Supreme Court Holds Chandigarh Authorities Liable For Delay In Film City Project, Directs Refund Of 47.75 Crores To Successful Bidder

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court largely upheld an arbitral award passed in favor of a company engaged by the Chandigarh Administration to establish a Multimedia-cum-Film City in the Union Territory, holding the authorities liable to refund a forfeited bid amount of Rs.47.75 crores.A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma delivered the verdict, being of the view that the Punjab and Haryana High Court wrongly set aside the arbitral award.It opined that though time was of...

Homebuyers File Review Petition Against Supreme Court Judgment Holding Greater Noida Industrial Authority A 'Secured Creditor' Under IBC

A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking review of its judgment dated February 12, 2024 which classified Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority as a 'secured creditor' for the purposes of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Processes under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).Filed by a homebuyers' association, the plea states that the impugned judgment has led the National Company Law Tribunal to send back many resolution plans to the Committee of Creditors for...

IBC | Difference Between 'Avoidance Transactions' & 'Fraudulent Or Wrongful Trading' : Supreme Court Explains

The Supreme Court, in its recent decision in Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd v. 63 Moons Technology explained the key difference between how the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 deals with avoidance transactions and transactions relating to fraudulent or wrongful trading. Notably, under the IBC 2016, 'avoidance transactions' are specific transactions conducted by a corporate debtor prior to insolvency proceedings that are deemed detrimental to the interests of creditors....

S.61 IBC | When Judgment Is Pronounced In Open Court, Limitation Period Runs From That Day : Supreme Court

The Court also held that the benefit under S.12 of Limitation Act cannot be claimed when the party did not apply for certified copy.

S. 34(3) Arbitration Act | Application Filed On Next Working Day After 90 Day Period Is Within Limitation : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the three-month limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) for challenging an arbitral award should not be rigidly interpreted as exactly 90 days, rather it should be interpreted as three calendar months. The Court upheld the filing of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act on 11.07.2022 to set aside an arbitral award passed on 09.04.2022, despite it being beyond the 90-day period. It...

Supreme Court Upholds Piramal's Resolution Plan For DHFL, Sets Aside NCLAT Order

The Supreme Court today (April 1) approved the Resolution Plan proposed by Piramal Capita and Housing Finance for the erstwhile Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd(DHFL).The Court held that funds recovered from the fraudulent transactions at Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd (DHFL) will go to Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd.The Court set aside the NCLAT order, which directed the creditors of Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (DHFL) to reconsider the resolution plan...

Supreme Court Issues Notice In Challenge To West Bengal Taxes On Entry Of Goods Act

The Supreme Court is set to examine the constitutional validity of the West Bengal Taxes on Entry of Goods into the Local Areas Act, 2012, as amended by the West Bengal Finance Act, 2017, along with related Rules and notifications.A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan recently issued notice returnable on April 22, 2025 in a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Act. The Finance Act amended various provisions of the Entry Tax Act with retrospective...

Supreme Court Directs Customs Authorities To Upgrade Lab Facilities For Proper Testing Of Disputed Articles On All Parameters

In a key decision, the Supreme Court today overturned the confiscation of imported goods labelled as "Base Oil SN 50," which customs authorities had classified as High-Speed Diesel (HSD), which only the State entities can import. The Court found that the Customs Department failed to provide conclusive evidence proving the goods were High-Speed Diesel (HSD), due to inadequate laboratory testing and conflicting expert opinions. In this regard, the bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and N...

Can GST Act Timelines Be Relaxed For Bonafide Errors? Supreme Court Appoints Amicus Curiae, Issues Notice To CBIC

The Supreme Court recently issued notice to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) over the recurrent issue of not allowing rectification of bonafide errors made after the lapse of prescribed deadlines under the CGST Act. The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing a challenge by the Union against the decision of the Bombay High Court which allowed the rectification of bonafide errors by the assessee in GSTR-1 Form despite missing...

'Timelines To Rectify Bonafide GST Form Errors Must Be Realistic' : Supreme Court Asks CBIC To Re-examine Provisions

The Supreme Court recently underscored the need for the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to fix realistic timelines for correcting bonafide errors by the assesses in forms when filing GST returns. The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a challenge to the Bombay High Court order which allowed an assesee to rectify its form GSTR-1 after missing the deadline under S. 39(9) of the CGST Act. The order was challenged by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes...

IBC | Supreme Court Accepts Apology Of Tax Authorities For Asking Successful Resolution Applicant To Pay Dues Not Covered By Approved Plan

Giving the benefit of doubt and accepting their unconditional apology, the Supreme Court today disposed of a contempt petition filed against Chhattisgarh tax authorities for raising demand notices against a successful resolution applicant over claims in respect of a period prior to the approval of the resolution plan."we have no hesitation in holding that the demands raised by the respondents/authorities for a period prior to the date on which the learned NCLT has approved the Resolution Plan...

PMLA | Person Need Not Be Named As Accused In Complaint To Retain Seized Property Under Section 8(3) : Supreme Court

While dealing with a challenge to retention of an accused's electronic items, documents, etc. under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the Supreme Court recently observed that a person need not be named as an accused in the complaint in order for Section 8(3)(a) (dealing with continuation of retention) to apply. Rather, it is sufficient if a complaint alleging commission of an offense under Section 3 of the Act is pending."clause (a) will apply during the continuation of the proceedings...