Ministry of Steel holds Interactive Session with Global Diplomats Ahead of 'Bharat Steel 2026' (See 'Corp Brief') Khadse announces unique nationwide ASMITA League to mark International Women's Day (See 'Corp Brief') IPR – Anti-dissection rule, which requires trademarks to be compared as whole, does not apply where part of mark is proven to be dominant feature: HC (See 'Legal Desk') India Summit 2026: Major AI Investment Commitments made (See 'Corp Brief') Joshi commends CWC's Contribution to India's Food Security (See 'Corp Brief') SEBI - Termination of a major acquisition agreement constituted a material event requiring clear & conspicuous disclosure under Regulation 30 of the LODR Regulations: SAT (See 'Legal Desk') India invites the world to study, innovate and grow together (See 'Corp Brief') SEBI - Investor decisions & share prices are significantly influenced by disclosures relating to acquisitions & corporate developments, ergo, failure to transparently disclose termination undermines market integrity: SAT (See 'Legal Desk') Controller General of Communication Accounts inaugurates North Zone Review Meeting (See 'Corp Brief') National Arogya Fair 2026 concludes in Shegaon (See 'Corp Brief') IPR - For purpose of passing-off claim, prior use of composite trademark is sufficient to establish prior use of its essential and source-identifying component: HC (See 'Legal Desk') APEDA organises Sikkim Organic Conclave-cum-International Buyer Seller Meet in Gangtok (See 'Corp Brief') 'Double Engine' Momentum Can Fast-Track Kerala's Progress: MoS (See 'Corp Brief') IBC - Waiver of rights under contract such as debenture trust deed cannot be implied if agreement explicitly requires such waiver to be in writing: SC (See 'Legal Desk') IBC - Manner in which bank classifies loan as non-performing asset for accounting or provisioning purposes does not determine IBC, if debt was restructured and acknowledged in fresh agreements: SC (See 'Legal Desk') IBC - corporate restructuring under IBC must be prioritized over stalled and ineffective proceedings under Companies Act to protect public funds and larger economic interest: SC (See 'Legal Desk') IBC - NCLT can't Reject Sec 7 application citing corporate debtor's financial health, once twin requirements of debt & default are established: SC LB (See 'Legal Desk') IBC - Moratorium u/s 14 of IBC is intended to preserve debtor's estate from creditor actions aimed at debt recovery, but does not interdict sovereign proceedings in rem for attachment or confiscation under Benami Act: 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