Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The SC held that the respondent's Section 34 application under the ACA, filed on 11.07.2022 (the next court working day), was within the limitation period and required no condonation of delay. The High Court correctly allowed the Section 37 appeal, determining the application was timely filed. The Court declined to interfere with the High Court's interim direction staying execution of pending recovery until merits adjudication, noting the appellant had already withdrawn 50% of the arbitral sum deposited by the respondent. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The SC held that the respondent's Section 34 application under the ACA, filed on 11.07.2022 (the next court working day), was within the limitation period and required no condonation of delay. The High Court correctly allowed the Section 37 appeal, determining the application was timely filed. The Court declined to interfere with the High Court's interim direction staying execution of pending recovery until merits adjudication, noting the appellant had already withdrawn 50% of the arbitral sum deposited by the respondent. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
