Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Calcutta High Court observed that the Tribunal overlooked the direction issued by the High Court and failed to apply Rule 21 of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997, which grants flexibility in securing the ends of justice.
“The appellant submitted that the respondent was liable to imprisonment for not less than ten years and payment of fine of not less than Rs. 1,00,000. However, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and payment of fine of Rs. 1,000.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court warned the appellants of consequences, including contempt of court, for non-compliance with the directions.
by Murali Neelakantan* and Gautam Narayan**
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 81
The NCLAT directed the Adjudicating Authority to hear and decide the application under Section 7 of the IBC expeditiously, treating it as not covered by Section 10A of the IBC.
Supreme Court reiterated that a co-ordinate Bench cannot comment upon the judgment rendered by another co-ordinate Bench of equal strength and that subsequent decision or a judgment of a co-ordinate Bench or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.
Limitation shall commence from the date when order is passed and shall not depend on the date when Appellant came to know of the order.
The High Court observed that the object of Courts is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for mistakes which are made in the conduct of the cases.
“Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 operate in different spheres and apply to orders passed by different forums i.e., District Court and the Family Court respectively.”
To interpret ‘proceeding decided’ as entire proceedings and not a part of a proceeding would amount to restricting the exercise of revisional jurisdiction which is not as contemplated under Section 210 of UP Revenue Code.
“In application for condonation of delay in refiling of appeal, the applicant/appellant has to give sufficient reason for not re-filing the appeal within the time prescribed.”
This report covers the Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on duty of appellate court under Criminal Procedure Code, 1898.
Delhi High Court opined that the cause of death was found to be cranio cerebral damage consequent upon blunt force impact to the head which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
Bombay High Court observed that the dictionary meaning of “act of god” is “an instance of uncontrollable natural forces in operation” I.e., a severe, unanticipated natural event for which no human is responsible.
The impugned arbitral award was passed without considering the clauses of the Concessionaire Agreement while adjudicating on the rate of interest to be granted, thus, suffers from infirmity and patent illegality.
Madras High Court upheld the right of the UGC to impose Regulation for territorial jurisdiction referring to the primacy given to the UGC under the UGC Act, 1956, as well as Entry 66 of List 1 of the 7th Schedule.
All that the respondent wished for was a better roof over the head of his family. It was for this objective that the collaboration agreement was devised, but the appellant subjected the respondent to undue harassment on account of his illegal designs which led to the registration of the FIR, and the respondent had to run from pillar to post due to the direct acts of the appellant. Such circumstances do warrant awarding of damages on account of mental agony and harassment.
by Akaant Kumar Mittal†
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 8
Gujarat High Court observed that due to COVID-19 lockdown it was impossible for the petitioner to get Form-F and denying adjournment after taking note of this fact results in breach of principle of natural justice.