Limitation Act, 1963

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea for Specific Performance Due to Delay: Surjeet Singh Sahni vs. State of U.P. (28 February 2022)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Contract Law, Judges, Limitation, M.R. Shah, Specific Performance, U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 with Section 6

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea for Specific Performance Due to Delay: Surjeet Singh Sahni vs. State of U.P. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a writ petition seeking specific performance of a contract is maintainable after significant delay and whether a belated representation extends the period of limitation. CASE TYPE: Contract Law, Writ Jurisdiction Case Name: Surjeet Singh […]

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea for Specific Performance Due to Delay: Surjeet Singh Sahni vs. State of U.P. (28 February 2022) 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 Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown: N.Rajendran vs. S.Valli (2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Family Courts Act, 1984, Family Courts Act, 1984 with Section 19, Family Courts Act, 1984 with Section 20, Grounds for Divorce, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 15, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 29

Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown: N.Rajendran vs. S.Valli (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a marriage can be dissolved on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown, even when one party does not consent, and the applicability of the Limitation Act to appeals under the Family Courts Act. CASE TYPE: Matrimonial Law, Family Law Case Name: N.Rajendran

Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown: N.Rajendran vs. S.Valli (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Loan Recovery Suits: Mongia Realty vs. Manik Sethi (2022)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XIV Rule 2, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 1, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Loan Recovery Suits: Mongia Realty vs. Manik Sethi (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the issue of limitation in a suit for recovery of money can be decided as a preliminary issue based on oral arguments alone, without considering evidence. CASE TYPE: Civil (Loan Recovery) Case Name: M/s Mongia Realty and Buildwell

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Loan Recovery Suits: Mongia Realty vs. Manik Sethi (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Revisional Powers in Consumer Cases: Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India (21 January 2022)

/ Bela M. Trivedi, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 21(b), Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Revisional Jurisdiction, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Clarifies Revisional Powers in Consumer Cases: Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India (2022) Date of the Judgment: 21 January 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 38 Judges: Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Bela M. Trivedi Can a National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) call for a report from a party during the revision stage?

Supreme Court Clarifies Revisional Powers in Consumer Cases: Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India (21 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Restores Consumer Forum Order in Bank Error Case: Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India (2022) INSC 43

/ Bela M. Trivedi, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 21(b), Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Restores Consumer Forum Order in Bank Error Case Date of the Judgment: 21 January 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 43 Judges: Sanjiv Khanna, J., Bela M. Trivedi, J. Can a bank be held liable for crediting funds to the wrong account due to its own error? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this

Supreme Court Restores Consumer Forum Order in Bank Error Case: Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India (2022) INSC 43 Read Post »

Continuing Deficiency of Service: Supreme Court rules on limitation in Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2022)

/ AS Bopanna, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 2(1)(g), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 24A, Deficiency in Service, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 22, Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963, Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 with Section 3, Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 with Section 6

Supreme Court on Continuing Cause of Action in Consumer Disputes: Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2022) Date of the Judgment: January 11, 2022 Citation: Civil Appeal No 4000 of 2019 Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and AS Bopanna, J Can a builder’s failure to obtain an occupancy certificate

Continuing Deficiency of Service: Supreme Court rules on limitation in Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2022) Read Post »

Continuing Deficiency in Service: Supreme Court rules on Limitation in Consumer Disputes: Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society vs. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction (2022)

/ AS Bopanna, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 2(1)(g), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 24A, Deficiency in Service, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 22, Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963, Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 with Section 12, Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 with Section 3, Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 with Section 6

Supreme Court on Continuing Wrong in Consumer Disputes: Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society vs. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the failure to obtain an occupancy certificate by a builder constitutes a continuing wrong, thereby extending the limitation period for filing a consumer complaint. CASE TYPE: Consumer Law Case Name: Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.

Continuing Deficiency in Service: Supreme Court rules on Limitation in Consumer Disputes: Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society vs. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court dismisses review petition due to delay in filing: Surender Mohan vs. State of Haryana (2022)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Judges, Limitation, Review Jurisdiction, Review Petition, Supreme Court Procedure, Uday Umesh Lalit

Date of the Judgment: January 11, 2022 Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit J., Ajay Rastogi J. Can a review petition be entertained if there is an inordinate delay in filing the special leave petition? The Supreme Court addressed this issue in a recent case where a review petition was dismissed due to a significant delay in

Supreme Court dismisses review petition due to delay in filing: Surender Mohan vs. State of Haryana (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Strict Time Limits for Challenging Arbitration Awards: Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. vs. Maheshbhai Tinabhai Rathod & Ors. (16 December 2021)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Arbitral Award, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34(3), Hima Kohli, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, N.V. Ramana

Supreme Court Upholds Strict Time Limits for Challenging Arbitration Awards: Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. vs. Maheshbhai Tinabhai Rathod & Ors. (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the delay in filing a petition to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be condoned beyond the statutorily prescribed

Supreme Court Upholds Strict Time Limits for Challenging Arbitration Awards: Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. vs. Maheshbhai Tinabhai Rathod & Ors. (16 December 2021) Read Post »

Scroll to Top