India, Kuwait emphasize Dialogue Over Conflict to Secure Energy and Trade Supplies (See 'Corp Brief') Misc - There is no right in borrower to personal hearing by banks before classifying their account as fraud account: SC (See 'Legal Desk') Manohar Lal holds Key Engagements on Infrastructure and Development Cooperation (See 'Corp Brief') CARI Bengaluru gets ISO 15189:2022 Accreditation in Biochemistry (See 'Corp Brief') NI Act - At stage of issuance of process, statutory presumption u/s 139 of NI Act cannot be dislodged in summary manner merely by contending that cheque issued was not for legally enforceable debt: SC (See 'Legal Desk') Barabanki to Bahraich Highway to become Key Cross-Border Trade Lifeline (See 'Corp Brief') Advanced Agriculture fest kicks off in Raisen in MP (See 'Corp Brief') PMLA - Sec 2(1)(u) permits attachment of any property of equivalent value, including properties acquired prior to commission of scheduled offence, which are untraceable: SAFEMA (See 'Legal Desk') NTWB welcomes Jan Vishwas Amendments (See 'Corp Brief') IPR - Controller of Patent would decide whether differences, viewed in knowledge of alleged invention, constitute steps which would have been obvious to ordinary person skilled in art and rule out hindsight approach: HC (See 'Legal Desk') Anand Kumar Pal joins MoF as Chief Cost Adviser (See 'Corp Brief') IPR - Generic disclosure does not, by itself, defeat novelty of specific disclosure; Prior art that teaches away from claimed invention cannot serve as foundation for anticipation: HC (See 'Legal Desk') India-GCC reaffirms commitment to Regional Stability (See 'Corp Brief') IPR - Prior user of trademark has superior rights over subsequent user who holds registration for same or similar mark: HC (See 'Legal Desk') India-Bahrain stresses stability, Supply Chain Resilience and Stronger Economic Ties (See 'Corp Brief') Company Law - Sourcing pre-condition deposit unlawfully from corporate funds in direct violation of Sec 185, or executing settlement agreements without effectuating actual refunds or delivering legally valid & habitable possession, is illegal: 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