Legal Shots | Top Legal News of the Day [16 Mar 2022]

Chaitanya S. Nair (minor) v Union of India & Ors.

Passport cannot be denied to child on sole ground that one parent is non-Indian citizen

The Kerala High Court ruled that even if one of the parents of a minor child refused to give consent, the passport issuing authority is entitled to issue a passport to the minor, provided the requisite form is submitted.

Court also observed that there is no legal prohibition in incorporating a non-citizen as the legal guardian in the passport of a minor child and held that the petitioner’s passport can be issued with the name of her mother as legal guardian.

The Judge further laid down that one parent being a citizen of another country will not by itself disentitle a child born in India and whose other parent is an Indian citizen to be issued with an Indian passport.

M/s. Brand Realty Services Ltd. v M/s. Sir John Bakeries India Pvt. Ltd.

Failure to reply to demand notice u/s8(1) of the IBC within 10 days does not preclude the corporate debtor from raising the existence of a dispute in a section 9 applicatio

• NCLAT Delhi held that held that the mere fact that the corporate debtor did not reply to the demand notice by the Operational Creditor u/s 8(1) within 10 days or that the corporate debtor did not le a reply to the demand notice does not preclude the corporate debtor from bringing on record evidence to establish a pre- existing dispute and seeking to set aside the application u/s 9 of the IBC.
• The Tribunal analysed the provisions contained in Section 8, 9(1) and 9(5) of the IBC.
  • Section 8(2) requires the corporate debtor to reply to the demand notice within 10 days of its receipt and bring to the notice of the operational creditor, the existence of a dispute.
  • Section 9(1) empowers the operational creditor to file an application before the Adjudicating Authority for initiating CIRP against the Corporate Debtor, on failure of receipt of reply to the demand notice by the corporate debtor. The statutory scheme under Section 8 and 9 does not indicate that in an event Reply to Notice is not led within 10 days by Corporate Debtor or no Reply to Notice under Section 8(1) have been given, the Corporate Debtor is precluded from raising the question of dispute.
  • Section 9(5)(ii) of the Code provides that the Adjudicating Authority can reject the application if the notice of the dispute has been received by the Operational Creditor or there is a record of the dispute in the Information Utility.
• Thus, even if no notice of dispute has been received, but the record of the dispute is there in the Information Utility, the application u/s 9 is to be rejected by the Adjudicating Authority.
• The record of the dispute in the Information Utility can be pointed out by the Corporate Debtor before the Adjudicating Authority when notice is issued u/s 9 of the IBC. In reply to Section 9, the Corporate Debtor can bring material on record to show the existence of a dispute.

Guardian India Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

The Single Bench of Delhi ITAT, consisting of judicial member Kul Bharat, has ruled that belated payment of employees’ contribution to the Provident Fund and State Insurance Scheme cannot be added to the employer’s taxable income as deemed income, if the said deposits are made before the due date of ling the income tax return under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

N. Karthikeyan And Ors. v State of Tamil Nadu

NEET-SS : Supreme Court allows 50% reservation for in-service doctors in super-speciality courses in Tamil Nadu for 2021-2022 academic year

Irfan Ur Rahim Khan v Farha Khan

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently held that if there is a conflict between the personal law to which a minor is subject, and the consideration of a minors’ welfare, the latter must prevail.