Govt allocates 39600 MW of domestic Solar PV module manufacturing capacity under PLI (See 'Corp Brief') Rs 32,578 Cr loans sanctioned for Renewable Energy projects during FY 2022-23 (See 'Corp Brief') CCI okays acquisition of share of NSPIRA Management by Puneet Kothapa, Ponguru Sindhura & Ponguru Sharani (See 'Corp Brief') Trade Marks - Defendants are infringing registered word mark MACLEODS and device mark of Plaintiff: HC (See 'Legal Desk') Raksha Mantri receives Rs. 224 Cr as dividend from BEL (See 'Corp Brief') Co Act - Companies already been struck off cannot be revived by impugned order but petitioners can file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for seeking revival: HC (See 'Legal Desk') G20 Trade Finance Cooperation during TIWG Meeting scheduled in Mumbai tomorrow (See 'Corp Brief') Guarantees amounting to Rs. 4,06,310 crore approved under Credit Guarantee Scheme for MSMEs (See 'Corp Brief') Arbitration Act - Request for appointment of Sole Arbitrator can not be accepted as there is no agreement between parties: HC (See 'Legal Desk') EIACP takes PM's message of Mission LiFE to people (See 'Corp Brief') CPC - Since Court u/s 151 of CPC has ample power to dismiss suit having been Settled suit cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC: HC (See 'Legal Desk') Centre to take up with States for accelerated use of Biomass Pellets by State GENCOS and IPPs (See 'Corp Brief') 19.8 crore ration cards digitized so far: Govt (See 'Corp Brief') Trade Mark Act - Mark 'VASUNDHRA' is device mark and registration of same does not automatically grant appellant exclusive right in respect of word 'Vasundhra': HC (See 'Legal Desk') MoU signed between NHIDCL and CSIR-SERC, Chennai for sharing innovative ideas of highway engineering (See 'Corp Brief') Trade Mark Act - Mark is entitled to be certified as a well- known trade mark as people have knowledge or recognition of trade mark in relevant fashion industry: HC (See 'Legal Desk') Sonowal inaugurates 'Sagar Manthan', Real-time Performance Monitoring Dashboard (See 'Corp Brief') Competition Act - Conduct of OP prima facie have resulted in discriminatory conditions as well as pricing for which investigation can be ordered by DG: CCI (See 'Legal Desk')

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