Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In a case where the Andhra Pradesh High Court had condoned a delay of 1011 days even though no sufficient

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Asha Menon, J., held that, “Mere fact that the boundary walls had been built by the defendants cannot be

Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Sulekha Beevi C.S., J. (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal wherein the refund was rejected

Case BriefsSupreme Court

The Supreme Court adopted a bright-line standard which obviates uncertainty on the legal position before the consumer fora and obviates further litigation.

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Explaining the difference between acquiescence and delay and laches, the bench of L. Nageswara Rao and Sanjiv Khanna*, JJ has

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Narula, J., allowed an arbitration petition by appointing a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the contesting parties.

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In an important ruling on Land Acquisition and Requisition law, the bench of AM Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna*, JJ has

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Interpreting Section 263(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the bench of MR Shah* and AS Bopanna, JJ has held that receipt

Case BriefsSupreme Court

“The IBC, as a prescriptive mechanism, affecting rights of stakeholders who are not necessarily parties to the proceedings, mandates diligence on the part of applicants who are aggrieved by the outcome of their litigation.”

Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): P Dinesha (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal in which the Tribunal had to decide

Op EdsOP. ED.

by Hiroo Advani† and Manav Nagpal††
Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 73

Op EdsOP. ED.

by Tariq Khan†
Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 71

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jharkhand High Court: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J., held that Section 106 of the Factories Act is mandatory in nature and the Courts

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: A Division Bench of Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. held that there is no bar in law to amendment

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: Manish Pitale, J., while upholding the decision of Sessions Court discussed more on the concept of ‘continuing offence’ under

Akaant MittalExperts Corner

by Akaant Kumar Mittal†

Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 46

Akaant MittalExperts Corner

by Akaant Kumar Mittal†
Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 33

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Chhattisgarh High Court: Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J., allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order. The facts of the case

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of RF Nariman, BR Gavai and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ has held that given the object of speedy

Case BriefsSupreme Court

3 years is an unduly long period for filing an application under Section 11, since it would defeat the very object of the Act, which provides for expeditious resolution of commercial disputes within a time bound period.