is proved that the acquirer & parent company acted in pre-determined design to over-take the subsidiary company. Daiichi Sankyo Company v. Jayaram Chigurupati, (Supreme Court) (3J).
  • Cognizance by Magistrate: When complaint is lodged with the Judicial Magistrate First Class u/s.156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which prima facie discloses the cognisable offence to have been committed, than the police authorities may be directed to register FIR and produce the charge-sheet. Srinivas Gundluri v. SEPCO Electric Power, (Supreme Court).
  • Quashing of complaint/charges: When the allegations contained in the complaint demonstrate that the dispute was purely civil in nature, and the remedy lay under the taxation statute, then the complaint deserves to be quashed u/s.482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the High Court. Rajeshwar Tiwari v. Nanda Kishore Roy, (Supreme Court).
  • Terms of agreement: When the loan was availed for a period of ten years even though interest was stipulated @ 19.89% with quarterly rest, than in absence of any challenge being made at the time of extension of facilities the same cannot be questioned as unconscionable, expropriatory and contrary to law. Indian Bank v. Blue Jaggers Estates Ltd., (Supreme Court).

Archive >>