Sulochana Gupta W/o Radha Ballabh Gupta vs RBG Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Director Rajkumar Gupta

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(Ker) 640

S.MANIKUMAR, SHAJI P.CHALY
Sulochana Gupta W/o Radha Ballabh Gupta – Appellant
Versus
RBG Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Director Rajkumar Gupta – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Sri. Sumukar Nainan Oommen, Smt. Sherry Samuel Oommen.
For the Respondents: Sri. P. Sanjay, Smt. A. Parvathi Menon, Sri. Biju Meenattoor, Sri. Kiran Narayanan, Sri. Paul Varghese, Sri. P.A. Mohammed Aslam, Sri. Prasoon Sunny, Sri. Rahul Raj P.

JUDGMENT :

S. MANIKUMAR, J.

1. Instant writ appeal is filed by respondents 1 and 2, against the common judgment passed in W.P. (C) No. 14341 of 2020 and other connected cases dated 22.07.2020, by which, a learned single Judge of this Court disposed of the writ petitions, by ordering thus:

“................It is an admitted fact that the company petitions nine in number were pending before the NCLT. In the impugned order itself, the NCLT refers to the prayers in the company petitions and post the matter for hearing of the I.A. to 7.8.2020. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the proper course of action is to file an appeal before the NCLAT. It is submitted that such a course of action is presently rendered impossible due to the prevailing pandemic situation in the country and the petitioners are disabled from travelling to Delhi to prefer the appeal in view of the restrictions and the rising number of cases in the country. Though it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the writ petitions are not maintainable without the NCLT

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

None identified. No case summary in the list contains keywords or phrases (e.g., "overruled," "reversed," "abrogated," "bad law") indicating that the case itself has been overruled, reversed, distinguished negatively, criticized, questioned, or otherwise treated as bad law by subsequent decisions.

No cases can be confidently grouped into treatment categories such as "Followed," "Distinguished," or similar. No summaries contain explicit keywords or phrases referencing subsequent judicial treatment of the case itself (e.g., "followed in X," "distinguished by Y"). All summaries focus on the case's own holdings, key points, or ratios, without indicators of later treatment.

All cases are uncertain due to lack of any explicit information on judicial treatment by subsequent decisions. The provided summaries describe the legal principles, important points, or holdings established by each case but provide no data on how later courts treated them (positive, negative, or otherwise). Specific language supporting this:

Examples without treatment indicators: ("Where though statutory canteen..."), ("Applicability of provisions..."), ("The main legal point..."), etc.—all state holdings only.

JUSTICE K S PUTTASWAMY (RETD. ) VS UNION OF INDIA - 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 772 mentions "The decision in M P Sharma and in Kharak Singh stands over-ruled," but this describes the treatment of *other* (unlisted) cases by this one, not treatment of JUSTICE K S PUTTASWAMY (RETD. ) VS UNION OF INDIA - 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 772 itself.

Phrases like "Important Point," "VERY," "IMPORTNAT POINT," or "Binding nature" (e.g., Amar Singh VS Union of India - 2011 4 Supreme 262, L. Chandra Kumar VS Union Of India - 1997 3 Supreme 147, Philip Jeyasingh VS The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chidambaranar Region, Tuticorin and others - 1992 0 Supreme(Mad) 47) emphasize the case's own significance but do not indicate subsequent treatment.

No speculation is made beyond the text; all 78 cases fall here due to absence of clear treatment signals.

2020 Supreme(Ker) 640

S.MANIKUMAR, SHAJI P.CHALYSulochana Gupta W/o Radha Ballabh Gupta – AppellantVersusRBG Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Director Rajkumar Gupta – Respondent

Cases Referred (185)

Judicial Analysis

S.MANIKUMAR, SHAJI P.CHALY
Sulochana Gupta W/o Radha Ballabh Gupta – Appellant
Versus
RBG Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Director Rajkumar Gupta – Respondent