HM hosts first meeting of BIMSTEC Home Ministers in New Delhi (See 'Corp Brief') FEMA - Expression 'in charge' contemplates control over day to day business of company & liability cannot be imposed merely on basis of designation in absence of material establishing such responsibility: SAFEMA Tribunal (See 'Legal Desk') Taking Voice-First Multilingual AI Beyond Borders: BHASHINI at NCGG Mussoorie (See 'Corp Brief') From Farms to Borders: NH-22 Four-Laning Project to boost eonnectivity in Bihar (See 'Corp Brief') Prevention of Corruption Act - Where a company is not an accused, authority cannot attach properties of a person on grounds that said person managed affairs of said company, without showing that proceeds of crime reached said company & were used for acquiring the attached property: SAFEMA Tribunal (See 'Legal Desk') India-UK partnership focuses on industry-led research (See 'Corp Brief') Centre urges States to ensure Display of Healthcare Service Rates at Clinical Establishments (See 'Corp Brief') Chouhan calls for Coordinated Action to boost Farm Incomes (See 'Corp Brief') Companies Act - Subsisting judgment of a Court is required to be complied with by concerned Ministry/authorities & intention to file review petition per se does not constitute grounds for withholding compliance with existing judgment: HC (See 'Legal Desk') Union Minister calls for outcome-oriented implementation of PMDDKY (See 'Corp Brief') BRICS Theatre Festival 2026 commences at National School of Drama (See 'Corp Brief') Reddy launches commercialisation catalogue of technologies (See 'Corp Brief') PMLA - Allegations of contravention of the UAPA, by itself, cannot justify indefinite pre-trial detention in separate PMLA proceedings carrying maximum sentence of seven years: HC (See 'Legal Desk') MeitY Pavilion showcases India's digital innovation at India Mobile Congress 2026 (See 'Corp Brief') DRI seizes around 5.8 kg foreign-origin gold worth Rs. 9 crores (See 'Corp Brief') Keylong to house ICMR's first dedicated centre for high-altitude medicine (See 'Corp Brief') SARFAESI - Demand notice issued under Rule 7(1) of IBC Rules, 2019 does not, per se, commence insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors or trigger interim moratorium per Section 96 of IBC 2016: HC (See 'Legal Desk') Digital Health Resources crucial to Building India's Research Mindset: Health Secy (See 'Corp Brief') 53 Tele-MANAS Cells operational across all 36 States (See 'Corp Brief') CSR is not merely a statutory obligation but as strategic instrument for India's growth: Former Cab Secry (See 'Corp Brief') FEMA - Intimation to Customs does not, by itself, constitute proof of import of software, particularly where the software was claimed to have been received through a data communication channel: Tribunal (See 'Legal Desk') India's maritime future will be written by young people: Sonowal (See 'Corp Brief') IPR - If defendant adopts mark that is minor phonetic and visual manipulation of well-known registered trademark, coupled with identical colour scheme, get-up, and trade dress, strong prima facie case of trademark & copyright infringement is made out: HC (See 'Legal Desk') ICAR-IIAB organises Pre-Rabi Kisan Goshti for 1,500 Farmers (See 'Corp Brief') IBC - Per Section 9 of IBC, where operational debt meets statutory threshold & no pre-existing dispute exists, then application for initiation of CIRP is maintainable: NCLT (See 'Legal Desk') India targets 10% of Global 6G Patents and Standards: MoS (See 'Corp Brief') SEBI - Allegation of violations of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations is serious & cannot be sustained on mere general allegations, individual perceptions, or violations of investment advisory regulations alone: SAT (See 'Legal Desk') India highlights Energy Security at 20th EAS Energy Ministers' Meeting (See 'Corp Brief') IPR - Visual deceptive similarity, phonetic identity, likelihood of public confusion, brand dilution, and misrepresentation of association are sufficient to justify interim injunctive relief: HC (See 'Legal Desk') Special Khadi and Village Industries Exhibition inaugurated at Delhi Haat (See 'Corp Brief') SARFAESI Act, 2002 - Writ remedy under Article 226 cannot be used to bypass or circumvent this designated statutory remedy & specialized forum, which is uniquely equipped to assess the intricacies of such proceedings: HC (See 'Legal Desk') An unsuccessful 'success fee' litigation (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