Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137

Supreme Court clarifies the limitation period for appointment of arbitrators under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act: Arif Azim Co. Ltd. vs. Aptech Ltd. (2024)

/ Applicability of Limitation Act to Arbitration, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 43, Commencement of Arbitral Proceedings, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Arbitrator Appointments in Arif Azim Co. Ltd. vs. Aptech Ltd. (2024) Date of the Judgment: 1st March 2024 Citation: 2024 INSC 155 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI, J.B. Pardiwala, J., Manoj Misra, J. When does the clock start ticking for filing an application for the appointment of an arbitrator? […]

Supreme Court clarifies the limitation period for appointment of arbitrators under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act: Arif Azim Co. Ltd. vs. Aptech Ltd. (2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies limitation for IBC application based on recovery certificates: Totempudi Salalith vs. State Bank of India (2023)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 238A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 136, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 18, Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 with Section 19(22A)

Supreme Court clarifies limitation for IBC application based on recovery certificates: Totempudi Salalith vs. State Bank of India (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a financial creditor can initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) based on a recovery certificate issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), and what is

Supreme Court clarifies limitation for IBC application based on recovery certificates: Totempudi Salalith vs. State Bank of India (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Due to Limitation: M/S B AND T AG vs. Ministry of Defence (2023)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 43, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. B. Pardiwala, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137

Supreme Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Due to Limitation: M/S B AND T AG vs. Ministry of Defence (2023) Date of the Judgment: May 18, 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 480 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI and J. B. Pardiwala, J. Can a party initiate arbitration proceedings years after the cause of action arises, simply because

Supreme Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Due to Limitation: M/S B AND T AG vs. Ministry of Defence (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Due to Limitation: B&T AG vs. Ministry of Defence (2023)

/ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 43, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. B. Pardiwala, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 9

Supreme Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Due to Limitation: B&T AG vs. Ministry of Defence (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a petition for the appointment of an arbitrator can be dismissed if the claims are time-barred. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Case Name: M/S B AND T AG vs. MINISTRY OF DEFENCE [Judgment Date]: 18 May 2023 Date of

Supreme Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Due to Limitation: B&T AG vs. Ministry of Defence (2023) Read Post »

Limitation for Delivery of Possession: Supreme Court refers the issue to Larger Bench in Bhasker & Anr. vs. Ayodhya Jewellers (2023)

/ Abhay S. Oka, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XXI, Rule 92, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XXI, Rule 94, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XXI, Rule 95, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 134, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Rajesh Bindal

Supreme Court refers the issue of limitation for delivery of possession to a larger bench: Bhasker & Anr. vs. Ayodhya Jewellers (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: What is the correct starting point for calculating the limitation period for an application seeking delivery of possession of property purchased in a court auction? CASE TYPE: Civil Law, Execution of

Limitation for Delivery of Possession: Supreme Court refers the issue to Larger Bench in Bhasker & Anr. vs. Ayodhya Jewellers (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation and Pre-Existing Dispute in Insolvency Cases: Sabarmati Gas vs. Shah Alloys (2023)

/ Ajay Rastogi, C.T. Ravikumar, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 8, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Insolvency Resolution Process, Judges, Limitation, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Sick Company, Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985, Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 with Section 22

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation and Pre-Existing Dispute in Insolvency Cases: Sabarmati Gas vs. Shah Alloys (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the period of suspension of legal proceedings under the Sick Industrial Companies Act (SICA) can be excluded when calculating the limitation period for applications under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), and whether

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation and Pre-Existing Dispute in Insolvency Cases: Sabarmati Gas vs. Shah Alloys (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court dismisses arbitration appeal due to limitation: Vishram Varu & Co. vs. Union of India (2022)

/ Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 11(6), B.V. Nagarathna, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, M.R. Shah, Stale Claims, Time-barred claims

Supreme Court dismisses arbitration appeal due to limitation: Vishram Varu & Co. vs. Union of India (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitration petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable when the arbitration clause is invoked after a significant delay. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Vishram Varu & Co.

Supreme Court dismisses arbitration appeal due to limitation: Vishram Varu & Co. vs. Union of India (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act to IBC proceedings: State Bank of India vs. Krishidhan Seeds Private Limited (2022) INSC 189

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 18, Surya Kant

Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act to IBC proceedings: State Bank of India vs. Krishidhan Seeds Private Limited (2022) INSC 189 Date of the Judgment: April 18, 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 189 Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. and Surya Kant, J. Can a one-time settlement (OTS) offer or

Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act to IBC proceedings: State Bank of India vs. Krishidhan Seeds Private Limited (2022) INSC 189 Read Post »

Supreme Court directs NCLT to Reconsider Insolvency Application: M/S Wizaman Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kedrion Biopharma Inc. (2022)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Dinesh Maheshwari, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Operational Debt, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court directs NCLT to Reconsider Insolvency Application: M/S Wizaman Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kedrion Biopharma Inc. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) was correct in admitting additional documents at the appellate stage without giving the corporate debtor an opportunity to respond, in an application under Section 9 of the

Supreme Court directs NCLT to Reconsider Insolvency Application: M/S Wizaman Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kedrion Biopharma Inc. (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Fresh Review of Insolvency Claim: M/S Wizaman Impex vs. Kedrion Biopharma (2022)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Dinesh Maheshwari, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Operational Debt, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Directs Fresh Review of Insolvency Claim: M/S Wizaman Impex vs. Kedrion Biopharma (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) was correct in admitting additional documents at the appellate stage without giving the corporate debtor an opportunity to respond, and whether the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and

Supreme Court Directs Fresh Review of Insolvency Claim: M/S Wizaman Impex vs. Kedrion Biopharma (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Fresh Review of Insolvency Application: M/S Wizman Impex vs. Kedrion Biopharma (2022)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Dinesh Maheshwari, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Operational Creditor, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Orders Fresh Review of Insolvency Application: M/S Wizman Impex vs. Kedrion Biopharma (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) was correct in admitting additional documents at the appellate stage without providing an opportunity for response to the corporate debtor. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: M/S Wizman Impex Pvt.

Supreme Court Orders Fresh Review of Insolvency Application: M/S Wizman Impex vs. Kedrion Biopharma (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for IBC Applications: Dena Bank vs. C. Shivakumar Reddy (2021)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Indira Banerjee, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 238A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 18, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for IBC Applications: Dena Bank vs. C. Shivakumar Reddy (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of limitation period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and the effect of acknowledgment of debt. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: Dena Bank (now Bank of Baroda) vs. C. Shivakumar Reddy and Anr. Judgment Date:

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for IBC Applications: Dena Bank vs. C. Shivakumar Reddy (2021) Read Post »

Scroll to Top