Tag: Limitation Period

Conduct Matters: Supreme Court Confirms Auction Sale but Orders Buyer to Pay Extra ₹25 Lakh/Acre
29Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Conduct Matters: Supreme Court Confirms Auction Sale but Orders Buyer to Pay Extra ₹25 Lakh/Acre

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision confirming the validity of a court-auctioned property sale. It endorsed the directions for a fresh survey to demarcate the exact purchased area and for the auction purchaser to pay additional consideration, citing his conduct, while ruling that subsequent challenges to the sale were barred by law. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated from a debt recovery proceeding initiated by the Karnataka State Financial Corporation (KSFC) against a company, for which the respondent, G.M. Krishna, was a guarantor. Following a decree, KSFC attached the respondent's agricultural land for auction. The appellant, R. Raghu, emerged as the highest bidder in a court auction in 2003, and a sale certificate was subsequently issued. The responden...
Read More
Supreme Court’s Ruling on Curing Defects in Petition Affidavits :Simplifying Election Laws
26Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Ruling on Curing Defects in Petition Affidavits :Simplifying Election Laws

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that non-compliance with the affidavit requirement under Section 83(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is not automatically fatal. Following the precedent in G.M. Siddeshwar, the Supreme Court held that 'substantial compliance' with Form 25 suffices, and defects are generally curable. The matter was remanded to the High Court to determine if the affidavit in question substantially complied with the statutory requirements and whether the defects could be rectified. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from the General Elections to the Odisha Legislative Assembly for the 07-Jharsuguda Constituency, held in 2024. The appellant, Tankadhar Tripathy, was declared the elected candidate, winning by a margin of 1,333 votes. The respondent, Dipa...
Read More
Supreme Court Ruling: No Certified Copy, No Appeal – NCLAT’s Order Set Aside on Technical Ground
15Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling: No Certified Copy, No Appeal – NCLAT’s Order Set Aside on Technical Ground

The Supreme Court held that an appeal against an NCLT order under the IBC must be filed within 30 days from the date of its pronouncement. It reiterated that mandatory filing of a certified copy of the impugned order is integral to a valid appeal, and non-compliance renders the appeal barred by limitation. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an order dated June 23, 2023, passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, which approved a resolution plan submitted by Ashdan Properties Pvt. Ltd. in the corporate insolvency resolution process of the corporate debtor. The respondent, DSK Global Education and Research Pvt. Ltd., being aggrieved by this order, filed an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) challenging the NCLT's decision. The ...
Read More
Mandatory Rules for Ex-Parte Injunctions: A Key Reminder from the Supreme Court
13Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Mandatory Rules for Ex-Parte Injunctions: A Key Reminder from the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court emphasized that Order 39 Rule 3 CPC mandates recording reasons for granting ex parte injunction and strict compliance with procedural obligations by the applicant. Non-compliance warrants vacation of the ex parte order without adjudicating merits, ensuring the opposite party is not deprived of an early hearing. Facts Of The Case: The petitioner, Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited, filed a civil suit claiming ownership and possession of certain land parcels in District Barabanki, based on an Agreement to Sell from 2015 and a subsequent Sale Deed from April 2025. The plaintiff alleged that peaceful physical possession was handed over in 2015 upon full payment, after which they developed the land with significant investment. The Civil Judge (Senior Division...
Read More
Key Income Tax Ruling: Supreme Court Divided on Limitation Period Under Sections 144C & 153
11Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Key Income Tax Ruling: Supreme Court Divided on Limitation Period Under Sections 144C & 153

The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the interplay between Sections 144C and 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The key legal question was whether the detailed procedure and timelines under Section 144C for eligible assessees operate within or in addition to the limitation period prescribed under Sections 153 for passing assessment orders. The divergence of opinion led to the matter being referred to a larger bench for final determination. Facts Of The Case: The case involved several foreign companies, including Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd., engaged in oil exploration in India. For Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2018-19, the companies filed returns declaring losses. Their cases were selected for scrutiny, and the Assessing Officers passed draft assessment orders ...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Private Schools Can Sue in Civil Court to Recover Unpaid Fees
5Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Private Schools Can Sue in Civil Court to Recover Unpaid Fees

The Supreme Court held that the civil courts retain jurisdiction to adjudicate fee recovery suits filed by unaided private schools, as there is no express or implied ouster of jurisdiction under the Haryana School Education Act and Rules. The statutory remedy before the Fee and Fund Regulatory Committee is available only to parents/students to challenge excessive fees, not to schools for recovery. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Apeejay School, an unaided private institution, filed suits for recovery of fees against students and their parents. The dispute arose from a fee hike implemented by the school for the academic year 2009-10, which the respondents refused to pay, continuing instead to remit only the pre-hike amount. The school's suits were initially decreed by the trial court. W...
Read More
Supreme Court: Company Balance Sheets Can Reset Limitation Clock for Creditors Under IBC
26Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Company Balance Sheets Can Reset Limitation Clock for Creditors Under IBC

The Supreme Court held that entries in a company’s balance sheet, when read in the context of surrounding circumstances and previous financial statements, can constitute a valid acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, thereby extending the limitation period for filing an application under Section 7 of the IBC. The Court clarified that the exclusion period under its COVID-19 limitation order applied from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, making the application timely. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, IL & FS Financial Services Ltd., extended a term loan of ₹30 crores to the respondent, Adhunik Meghalaya Steels Pvt. Ltd., on 27.02.2015, secured by a pledge of shares. The respondent's account was declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 01.03.2018. The appellant fi...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies: Limitation Act Applies to MSMED Arbitration But Not Conciliation
13Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

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

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...
Read More
Supreme Court Quashes FIR in 498A Dowry Case: Rules on Delay & False Allegations
16Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in 498A Dowry Case: Rules on Delay & False Allegations

The Supreme Court of India quashed an FIR and chargesheet, holding that while the complaint was within the limitation period as per Section 468 CrPC (relevant date for limitation being filing of complaint, not cognizance date), the allegations lacked specific incidents of cruelty and appeared to be a misuse of legal provisions. Facts Of The Case: The present appeal challenges a High Court order dated April 1, 2024, which set aside a Sessions Court order from October 4, 2008. The Sessions Court had discharged the Appellant from charges under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in FIR No. 1098/2002. The case originated from a complaint filed by the Complainant wife (Respondent no. 2) on July 3, 2002, leading to the FIR being registered on December 19, 2002, at PS Malviya Nagar...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies IBC Appeal Deadlines: No Delay Condonation Beyond 45 Days
7May By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies IBC Appeal Deadlines: No Delay Condonation Beyond 45 Days

The Supreme Court held that appeals under Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) must strictly adhere to the 30-day limitation period, extendable by only 15 days upon showing "sufficient cause." The NCLAT cannot condone delays beyond this 45-day window, as the IBC’s time-bound framework overrides equitable considerations. Facts Of The Case: Tata Steel’s resolution plan for Rohit Ferro-Tech Ltd. was approved by the NCLT on 07.04.2022. Respondent No. 1, a minority shareholder, filed an appeal before the NCLAT on 23.05.2022 (e-filing) and 24.05.2022 (physical filing), seeking condonation of a 15-day delay. The NCLAT allowed the delay, citing Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the 30-day period ended on a court holiday (08.05.2022, a Sunday). Tata Steel challenged t...
Read More