Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“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.
by Justice (Retd.) Hemant Gupta*
Supreme Court said that AICTE itself never claimed that it was dishonestly induced to grant such approvals and that essential link is altogether missing, whereby any such criminal charge of cheating can be sustained against the accused persons.
NCLAT upheld appellant’s classification as a Financial Institution and it’s liability to pay Liquidation Costs.
Supreme Court acknowledged that in case of special law prescribing a limitation period, Section 5 of the Limitation Act would have no application.
“It is a well-settled law that while deciding the question of appointment of arbitrator, the Court shall not touch the merits of the case as it may cause prejudice to the case of the parties.”
Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 — S. 25 r/w FR 56 — Tenure of Director of Enforcement: Permissibility of continuation of tenure
Calcutta High Court observed that the Tribunal overlooked the direction issued by the High Court and failed to apply Rule 21 of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997, which grants flexibility in securing the ends of justice.
“In the context of Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963, what needs to be seen is whether appellant has brought on the record any evidence to show that he is prosecuting the previously instituted suit with due diligence.”
Animals, Birds and Fish — Fishing and Fisheries — Purse seine fishing (PSF), a pernicious form of fishing that harms all marine life.