Top Legal Developments [12-18 Oct 2026]: AIBE-XXII syllabus, IBC appeal limitation, same arbitrator in 4,155 cases, and other Key verdicts and Policy Updates
A quick roundup to cover all the important legal developments and cases this week.
period of limitation
Inside the Kennel Club of India Case: Madras HC on Section 21 Notice, Limitation and Appointment of Sole Arbitrator
The Court held that the application filed for appointment of sole arbitrator under Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is maintainable as the requirement of notice under Section 21 becomes unnecessary where the petitioner had already disclosed all details in a prior civil suit and the respondent had responded by filing a Section 8 application acknowledging that the dispute must be resolved via arbitration.
Bar of limitation period under S. 468 CrPC applies only to penal proceedings under S. 31 DV Act: J&K and Ladakh HC
In the present case, the petitioner has wrongly equated filing an application under Section 12 of DV Act to lodging of a complaint or initiation of a prosecution. However, such application cannot be equated with a complaint within the meaning of Section 200 CrPC or Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Madras HC asks for number of cases registered in elections for distribution of money to voters
“Democracy is the basic principle in our constitution. Our country is the largest democratic country in the world. The sculptural inscriptions would show that democracy prevailed in our country even during the ancient times.”
Section 43(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not create new window after expiry of limitation: Calcutta High Court
“The limitation for filing an application will start to run from the day when the cause of action accrues regardless of the existence of an arbitration clause.”
Limitation period for appeals starts from date of Rectification Order when merged with Original Order: NCLAT
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.
NCLAT | Time taken for preparation of the certified copy of the order/judgment excluded for limitation under Section 61 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal: Dismissing a time-barred appeal, the Principal Bench of National Company Appellate Tribunal comprising of Ashok Bhushan, J.
CESTAT | Even when an assessee has suppressed facts, the extended period of limitation can be invoked only when “suppression‟ or “collusion” is wilful with an intent to evade payment of duty; Tribunal decides
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): The Coram of Dilip Gupta (President) and C.J. Mathew (Technical Member) allowed an appeal
Raj HC | Larger period of limitation for filing appeals prescribed in Hindu Marriage Act would prevail over the period prescribed under Family Courts Act
Rajasthan High Court: A Division Bench of Mohammad Rafiq and Narendra Singh Dhaddha, JJ. quashed the appeal which pointed out that the
Raj HC | Period of limitation for preferring an appeal against a decision of Family Court is 90 days; S. 28 of HMA, 1955, to override the Family Courts Act
Rajasthan High Court: A Division Bench of Mohammad Rafiq and Narendra Singh Dhaddha, JJ. while harmonizing the provisions contained under Section 19
Recovery of amount which is barred by limitation not allowed under Article 226; application for refund of fees against MCI rejected
Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Vibhu Bhakru, J. dismissed a writ petition filed for recovering the application fee
No provision for exempting time lost due to ‘carelessness of counsel’ while computing limitation: Sikkim HC
Sikkim High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.,decided an application for condonation of delay filed under Order
NCDRC: Complaint liable to be dismissed, if filed beyond the period of limitation
National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission: The Commission held that if a complaint is filed beyond a period of two years from when