2024 SCC Vol. 10 Part 2
Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (60 of 1958) — Ss. 33, 34, 37, 4(2), 4(1) and Sch. I Art. 25 Expln. I — Stamp duty on agreement to sell — Liability to pay under the 1958 Act
Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (60 of 1958) — Ss. 33, 34, 37, 4(2), 4(1) and Sch. I Art. 25 Expln. I — Stamp duty on agreement to sell — Liability to pay under the 1958 Act
In the matter at hand, the appellant contended that the Council’s award ought to have been interfered with under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, as there was no conciliation in accordance with the procedure prescribed, a condition precedent for initiation of arbitration proceeding under Section 18 (3) of the MSMED Act.
by Aparna Ramesh Devkar
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
The Court dismissed the petition on the ground of non-maintainability as only non-appointees can assail the legality of the appointment or extension procedure.
Bombay High Court held the instant applications under Section 11 of Arbitration Act as non-maintainable and dismissed the said applications.
“The MSMED Act, 2006 is a beneficial legislation with an object to promote and develop micro, small and/or medium enterprises, and the interpretation regarding a reference for the interest component alone would be in consonance with the object of the Act”
The MSMED Act, 2006 is a beneficial legislation for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises and ought to be construed in a manner that is beneficial to such enterprises.
Delhi High Court observed that the MSMED Act, 2006 has been enacted for the purpose of extending benefits to Suppliers, who are registered under the Act as Micro or Small Enterprises, it does not contemplate the reverse obligation i.e. claims relating to the amount recoverable from the Suppliers under the MSMED Act, 2006.
“The MSMED Act of 2006 is a special statute as it was specifically enacted for facilitating the promotion and development of micro, small and medium Enterprises and enhancing their competitiveness.”
NCLAT observed that allowing present appeal holding the Successful Resolution Applicant ineligible would automatically make the resolution plan redundant.
Bombay High Court: In a petition filed by Gammon Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996
by Swarnendu Chatterjee*and G. Vidya Kamath**
Supreme Court: The bench of MR Shah* and AS Bopanna, JJ has held that in an appeal/application filed under Section 34 of
On August 12, 2021, the Central Government has notified the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code Amendment Act, 2021 which has brought Pre-packaged Insolvency
Supreme Court: The bench of Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy*, JJ has held that the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of D.N. Patel, CJ and Prateek Jalan, J., held that as and when any advocate approaches the
Background: Amidst the Corona crisis, PM announced a special economic package with a new resolution. This economic package will serve as an
by Abhinav Shrivastava* and Sana Kamra**