Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Amounts of retiral dues, including gratuity, are not bounties. It is deferred payment to the employee for the long services rendered by him to the Department… The retiral dues are also recognized as property under the Article 300-A of the Constitution.”
The cause of action to file the present petition arose when respondent 1 failed to pay the balance amount to the petitioner by 31-12-2012 as per clause (vi) of the compromise agreement based on which the consent decree dated 01-06-2009 was passed.
Forcing the parties to file a written statement or to complete the pleadings during the process of mediation will prevent the parties in freely communicating with each other, which they have not been able to do since the dispute started.
“Limitation seeks to prevent abuse of process by filing vexatious and belated prosecutions. However, at the same time, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) is not blind to the problems faced by litigants and provides for extension of the limitation period in certain cases under Section 4731 of the CrPC. Thus, CrPC also ensures that interests of bona fide complainants are not affected.”
Supreme Court said that allowing a party, already aware of the award, to delay proceedings by insisting on procedural formalities would frustrate the expeditious resolution of disputes, undermining the very purpose of the Arbitration Act.
Supreme Court highlighted that the judgment in Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari, (1995) 2 SCC 736 has been rendered after considering the relevant provisions of the Statute and the principles of interpretation. However, the judgment in Ramsingbhai Jerambhai v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 16 SCC 445 is a short judgment only referring to the text of Section 28-A(1) of 1894 Act.
Top arbitration cases on unilateral appointment, seat of arbitration, limitation period, scope of judicial scrutiny and more.
Referral courts, at the stage of deciding an application for appointment of arbitrator, must not conduct an intricate evidentiary enquiry into the question whether the claims raised by the applicant are time barred.”
“The evidence on the part of the appellants would reveal that instead of establishing ‘animus possidendi’ under hostile colour of title, they have tendered evidence indicating only permissive possession and at the same time failed to establish the time from which it was converted to adverse to the title of the respondent which is open and continuous for the prescriptive period.”
In cases where a search is conducted after 31-03-2021, the first proviso to Section 153C (1) would have to be construed and tested as regards the date when the Assessing Officer decides to initiate action against the non-searched entity.
The Court was of the view that both, the applicant in viewing the requirement of filing the appeal within six months as per S. 378(5) CrPC; and the respondents contending that the appeal should have been filed within sixty days as per S. 378(5), were equally incorrect.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1953 on limitation period of suit on possession of immovable property.
“The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not.”
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.
Supreme Court acknowledged that in case of special law prescribing a limitation period, Section 5 of the Limitation Act would have no application.
“It is a well-settled law that while deciding the question of appointment of arbitrator, the Court shall not touch the merits of the case as it may cause prejudice to the case of the parties.”
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.
“Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 operate in different spheres and apply to orders passed by different forums i.e., District Court and the Family Court respectively.”
The Delhi High Court observed that there was an unexplained substantial delay in issuing the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 09-11-2017 and thus, is inexcusable in the eyes of law