Wherein condonation of delay sought was not for filing the petition under Section 34 of Arbitration Act, 1996 for the first time but for the delay of 8 days in re-presenting the petition beyond the date fixed after it was returned under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code before the District Judge,
If the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, such purchaser of goods is yet a ‘consumer’
Director of Elementary Education, Odisha & Ors. Vs Pramod Kumar Sahoo (Supreme Court) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the distinction between Trained Matric Teacher and Untrained Matric Teacher has not been appreciated by the Tribunal and the same error was committed by the High Court as well. The concession […]
Winding up petition filed in October 2016 by IL&FS Financial Services Ltd. against La-Fin before the Bombay High Court which was transferred to the NCLT with respect to the alleged default by La-Fin in not complying with its undertaking to buy back 442 lakh equity shares of MCX-SX (a group company of La-Fin) from IL&FS in August 2012 was time-barred being beyond the period of three-years mentioned in Article 137 of the Limitation Act and could not therefore be proceeded with any further.
Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) was equally competent to deal with the application moved by the secured creditor under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act as substitution of functionaries (CMM as CJM) qua the administrative and executive or so to say non-judicial functions discharged by them in light of the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, would not be inconsistent with Section 14 of the 2002 Act.
M/s. Canara Nidhi Limited Vs M. Shashikala And Others (Supreme Court) Conclusion: Since proceedings under Section 34 were summary proceedings and was not in the nature of a regular suit and in the arbitration proceedings, the parties had sufficient opportunity to adduce oral and documentary evidence, therefore, there was no necessity of adducing fresh evidence […]
M/s Tecnimont Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Punjab & Others (Supreme Court) In this case Supreme Court reversed the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of PSPCL ltd Vs state of Punjab wherein the HC had held that appellate authority can in appropriate cases reduce or waive 25% of pre-deposit u/s […]
The legal heirs, in such a case, are neither liable to pay the fine or to undergo imprisonment. However, they have a right to challenge the conviction of their predecessor only for the purpose that he was not guilty of any offence.
NCLT reached the conclusion that since the limitation period was 12 years from the date on which the money suit has become due, the aforesaid claim was filed within limitation and hence admitted the Section 7 application. The NCLAT vide the impugned judgment held, following its earlier judgments, that the time of limitation would begin running for the purposes of limitation only on and from 01.12.2016 which is the date on which the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was brought into force. Consequently, it dismissed the appeal.
ITC Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (Supreme Court) As the order of self assessment is nonetheless an assessment order passed under the Act, obviously it would be appealable by any person aggrieved thereby. The expression ‘Any person’ is of wider amplitude. The revenue, as well as assessee, can also prefer an appeal aggrieved by […]
