A&C - Juridical seat of arbitration is determinative factor for conferring exclusive supervisory jurisdiction on court: HC (See 'Legal Desk') India's progress in reducing Tuberculosis Incidence has Outpaced Global Average: Nadda (See 'Corp Brief') Rs 100 crore sanctioned for Integrated Aqua Park Project in Anantnag (See 'Corp Brief') Reddy inaugurates Multiple Projects in WCL (See 'Corp Brief') PMLA - If mortgaged properties are to be auctioned by bank or settled with borrower which may result in concealment, it would be only of those properties which was considered to be assets disproportionate to known source: SAFEMA (See 'Legal Desk') India moving from Healthcare Follower to Global Leader in Precision Medicine and Biomanufacturing: MoS (See 'Corp Brief') Companies Act - Technical provisions of Companies Act cannot be relied on to evade compliance with a Court decree prohibiting the judgment debtor from transferring the shares to any third party: HC (See 'Legal Desk') SECL's Vigilance-led Initiative 'Prayas' Ensures Timely PF & Pension Settlement (See 'Corp Brief') PMLA - Appearance of Appellant, ordinarily operating in Mumbai, before SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal at Delhi, does not confer territorial jurisdiction to the Delhi High Court over Appellant: HC (See 'Legal Desk') Agrinnovate India presents Rs.3.4 Crore dividend to Chouhan (See 'Corp Brief') IBC - Once Resolution Plan is approved by NCLT u/s 31 of IBC, it becomes binding on all stakeholders, and all claims not provided for in plan stand extinguished: HC (See 'Legal Desk') 6 Railway Stations in West Bengal redeveloped under Amrit Bharat Station Scheme (See 'Corp Brief') IPR - Party seeking cancellation of registered trademark on grounds of similarity and prior rights must first establish its own prior and continuous use of its mark as trademark: HC (See 'Legal Desk') NHAI receives warm response from Bidders for Construction of Kaliabor to Numaligarh Section of NH (See 'Corp Brief') IBC - Application of Discount for Lack of Marketability is permissible valuation methodology under Indian Accounting Standards for determining fair value of unlisted, illiquid shares in context of capital reduction: SC (See 'Legal Desk') Supreme Court Clears Path For Single Insolvency Proceedings Against Linked Group Companies (See CORP EINSICHT)

Benami Property - 45-day window for appeal against adjudication orders

Published: Feb 01, 2023

By TIOLCorplaws News Service

NEW DELHI, FEB 01, 2023: THE Union Budget for the year 2023 was tabled in Parliament today. Amidst many sops being offered for different segments of the society and the economy, the Government has also attempted to iron out anomalies in fiscal statutes. Under the existing provisions of section 46 of the PBPT Act, any person, including the Initiating Officer (IO), aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority, may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal within a period of 45 days from the date of the order. The order often takes time to reach the office of the Initiating Officer or the approving authority and, it is difficult to file an appeal within the prescribed time limit and leads to delay in such filing.

Hence, it is proposed that the provisions of section 46 of the PBPT Act may be amended to allow the filing of appeal against the order of the Adjudicating authority within a period of 45 days from the date when such order is received in the office of the Initiating Officer or the aggrieved person as the case may be. Similar change is also proposed with reference to the order passed by an authority under section 54A of the PBPT Act.

Under the existing provisions of section 2(18) of the PBPT Act, the ‘High Court', for the purpose of filing appeal against the order of the Adjudicating authority, have been defined as Jurisdiction of such High Court within which either the aggrieved party ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, or if the aggrieved party is Government then, jurisdiction of the High Court within which the respondent, or any respondent in case of multiple respondents resides, or carries on business or works for gain. It has been observed that the non-residents against whom proceedings under PBPT Act have been initiated and who does not fall in the category of appellant or respondent mentioned in the definition, do not fall under the jurisdiction of any High Court.

Hence, to enable the determination of High Court jurisdiction for the non-resident appellants or respondents, it is proposed to amend section 2(18) of the PBPT Act to modify the definition of ‘High Court' by inserting a proviso so as to provide that where the aggrieved party does not ordinarily reside or carry on business or personally work for gain in the jurisdiction of any High Court or where the Government is the aggrieved party and any of the respondents do not ordinarily reside or carry on business or personally work for gain in the jurisdiction of any High Court, then the High Court shall be such within whose jurisdiction the office of the Initiating Officer is located. These amendments will take effect from the 1st day of April, 2023.

TIOL CORP SEARCH

TIOL GROUP WEBSITES