Posts

Supreme Court clarify the sequence of trial, when can a issue be settled as preliminary issue and the legislative intent of Order 14 Rule 2 CPC, 1908

-
Image
  Supreme Court clarify the sequence of trial, when can a issue be settled as preliminary issue and the legislative intent of Order 14 Rule 2 CPC, 1908 [1]   Shubham Budhiraja [2] A filed a suit against B for cancellation of sale deed with consequent relief of possession of suit property which B had executed in favour of C. It is A case that GPA executed by A to B did not confer him authority to sell the property. The GPA is of 21/05/2005, Sale Deed 25/05/2005 and A said he get to know of the same in 2009 and consequently he filed a suit. After issues were framed including one of issue being of limitation, B&C filed application for deciding issue of limitation as preliminary issue first. The Trial Court adjudged the same and held plaint to be barred by limitation. The first appellate court affirmed the same. The High Court in regular second appeal held that suit was within limitation because it was to be governed by 12-year period and not 3 because consequent relief ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Possession parted to new entity because of amalgamation attracts eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control

-
Image
    Possession parted to new entity because of amalgamation attracts eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control   Shubham Budhiraja [1]   Company-A given on lease the property to Bank-B. Due to Govt. Notification, the Bank-B stood merged and became Bank-C, a new entity. Basis this, the Company-A filed a Eviction petition under Section 14(1)(b) on the ground that the original tenant had parted the possession to a new tenant without written consent of the Landlord. The Rent Control allowed the eviction petition however the High Court set aside the eviction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: [2]   1.     A plain reading of this provision shows that the following ingredients must be satisfied before an order of eviction can be passed under Section 14(1)(b): (1) The tenant has sub-let or assigned or parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises; and (2) Such sub-letting, assignment or parting w...
Post a Comment
Read more

Whether in appeal to Supreme Court (against NCLAT Order) the delay in refiling the can be condoned beyond 28 days?

-
Image
  Whether in appeal to Supreme Court (against NCLAT Order) the delay in refiling the can be condoned beyond 28 days? [1]   Shubham Budhiraja [2] 1.     The scheme of limitation under the IBC is a strict and time-bound one. The concept of condonation of delay itself is alien to the statutory framework beyond the period expressly contemplated under the statute. Section 62 of the IBC permits an appeal to be filed before this Court within 45 (forty-five) days, with a further grace period of only 15 (fifteen) days, and that too, only upon sufficient cause being shown. Thus, the outer limit statutorily permissible is 60 (sixty) days, beyond which the appeal itself becomes barred and the Court’s jurisdiction to condone the delay ceases .   2.     Any appeal which is not filed within the stipulated period in a form shorn of defects, for all practical and legal purposes, remains a defective appeal.   3.     Any practi...
Post a Comment
Read more

Supreme Court’s view on State’s right to withdraw the tax exemption vis-à-vis Industry’s legally enforceable right[1]

-
Image
  Shubham Budhiraja [2]   State of Maharashtra in exercise of the statutory power under Section5A granted exemption to certain industries from electricity duty in 1994. Later on, such exemptions were withdrawn on ground of budget deficit. The withdrawal of notification was challenged. The Hon’ble High Court set aside the notification for being arbitrary for making classification between different industries. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that notification is valid. The Respondent had no legal enforceable or vested right to claim exemption for indefinite time. In any case, state decision is in public interest.     1.       An exemption is by definition a freedom from an obligation which the exemptee is otherwise liable to discharge. It is a privilege granting an advantage not available to others.   2.     The recipient of a concession has no legally enforceable right against the Government to grant of a concession...
Post a Comment
Read more

Supreme Court clarified that Consumer Forums are not bound by one side clauses in the Contracts and they can grant higher interest

-
Image
    Shubham Budhiraja [1]   The Homebuyers filed a consumer complaint against Builder. The NCDRC directed the Builder to handover the possession after obtaining the occupancy certificate with interest as compensation. The Builder challenged the same before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the ground that NCDRC has exceeded its jurisdiction by granting beyond the contract. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:   1.     The jurisdiction of the consumer fora is traceable not merely to the contractual terms agreed between the parties but to the statute itself. Sections 12 and 22 of the Act empower the consumer fora, including the NCDRC to adjudicate complaints relating to deficiency in service and to grant appropriate reliefs.   2.     Section 22 expressly incorporates the powers under Sections 12, 13 and 14, thereby enabling the NCDRC to issue directions and award compensation for loss or injury caused to a consumer. The...
Post a Comment
Read more

CLB is not a ‘court’ for purpose of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963

-
Image
  Shubham Budhiraja [1]   By virtue of probate of will in 1990, Mr. A in 2013 applied for registration of transmission of shares under Section 58 of Companies Act, 2013 with an application for condonation of delay.   The Ld. CLB condoned the delay and High Court upheld the same. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Companies Act, 2013 is enforced in the phase manner. Though Section 58 was enforced in 2013 but the appeal provision to NCLT, NCLAT was enforced in 2016. The Section 433 which enables application of limitation act was also enforced from 2016 only. Hence, as on 2013, the CLB was court only for limited purpose but not a ‘court’ for purpose of limitation because the provision of limitation act, 1963 was not made applicable to CLB under the Companies Act, 1956. Meaning thereby, the CLB was not empowered to condone the delay.     1.     In order to ensure a smooth transition into the new framework, the Act, 2013 was implemented in...
Post a Comment
Read more

Whether provisions of CPC on service of summon applies to Delhi Rent Control Act?

-
Image
  Shubham Budhiraja [1] A filed an Eviction Petition against B under Delhi Rent Control Act. The summons received unserved however A’s application for substituted service was allowed and B was served through publication. B appeared and filed application under Section 151 CPC for complete paper-book however in the meantime he received the certified copies and filed the leave to defend. The Ld. ARC dismissed the leave to defend as filed beyond 15 days. Hence, the revision petition. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as under: [2]   1.     Section 25B of the DRC Act, introduced by the Amendment Act was enacted with an objective to lay down a special procedure for speedy disposal of an Eviction Petition filed on the ground of bona fide requirement, so as to ensure that a landlord with an honest and genuine need is not subjected to protracted litigation. In view the aforesaid objective, Section 25B of the DRC Act, is in the nature of a summary procedure and co...
1 comment
Read more