Limitation Period

Supreme Court Upholds Eviction Process for Unauthorized Occupants of Municipal Premises: Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Vivek V. Gawde (2024)

/ Constitution of India, Constitution of India with Article 226, Constitution of India with Article 227, Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 3, Limitation Period, Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 with Section 105B, Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 with Section 105F, Part Performance, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 53A, Writ Jurisdiction

Supreme Court Upholds Eviction Process for Unauthorized Occupants of Municipal Premises: Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Vivek V. Gawde (2024) Date of the Judgment: December 13, 2024 The Supreme Court of India addressed the legality of eviction proceedings initiated by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai against occupants of municipal premises, specifically focusing on […]

Supreme Court Upholds Eviction Process for Unauthorized Occupants of Municipal Premises: Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Vivek V. Gawde (2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Limitation Act in Appeals Against Acquittal: Mohd Abaad Ali vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (20 February 2024)

/ Appeals against Acquittal, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 29(2), Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, Limitation Period

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Limitation Act in Appeals Against Acquittal: Mohd Abaad Ali vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to appeals against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. CASE TYPE: Criminal Appeal Case Name: Mohd Abaad Ali &

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Limitation Act in Appeals Against Acquittal: Mohd Abaad Ali vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (20 February 2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies Limitation for IBC Applications: Tech Sharp Engineers vs. Sanghvi Movers (2022)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Indira Banerjee, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 8, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, J.K. Maheshwari, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 14, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, Limitation Period

Supreme Court clarifies Limitation for IBC Applications: Tech Sharp Engineers vs. Sanghvi Movers (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: The key legal issue is determining the limitation period for filing an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and whether the pendency of winding-up proceedings before a High Court can extend this limitation. CASE

Supreme Court clarifies Limitation for IBC Applications: Tech Sharp Engineers vs. Sanghvi Movers (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds NCDRC’s Discretion on Delay in Consumer Cases: Diamond Exports vs. United India Insurance (2021)

/ Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 13, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 22, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges, Limitation Period, Surya Kant, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Upholds NCDRC’s Discretion on Delay in Consumer Cases: Diamond Exports vs. United India Insurance (2021) Date of the Judgment: 14 December 2021 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 7546 of 2021 Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, Surya Kant, J, and Vikram Nath, J. Can a consumer forum condone delays in filing written statements beyond

Supreme Court Upholds NCDRC’s Discretion on Delay in Consumer Cases: Diamond Exports vs. United India Insurance (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation of Housing Allotment Due to Delay: Rajasthan Housing Board vs. Hiralal Chanda (2021)

/ A S Bopanna, Consumer Complaint, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 24A, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges, Limitation Period

Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation of Housing Allotment Due to Delay: Rajasthan Housing Board vs. Hiralal Chanda (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a housing authority can cancel an allotment due to the allottee’s failure to deposit the required amount within a stipulated time, and whether a consumer complaint filed after the limitation period can be entertained. CASE

Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation of Housing Allotment Due to Delay: Rajasthan Housing Board vs. Hiralal Chanda (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the limitation period for revisions under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed (2021)

/ A. S. Bopanna, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 263, Judges, Limitation Period, M. R. Shah, Revision of Assessment Order

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Section 263 Income Tax Revisions: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of the limitation period for revision orders under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. CASE TYPE: Income Tax Law. Case Name: The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Mohammed Meeran

Supreme Court clarifies the limitation period for revisions under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Employee’s Claim: N. Subramanian vs. M/S Aruna Hotels Ltd. (2021)

/ Acknowledgment of Debt, B.R. Gavai, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Hrishikesh Roy, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 9, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Period, Operational Creditor, Rohinton Fali Nariman

Supreme Court Upholds Employee’s Claim: N. Subramanian vs. M/S Aruna Hotels Ltd. (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a claim for arrears of salary is time-barred under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) when there are acknowledgements of liability. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: N. Subramanian vs. M/S Aruna Hotels Ltd. & Anr. [Judgment Date]:

Supreme Court Upholds Employee’s Claim: N. Subramanian vs. M/S Aruna Hotels Ltd. (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies “Casual Trader” definition under Rajasthan Sales Tax Act: Commercial Taxes Officer vs. M/s Bhagat Singh (21 January 2021)

/ Casual Trader, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Limitation Period, Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 with Section 10A, Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 with Section 10B, Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 with Section 2(ccc), Sanjiv Khanna, Tax Assessment, Tax Law

Supreme Court Clarifies “Casual Trader” Definition Under Rajasthan Sales Tax Act: Commercial Taxes Officer vs. M/s Bhagat Singh (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of “Casual Trader” under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, concerning the time limit for tax assessment. CASE TYPE: Tax Law Case Name: Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-B, Bharatpur vs. M/s Bhagat Singh [Judgment

Supreme Court clarifies “Casual Trader” definition under Rajasthan Sales Tax Act: Commercial Taxes Officer vs. M/s Bhagat Singh (21 January 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Film Producers in Copyright Dispute: Zee Telefilms Ltd. vs. Suresh Productions (2020)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Copyright Infringement, Copyright Law, Indian Limitation Act, Indian Limitation Act with Article 58, Judges, Limitation Period, Navin Sinha

Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Film Producers in Copyright Dispute: Zee Telefilms Ltd. vs. Suresh Productions (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Determining the accrual of cause of action in copyright infringement cases, specifically concerning the limitation period. CASE TYPE: Copyright Law, Civil Appeal. Case Name: M/S. ZEE TELEFILMS LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LTD.) vs.

Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Film Producers in Copyright Dispute: Zee Telefilms Ltd. vs. Suresh Productions (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the meaning of “first due” under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 in cases of incorrect billing: Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Anr. vs. Rahamatullah Khan alias Rahamjulla (18 February 2020)

/ Consumer Law, Consumer Rights, Electricity Act, 2003, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 56, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Limitation Law, Limitation Period, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies “First Due” Date Under Electricity Act: Ajmer Vidyut Nigam vs. Rahamatullah Khan (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of “first due” in Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, concerning the limitation period for disconnection of electricity supply due to non-payment of dues. CASE TYPE: Electricity Law, Consumer Law. Case Name: Assistant Engineer (D1),

Supreme Court clarifies the meaning of “first due” under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 in cases of incorrect billing: Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Anr. vs. Rahamatullah Khan alias Rahamjulla (18 February 2020) Read Post »

Limitation for Arbitration Claims: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Geo Miller & Co. Case (03 September 2019)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Law with Section 21, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Limitation Period, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, N.V. Ramana

Geo Miller & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rajasthan Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd.: Supreme Court on Limitation in Arbitration LEGAL ISSUE: Whether arbitration claims are barred by limitation based on the date the cause of action arose or the date of dispute. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: M/s Geo Miller & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs.

Limitation for Arbitration Claims: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Geo Miller & Co. Case (03 September 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Overturns NCDRC Order in Housing Allotment Dispute: Rajasthan Housing Board vs. Ratan Devi (22 July 2019)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Limitation Period, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Limitation Period

Supreme Court Overturns NCDRC Order in Housing Allotment Dispute: Rajasthan Housing Board vs. Ratan Devi (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a consumer complaint filed after a significant delay can be entertained, particularly when the allottee failed to pay the balance amount for a housing unit within the stipulated time. CASE TYPE: Consumer Law Case Name: Rajasthan

Supreme Court Overturns NCDRC Order in Housing Allotment Dispute: Rajasthan Housing Board vs. Ratan Devi (22 July 2019) Read Post »

Scroll to Top