Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Cancellation of GST registration or missed appellate deadlines should not permanently debar a taxpayer from the GST framework, especially where the taxpayer intends to comply by filing returns, paying taxes, interest, and penalties, and rectifying defaults. In such cases, denial of opportunity to an assessee undermines the inclusive and facilitative objective of the GST regime.”
“During this long period of silence, the petitioner/assessee was entitled to proceed on the reasonable belief that the matter had attained finality and reopening it after nearly a decade frustrates legitimate expectations.”
“Despite all the latitude that is shown to a “State”, we are of the clear opinion that 10 the cause sought to be shown here by the State of Odisha is not an explanation but a lame excuse. No case for exercise of discretion has been set up.”
“The attempt was not made within the limitation period provided under the Limitation Act, but almost after 1 year from the date of the impugned judgment and much after the expiry of limitation period.”
“As there is conflicting view upon the same by co-ordinate benches, in such circumstances this Court is of the view that the issue should be examined by a larger bench.”
“Time-barred claims must not be excluded from conciliation under the MSMED Act. The statute of limitation only bars the remedy but does not extinguish the underlying right”.
“It is well settled position of law that the imposition of punishment is a managerial function of the management and unless the punishment is so shocking or touches the conscience of the Court, it should not be interfered with by the Court.”
“The agreement executed between the parties is not disputed. This fact is not in dispute that the contract of the petitioner has been terminated and the money has been forfeited by the respondents in the month of October, 2019.”
“While applying the principles of Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC to applications under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it must be kept in mind that it will act as a bar to only those applications which are filed subsequent to the withdrawal of a previous Section 11(6) application filed on the basis of the same cause of action.”
by Aparna Ramesh Devkar
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 34(3): Limitation period under S. 34(3) for filing petition challenging arbitral award is considered
The Court was of the view that the petition and the accompanying application seeking an extension of time were filed and registered in the registry of this Court when CrPC, 1973 was in force, hence, the matter would fall under the scope of Section 531(2)(a) and this petition should be adjudicated through the provisions of CrPC, 1973.
“The rationale behind such stringent timelines is rooted in the principles of finality and efficiency, which are paramount in arbitration. The limitation period serves as a deterrent against undue delays and encourages parties to act promptly, thereby ensuring that the arbitration process remains expeditious.”
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 11(6) and S. 43 — Time-barred claims — Non-reference of, to arbitration — Art. 137
Gauhati High Court holds statutory bar to remarry u/s 15 HMA cannot be extended by filing application seeking condonation of delay to challenge the divorce decree.
Supreme Court directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession, change of land use, and creation of third-party rights till fresh acquisition proceedings are completed
Supreme Court reiterated that the laws of limitation only bar the remedy and do not extinguish the right, except in cases where title is acquired by prescription.
The Court stated that, while it is important that litigants including the State, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered even- handedly; however, a little latitude is considered by the Courts when the State is the seeking condonation of delay.