winding-up should not be a method to arm twist

See IBA Health (I) P Ltd v. Info Drive Systems Sdn Bhd., [2010] 104 SCL 367 (SC)

A company court therefore should be guarded from such vexatious abuse of the process and cannot function as a Debt collecting agency and should not permit a party to unreasonably set the law in motion, especially when the aggrieved party has a remedy elsewhere.

misstatement in prospectus

Dharmendra Kumar Lila v. ROC, [2010] 104 SCL 275 (Delhi)

SARFAESI Act, challenge to deposit requirement

Condition of pre-deposit of 25% is not unreasonable.

courts cannot substitute legal provisions nor can can they legislate.

Consumer - Admission of Complaint

Admission of complaint filed under the Act should be rule and dismissal thereof should be exception - but if complaint is barred by time, the forum is bound to dismiss the same unless consumer makes out a case for condonation of delay. AIR 2011 SC 212

Appeal and 227

Power under Section 115 CPC and that under Art 227 are different and not inter changeable. When there is a remedy available by way of 115, the court should not exercise power under 227 except in exceptional cases. AIR 2011 Gau 1.

Bar Council Resolution to not defend accused is illegal

AS Mohammad Rafi v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2011 SC 308

Termination of contract for loss of confidence

Percept Talent Management Pvt. vs Yuvraj Singh, 2008 (2) ARBLR 49 Bom, 2008 (2) BomCR 654: http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1028780/. 

" An agreement of this kind is founded on trust, confidence and the basic principles which underlie a fiduciary relationship. The agreement is an instrument to provide an exposure to the public persona of the sportsperson. The public image of the sportsman is what the agreement is inextricably involved in generating. And the agent who represents the sportsman, negotiates on his behalf and deals as his sole and exclusive representative is a vital link in the creation of a public image. Such agreements are founded on trust and confidence. Where trust and confidence have ceased to exist in a relationship, the relationship cannot survive. The law will not enforce and compel parties to observe a relationship such as this where the foundation upon which it exists disappears. For the law does not enforce the husk where the substance does not survive. The aggrieved party is left to seek its remedies for breach in damages."