Consortium-Driven Innovation Model pioneered by IIT Madras enables immediate Commercialisation: MoS (See 'Corp Brief') NBA supports Conservation of Biological Resources (See 'Corp Brief') Cabinet approves Widening of National Highway-167 from Gudebellur to Mahabubnagar (See 'Corp Brief') Innovation and evidence are two pillars that will shape the next era of Unani medicine: MoS (See 'Corp Brief') A&C - Different interpretation of contract by in itself is no ground to interfere with arbitral award: SC (See 'Legal Desk') Cabinet approves upgradation of Dhamasiya-Bitada Sections of NH-56 to 4-Lane Standard (See 'Corp Brief') Govt launches 'PM RAHAT' - Cashless Treatment of Road Accident Victims (See 'Corp Brief') India achieves faster decline in under-5 Mortality Rate: Nadda (See 'Corp Brief') A&C - Non-issuance of a Sec 21 notice by one party is not fatal to raising claims before arbitral tribunal if disputes are otherwise covered by broadly worded arbitration clause: SC (See 'Legal Desk') Cabinet infuses Rs 10000 Crores for startups engaged in deep-tech, innovative manufacturing (See 'Corp Brief') Trade Marks - non-use of a mark filed on proposed-to-be-used basis is irrelevant for assessing registrability of the mark: HC (See 'Legal Desk') Minister proposes exploring solutions such as National Housing Exchange (See 'Corp Brief') IBC/RTI - appellant cannot seek disclosure of internal notings & replies under RTI Act when same issue has already been disposed of earlier: IBBI (See 'Legal Desk') In 2 yrs, India AI Mission has set up Foundation for Development of AI Ecosystem (See 'Corp Brief') A&C - Applications for extending arbitral tribunal's mandate u/s 29A(4) must be filed exclusively before principal civil court of original jurisdiction: SC (See 'Legal Desk') Govt approves wheat exports and allows additional wheat and sugar exports (See 'Corp Brief') A&C - Arbitral proceedings are set to commence on date of receipt of notice invoking arbitration clause: SC (See 'Legal Desk') Centre for Trade organises International Moot Court under WTO Chairs Program (See 'Corp Brief') A&C - Under pre-2015 amendment regime, once party consents to court order appointing arbitrator, they cannot subsequently challenge existence or validity of arbitration clause before arbitral tribunal: SC (See 'Legal Desk') The Securities Markets Code, 2025: Strengthened Enforcement, Weakened Accountability? (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