Topic
The Uttarakhand High Court ruled that the third proviso of Section 18(1) SARFAESI Act applies only to borrowers, so a non-borrower cannot be forced to deposit 25 % of the debt to file an appeal. This removes an unlawful pre-deposit condition for third-party appellants and clarifies the filing fee structure for all SARFAESI appeals.
The Jharkhand HC said an insurer must prove any licence breach under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It raised the claim award to Rs 16.22 million with 6 % interest, stressing the duty to pay just compensation.
The Delhi High Court set aside the Section 148 order that forced the accused to deposit 20 % of the compensation amount during the pendency of his appeal. It waived the deposit requirement and instructed the appellate court to dispose of the appeal within six weeks, easing the petitioner’s financial hardship.
The Delhi High Court struck down an Appellate Tribunal interim order that sought to channel frozen proceeds of crime to settle liabilities of another company, holding such diversion beyond the scope of Section 42 of the PMLA. This bars authorities from using seized assets to satisfy third-party debts, affecting enforcement actions against money-laundering suspects.
CESTAT ruled that an appeal lodged with an incorrect customs office does not lapse under the Limitation Act, allowing the appellant to pursue the refund of duty paid under protest. This clarifies that procedural misdirection does not defeat a taxpayer’s right to challenge duty assessments.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court overturned the death sentences of Pardeep and Sagar, holding that the trial court’s failure to present all incriminating material under Section 313 CrPC is a curable irregularity. It ordered a fresh sentencing hearing, indicating that such procedural lapses do not automatically sustain capital punishment.
The Delhi High Court ruled that a judge’s order extending custodial investigation under UAPA’s Sec 43D(2)(b) is merely interlocutory, so an appeal under Sec 21 of the NIA Act is barred. Parties must instead seek a revision under CrPC Sec 482. This limits immediate appellate relief in NIA investigations.
NCLAT clarifies that the 30-day limitation period for filing appeals under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code starts from the date of oral pronouncement in open court, not from the upload of the order or receipt of a certified copy. This ruling impacts homebuyers and financial creditors challenging resolution plans, ensuring timely appeals are calculated from the correct date.
The MP State Consumer Commission dismissed HDFC Bank's appeal for condonation of a 1-year, 11-month delay, holding that vague explanations like administrative approvals and misplaced documents are insufficient under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The ruling reinforces strict adherence to limitation periods in consumer disputes, impacting financial institutions and litigants seeking condonation of delay.