Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)
Mr. Babu Lal Through Lr. Mr. Sunder Lal vs Jasrati Education Solutions Limited on 15 October, 2025
cites
M/S Suraj Lamp Industirs Pvt Ltd & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 31 August, 2020
28. We now come to the reliance placed by the Appellant on the judgement of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suraj Lamps and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of
Haryana (2021) 1 SCC 656 which held that any transaction under an
unregistered A2S cannot be given effect to and that no rights can be claimed to
Page 18 of 22
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1293 of 2025
have been made in favour of Corporate Debtor basis the A2S. The applicability
of this judgment has been duly considered by the Adjudicating Authority in the
impugned order. We notice that the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned
order has extracted paras 25, 26 and 27 of Suraj Lamp judgment, in which it
has been clearly observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that their decision in the
above judgment was to be applicable prospectively and that transactions entered
into earlier may not be disturbed. In the facts of the present case, the handing
over of the possession of the subject land had taken place on 24.04.2011 while
the Suraj Lamp judgment came into play from 10.11.2011. As this judgment
had protected all transactions concluded under POAs prior to the date of the
judgment, it does not apply to the present transaction which got concluded
before this judgment. Thus, in the present case when sale consideration had
already been paid to the seller and the possession handed over to the purchaser
much prior to the date of the judgment, this transaction would remain
unaffected by this judgment.
V Nagarajan vs Sks Ispat And Power Limited on 22 October, 2021
12. We have no quarrel with the proposition of law as laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in V. Nagarajan Vs SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. (2022) 2 SCC
244 wherein it has been held that the limitation for filing the appeal starts from
the day the order is pronounced.
Tata Steel Mining Ltd vs Raj Kumar Banerjee on 31 January, 2023
It is also well settled that date of knowledge of
the impugned order has no relevance in justifying delay condonation as has been
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Steel Ltd. Vs Raj Kumar Banerjee
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1942. It has been also laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court that the benefit of the exclusion of the time taken in obtaining the certified
copy of the impugned order is available only if it is applied for before the expiry
of the 30 days limitation period.
The Specific Relief Act, 1963
Section 201 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited vs Amit Gupta on 8 March, 2021
30. It is a well settled precept that the Adjudicating Authority can adjudicate
disputes which relate to and arises out of the insolvency resolution process. We
are guided by the judicial precedent as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited Vs Amit Gupta & Ors. in Civil Appeal
Page 19 of 22
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1293 of 2025
No. 9241 of 2019 which held that Adjudicating Authority can be approached
for adjudication of disputes which relate to the insolvency resolution process.
We may notice the relevant findings of this judgement which is as under:
Section 17 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 49 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
1