Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The compliance as required to be done by the tenant in Section 7(1)(a)(b)(c) and first part of Section 7(2) of the WBPT Act regarding deposit of rent and filing an application within the same time is mandatory”.
The appellant relying on Tottempudi Salalith v. State Bank of India, (2024) 1 SCC 24, contended that the limitation for filing Section 95 IBC application in the present case must be treated as 12 years and hence the application filed was not barred by time.
The Court emphasised that it is settled position in revenue laws that the proceedings have to be concluded within certain time frame and same cannot be kept pending for long which would lead to uncertainty which is contrary to the canons of any fiscal legislation.
The judgment reaffirmed the principle that entries in a corporate debtor’s balance sheet can constitute an acknowledgment of liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, provided they indicate a subsisting jural relationship between the parties, even if the financial creditor is not named explicitly. The Court emphasised that such entries must be interpreted liberally and in context, considering the overall tenor of the balance sheet and the surrounding circumstances.
“A legal right accrued to a party to get a document registered as per the provisions of the Registration Act cannot stand defeated when reasons which exists are beyond the control of the party presenting the document for registration.”
The RP sought exclusion of the time it took for NCLT to decide the applications filed under Section 19 of the IBC regarding the non-cooperation by the Company.
“Amounts of retiral dues, including gratuity, are not bounties. It is deferred payment to the employee for the long services rendered by him to the Department… The retiral dues are also recognized as property under the Article 300-A of the Constitution.”
The cause of action to file the present petition arose when respondent 1 failed to pay the balance amount to the petitioner by 31-12-2012 as per clause (vi) of the compromise agreement based on which the consent decree dated 01-06-2009 was passed.
Forcing the parties to file a written statement or to complete the pleadings during the process of mediation will prevent the parties in freely communicating with each other, which they have not been able to do since the dispute started.
“Limitation seeks to prevent abuse of process by filing vexatious and belated prosecutions. However, at the same time, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) is not blind to the problems faced by litigants and provides for extension of the limitation period in certain cases under Section 4731 of the CrPC. Thus, CrPC also ensures that interests of bona fide complainants are not affected.”
Supreme Court said that allowing a party, already aware of the award, to delay proceedings by insisting on procedural formalities would frustrate the expeditious resolution of disputes, undermining the very purpose of the Arbitration Act.
Supreme Court highlighted that the judgment in Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari, (1995) 2 SCC 736 has been rendered after considering the relevant provisions of the Statute and the principles of interpretation. However, the judgment in Ramsingbhai Jerambhai v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 16 SCC 445 is a short judgment only referring to the text of Section 28-A(1) of 1894 Act.
Top arbitration cases on unilateral appointment, seat of arbitration, limitation period, scope of judicial scrutiny and more.
Referral courts, at the stage of deciding an application for appointment of arbitrator, must not conduct an intricate evidentiary enquiry into the question whether the claims raised by the applicant are time barred.”
“The evidence on the part of the appellants would reveal that instead of establishing ‘animus possidendi’ under hostile colour of title, they have tendered evidence indicating only permissive possession and at the same time failed to establish the time from which it was converted to adverse to the title of the respondent which is open and continuous for the prescriptive period.”
In cases where a search is conducted after 31-03-2021, the first proviso to Section 153C (1) would have to be construed and tested as regards the date when the Assessing Officer decides to initiate action against the non-searched entity.
The Court was of the view that both, the applicant in viewing the requirement of filing the appeal within six months as per S. 378(5) CrPC; and the respondents contending that the appeal should have been filed within sixty days as per S. 378(5), were equally incorrect.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1953 on limitation period of suit on possession of immovable property.
“The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not.”