Corporate Litigation - The Legal Chamber

The Supreme Court ruled on the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963, to conciliation and arbitration proceedings under Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006. It held that the Limitation Act does not apply to conciliation proceedings, allowing time-barred claims to be referred for settlement. However, the Act applies to arbitration proceedings under Section 18(3), as Section 43 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, incorporates the Limitation Act into such arbitrations. The Court emphasized that the MSMED Act’s provisions override general laws, ensuring a balanced approach to dispute resolution while protecting suppliers' rights. The disclosure of unpaid amounts in financial statements under Section 22 may extend limitation periods, subject to case-specific scrutiny. Facts Of The...

The Supreme Court ruled that a company qualifies as a "victim" under Section 2(wa) CrPC if it suffers loss or injury due to an offence, entitling it to file an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. The Court clarified that such appeals are independent of Section 378 CrPC and need not be restricted to cases where the victim is the complainant. The judgment reinforces the expansive interpretation of "victim" to include corporations, ensuring their right to challenge wrongful acquittals in criminal cases involving infringement or fraud. Facts Of The Case: Asian Paints Limited, a leading paint manufacturer, discovered counterfeit products being sold under its brand name at a shop owned by Ram Babu in Jaipur. The company had authorized M/s Solution, an IPR consultanc...

Tag: Corporate Litigation

Supreme Court Clarifies: Limitation Act Applies to MSMED Arbitration But Not Conciliation

Supreme Court Rules: Companies Can Also Be ‘Victims’ in Criminal Cases