Limitation Act, 1963

Supreme Court clarifies the role of balance sheets in acknowledging debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC): Asset Reconstruction Company vs. Bishal Jaiswal (2021)

/ B.R. Gavai, Companies Act, 2013, Companies Act, 2013 with Section 129, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Financial Statements, Hrishikesh Roy, 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 Section 18, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Clarifies the Role of Balance Sheets in Acknowledging Debt under IBC Date of the Judgment: April 15, 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 218 Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., B.R. Gavai, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J. Can a company’s balance sheet serve as valid proof of debt acknowledgment, thereby extending the limitation period for initiating insolvency proceedings? […]

Supreme Court clarifies the role of balance sheets in acknowledging debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC): Asset Reconstruction Company vs. Bishal Jaiswal (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of Limitation Act to IBC: Sesh Nath Singh vs. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd. (22 March 2021)

/ Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Hemant Gupta, 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 14, SARFAESI Act, 2002, SARFAESI Act, 2002 with Section 13(2), SARFAESI Act, 2002 with Section 13(4)

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for IBC Applications: Sesh Nath Singh vs. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to applications under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, and whether delays in filing such applications can be condoned. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law

Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of Limitation Act to IBC: Sesh Nath Singh vs. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd. (22 March 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Section 37 Appeals under Arbitration Act: Government of Maharashtra vs. Borse Brothers (2021)

/ Appeals from Arbitral Orders, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 37, B.R. Gavai, Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 with Section 13, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 29, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Section 37 Appeals under Arbitration Act: Government of Maharashtra vs. Borse Brothers (2021) Date of the Judgment: March 19, 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 149 Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., B.R. Gavai, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J. Can delays in filing appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 be

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Section 37 Appeals under Arbitration Act: Government of Maharashtra vs. Borse Brothers (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies limitation for arbitration applications and rejects time-barred claims: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd. (2021)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Appointment of Arbitrators, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 43, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Arbitration Applications: BSNL vs. Nortel (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: What is the limitation period for filing an application for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and can a court refuse to appoint an arbitrator if the claims are evidently time-barred? CASE TYPE: Arbitration

Supreme Court clarifies limitation for arbitration applications and rejects time-barred claims: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd. (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 Dismisses Insolvency Plea Citing Limitation: Reliance Asset Reconstruction vs. Hotel Poonja International (2021)

/ Acknowledgment of Liability, Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Indira Banerjee, 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, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Dismisses Insolvency Plea Citing Limitation: Reliance Asset Reconstruction vs. Hotel Poonja International (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is barred by limitation when the default occurred more than three years before the application was filed. CASE TYPE: Insolvency Law Case Name: M/s. Reliance

Supreme Court Dismisses Insolvency Plea Citing Limitation: Reliance Asset Reconstruction vs. Hotel Poonja International (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 Validity of 1990 Power of Attorney and Sale Deeds: Rattan Singh vs. Nirmal Gill (2020)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 68, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 71, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 90, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 17

Supreme Court Upholds Validity of 1990 Power of Attorney and Sale Deeds: Rattan Singh vs. Nirmal Gill (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a General Power of Attorney (GPA) and subsequent sale deeds, challenged on grounds of fraud, are valid. CASE TYPE: Civil Law – Property Dispute Case Name: Rattan Singh & Ors. vs. Nirmal Gill &

Supreme Court Upholds Validity of 1990 Power of Attorney and Sale Deeds: Rattan Singh vs. Nirmal Gill (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Madhya Pradesh’s Delayed Appeal, Imposes Costs: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bherulal (2020)

/ Condonation of Delay, Dinesh Maheshwari, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court Dismisses Madhya Pradesh’s Delayed Appeal, Imposes Costs: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bherulal (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Condonation of delay in filing a Special Leave Petition by a government entity. CASE TYPE: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Case Name: The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. Bherulal Judgment Date: 15 October 2020 Date of the

Supreme Court Dismisses Madhya Pradesh’s Delayed Appeal, Imposes Costs: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bherulal (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles limitation for pre-emption rights under Rajasthan Pre-Emption Act: Raghunath vs. Radha Mohan (2020)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Judges, Krishna Murari, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 97, Rajasthan Pre-Emption Act, 1966, Rajasthan Pre-Emption Act, 1966 with Section 21, Rajasthan Pre-Emption Act, 1966 with Section 8, Right of Pre-emption, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court clarifies limitation for pre-emption rights under Rajasthan Act: Raghunath vs. Radha Mohan (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the limitation period for exercising the right of pre-emption under the Rajasthan Pre-Emption Act, 1966, commences from the first sale after the Act came into force or from each subsequent sale. CASE TYPE: Civil Law – Property

Supreme Court settles limitation for pre-emption rights under Rajasthan Pre-Emption Act: Raghunath vs. Radha Mohan (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Partial Specific Performance in Land Sale Dispute: B. Santoshamma vs. D. Sarala (2020)

/ Indira Banerjee, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 21, Registration Act, 1908, Registration Act, 1908 with Section 50(1), Specific Performance of Contract, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 10, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 12, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Partial Specific Performance in Land Sale Dispute: B. Santoshamma vs. D. Sarala (2020) Date of the Judgment: 18 September 2020 Citation: 2020 INSC 707 Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and Indira Banerjee, J. Can a seller of land renege on a sale agreement after accepting a significant portion of the payment? The

Supreme Court Upholds Partial Specific Performance in Land Sale Dispute: B. Santoshamma vs. D. Sarala (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Enforcing Foreign Awards in Arbitration Cases: Government of India vs. Vedanta Limited (2020)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 47, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 48, Arbitration Law, Contract Law, Contract Law with Article 15.5, Enforcement of Foreign Awards, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 137, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, Production Sharing Contract, S. Abdul Nazeer

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Enforcing Foreign Awards: Government of India vs. Vedanta Limited (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Limitation period for enforcing foreign arbitral awards in India. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Government of India vs. Vedanta Limited [Judgment Date]: 16 September 2020 Date of the Judgment: 16 September 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 728 Judges:

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation for Enforcing Foreign Awards in Arbitration Cases: Government of India vs. Vedanta Limited (2020) Read Post »

Scroll to Top