TIER-1

    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...

  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...

  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 Later on, such exemptions were withdrawn on ground of budget deficit.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...

    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...

  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...