Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“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.”
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): P Dinesha (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal in which the Tribunal had to decide
by Hiroo Advani† and Manav Nagpal††
Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 73
by Tariq Khan†
Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 71
Jharkhand High Court: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J., held that Section 106 of the Factories Act is mandatory in nature and the Courts
Supreme Court: A Division Bench of Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. held that there is no bar in law to amendment
Bombay High Court: Manish Pitale, J., while upholding the decision of Sessions Court discussed more on the concept of ‘continuing offence’ under
by Akaant Kumar Mittal†
Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 46
by Akaant Kumar Mittal†
Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 33
Chhattisgarh High Court: Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J., allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order. The facts of the case
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of RF Nariman, BR Gavai and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ has held that given the object of speedy
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.
“We are of the opinion that the order dated 15.03.2020* has served its purpose and in view of the changing scenario relating to the pandemic, the extension of limitation should come to an end.”
Supreme Court: The bench of Indu Malhotra* and Ajay Rastogi, JJ was posed with the question as to whether the period of
Supreme Court: The bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud and MR Shah, JJ has held that consumer fora has no jurisdiction and/or power
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Jyotsna Rewal Dua J., dismissed the petition being non-maintainable. The petitioner by way of this instant petition has
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal which was filed against the impugned order
♦ Did you know? In the year 2020, All the Constitution bench verdicts were unanimous with no dissenting opinion. 9 out of
Supreme Court: The bench of AM Khanwilkar* and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ has held that for invoking Section 17 of the Limitation Act,
Supreme Court analyses whether the right of pre-emption can be enforced for an indefinite number of transactions or it is exercisable only the first time.