‘Timelines are of great significance in IBC’; NCLAT dismisses condonation of delay application
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.
Appeal
Statutory substantive right to appeal cannot remain nugatory by giving undue importance to procedural law: J&K and Ladakh HC
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.
Limitation period to appeal against Family Court’s decree is thirty days, delay can be condoned if sufficient cause is shown: Delhi High Court clarifies
“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.”
Revisional Court has power to rectify order of subordinate Revenue Court at any stage of the suit or proceedings: Allahabad High Court
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.
NCLAT dismisses appeal due to delayed defect rectification and insufficient justification for delay
“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.”
Never Reported Judgment | Practice of merely agreeing with lower courts is not satisfactory; Appellate court should give clear indication of evidence it relies on [(1952) 1 SCC 432]
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 upholds conviction for murder of a 2-year-old child by hitting her head against stairs of a mandir
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.
Bursting of the tyre is not an ‘Act of God’; Bombay High Court refuses to exonerate the insurance company from paying compensation
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.
‘Interest cannot be withheld in the absence of express provisions permitting the same’; Delhi High Court partially sets aside arbitral award for being patently illegal
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 HC upholds UGC’s rights and primacy to impose Regulations for conduct of distance education programmes
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.
Why Delhi High Court upheld the award of damages passed by Single Judge on account of mental agony and harassment in the case of a commercial contract?
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.
Limitation in Filing Appeal before the NCLAT — Interesting Development
by Akaant Kumar Mittal†
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 8
Inability to produce required documents due to COVID-19 lockdown; Gujarat High Court quashes reassessment order
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.
Cancelled Flat Bookings amount to non-performance of service; CESTAT directs Authorities to refund service tax to Builder
CESTAT states that cancelled flat bookings amount to non-performance of service,Held that Service tax is not applicable if no service is rendered.
Bureau of Energy Efficiency takes suo motu verification test on a sample refrigerator of Whirlpool India and found quality non-compliance; Appellate Tribunal for Electricity sets aside the order
The Tribunal stated that since the first test report was deficient, it did not stand legal scrutiny and was directed to treat the second test report as the first test report in continuation of their investigation.
Delhi High Court stays CCI’s order for recovery of Rs. 223.48 crore from MakeMyTrip Private Limited
The Delhi High Court stayed the recovery of a Rs. 223.48 crore penalty imposed by Competition Commission of India (CCI) on MakeMyTrip (P) Ltd. for abuse of its dominant position.
Delhi High Court sets aside conviction 19 years after the verdict over lost Trial Court’s records
The conviction and sentence awarded to a man in 2003 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder has been set aside by the Delhi High Court more than 19 years after the appeal was filed, due to the persistent inability to locate or reconstruct the trial court record.
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be filed for seeking alteration in contract: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court held that a borrower cannot ask for alteration of contract by way of a writ petition and a contract can only be altered through mutual consent between the parties.
Madras High Court |Jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be exercised as a measure of self-imposed restriction by-passing statutory remedies under D.V. Act
Madras High Court: The full bench of P.N. Prakash, Teekaa Raman and A.D Jagadish Chandira, JJ. held that the jurisdiction