Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Bombay High Court directed the acid attack victims to make an appropriate application within a period of four weeks from the date of this judgment.
Calcutta High Court stated that the petitioner justified the considerable delay in filing the writ petition by asserting that there is no statutory period of limitation, and neither party has suffered due to this delay.
Supreme Court, while allowing the present petition, appointed Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, to act as the sole arbitrator.
“A person claiming adverse possession should show, as to on what date he got the possession; the nature of his possession; whether the factum of possession was known to the other party; how long his possession has continued; and that his possession was open and undisturbed.”
Calcutta High Court held that issue of limitation being a question of fact ought to have been raised before trial court and evidence ought to have been adduced.
As per an additional affidavit submitted, the CBDT has provided the way, in the past and future, pending appeals are to be dealt with and disposed of expeditiously as well as a road map to dispose of pending appeals.
The appellants mainly averred that the further period of 90 days had not expired on the date of imposition of lockdown as on 23-03-2020.
Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the Trial Court failed to properly adjudicate the issue related to calculation of limitation period.
There is no such thing under the SAST Regulations that acquisition and holding of shares without making a public announcement is a violation.
Supreme Court held that not putting a quietus to the prolonged dispute at hand, spanning 38 years, on something as simple as tenancy issue, would be a travesty of justice.
Madras High Court has also granted the plaintiff a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from committing passing off of its restaurant business by using deceptively similar trade mark.
The NCLAT rejected an application seeking Condonation of Delay of 49 days (about 1 and a half months) on the ground of want of sufficient cause.
As the service tax needs to be computed in terms of Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 and as the assessee has not opted for the composition scheme, the matter is remitted back to the CESTAT for re-computation of the demands.
The Calcutta High Court observed that “conduct of the defendant is also to be looked into” and accepted the written statement of the defendant.
Supreme Court said that whether any particular facts constitute a cause of action has to be determined with reference to the facts of each case and with reference to the substance, rather than the form of the action. If an infringement of a right happens at a particular time, the whole cause of action will be said to have arisen then and there.
Delhi High Court observed that an ex parte decree of divorce also it shall be lawful for either party to the marriage to marry again if no appeal is filed against such decree within the period of limitation.
Meghalaya High Court said that there is no limitation on the powers of the Governor in conferring a part of the authority pertaining to the Penal Code or some special law, to a particular Court or officer appointed in that behalf.
The Supreme Court was unimpressed with the explanation given by the plaintiff for the delay of 853 days that he initially fell sick with Jaundice and was later confined to house with High Blood Pressure, Diabetes and other diseases. The petition had extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs. 15,00,000/-.
Madras High Court held that the petitioners are not entitled to join respondents 3 to 5 as parties to arbitral proceedings, as they do not qualify as “alter egos” of the first respondent or as successors-in-interest.