Justice Krishna Murari

The remedy against third party is not available under Section 66 of IBC, and the civil remedies which may be available in law, are independent of the said Section – Gluckrich Capital Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Supreme Court

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here […]

The remedy against third party is not available under Section 66 of IBC, and the civil remedies which may be available in law, are independent of the said Section – Gluckrich Capital Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Whether when the last day of condonable period of 30 days (under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act) falls on holiday or during the Court vacation, would the benefit of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 be available? – Bhimashankar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamita Vs. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. (WIL) – Supreme Court

A short question which is posed for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court was justified in not condoning the delay in preferring the application under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, which was filed after the expiry of 120 days but filed on the first day of reopening after the winter / Christmas vacation and in a case where the condonable period of 30 days under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act had fallen during the winter / Christmas vacation? The question is with respect to applicability of Section 4 of the Limitation and Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the central question in the present appeal is whether when the last day of condonable period of 30 days (under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act) falls on holiday or during the Court vacation, would the benefit of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 be available?

Whether when the last day of condonable period of 30 days (under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act) falls on holiday or during the Court vacation, would the benefit of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 be available? – Bhimashankar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamita Vs. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. (WIL) – Supreme Court Read Post »

Whether the MSMED Act, 2006 would prevail over the SARFAESI Act, 2002? – Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – Supreme Court

In this case, Division Bench of the High Court has allowed an appeal and has quashed and set aside the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and has observed that MSMED Act will prevail over SARFAESI Act, 2002. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act which is inserted in 2016 is also having a non-obstante clause. As per the settle position of law, if the legislature confers the later enactment with a non-obstante clause, it means the legislature wanted the subsequent/later enactment to prevail. Thus, a priority conferred / provided under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act would prevail over the recovery mechanism of the MSMED Act. The aforesaid is to be considered along with the fact that under provisions of the MSMED Act, more particularly Sections 15 to 23, no priority is provided with respect to the dues under the MSMED Act, like Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act. It also held that while exercising power under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, even the District Magistrate has no jurisdiction and/or District Magistrate and/or even the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between secured creditor and debtor.

Whether the MSMED Act, 2006 would prevail over the SARFAESI Act, 2002? – Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top