<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Format: Case Law on Vipan Kumar, PhD</title>
    <link>https://vipanphd.co.in/tags/format-case-law/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Format: Case Law on Vipan Kumar, PhD</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <copyright>© 2025, Vipan Kumar</copyright>
    <atom:link href="https://vipanphd.co.in/tags/format-case-law/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Balram Garg v. Securities and Exchange Board of India</title>
      <link>https://vipanphd.co.in/cases-and-materials/balram-garg-v.-sebi/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://vipanphd.co.in/cases-and-materials/balram-garg-v.-sebi/</guid>
      <description>&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This dispute originated from an investigation conducted by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) into an alleged insider trading in the shares of PC Jeweller Ltd. (PCJ). SEBI&amp;rsquo;s Whole Time Member (WTM) alleged that the appellants: Sachin Gupta, Shivani Gupta, Amit Garg, and Quick Developers Pvt. Ltd, traded while in possession of Unpublished Price Sensitive Information (UPSI) regarding a proposed share buy-back and its subsequent withdrawal. The core of the allegation was that the appellants had obtained this UPSI from the company’s Managing Director (MD), Balram Garg, and the late Chairman, P.C. Gupta, due to their familial proximity and shared residential premises.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Interplay, In Re</title>
      <link>https://vipanphd.co.in/cases-and-materials/interplay-in-re/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://vipanphd.co.in/cases-and-materials/interplay-in-re/</guid>
      <description>&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case, a seven judges bench of the Supreme Court has cleared a massive hurdle for commercial dispute resolution. Historically, a 2023 ruling (N.N. Global) held that an unstamped contract meant the arbitration clause within it did not exist, allowing courts to stall the appointment of an arbitrator until duties were paid.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Court has now reversed this ruling that while an unstamped document is inadmissible in evidence, it is not void. Crucially, the Court held that the task of impounding a document for insufficient stamp duty lies with the Arbitral Tribunal, not the referral court.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India</title>
      <link>https://vipanphd.co.in/cases-and-materials/m.k.-ranjitsinh-v.-union-of-india/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://vipanphd.co.in/cases-and-materials/m.k.-ranjitsinh-v.-union-of-india/</guid>
      <description>&lt;hr&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In this case, the Supreme Court of India has fundamentally redefined the scope of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). The case centred on the protection of the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard against the expansion of overhead power lines in Rajasthan and Gujarat.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The Court ruled that under &lt;em&gt;Section 166(2)&lt;/em&gt; of the &lt;em&gt;Companies Act&lt;/em&gt;, directors hold a broad fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the community and the environment, linking these duties to constitutional obligations under &lt;em&gt;Article 51A(g)&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
