All appeals dismissed; finding of anti-competitive bid-rigging upheld under Sections 3(3)(c), 3(3)(d) read with 3(1); cease-and-desist and total-turno...
Central Government notifies 11.541-hectare Special Economic Zone for semiconductor manufacturing; Approval Committee constituted, ICD status effective...
Government appoints National Customs Targeting Centre-Passenger director as customs officer with powers under PNR Regulations, 2022 and Sections 30A, ...
The HC dismissed the petition. It held that the RDDB Act constitutes a self-contained recovery code and Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the IT Act does not apply mandatorily to RDDB proceedings; therefore no separate three-/four-/seven-year bar can be imported into recovery actions under the RDDB Act. Jurisdiction to execute arises after the recovery certificate attains finality under ss.19 and 25, and limitation for recovery proceedings is governed by Article 136 of the Limitation Act. Sales conducted beyond the aspirational time-limits are irregular but not void; decrees affected by such defects must be assailed by appropriate appellate or review remedies, and constructive res judicata precludes collateral relitigation.
The HC dismissed the petition. It held that the RDDB Act constitutes a self-contained recovery code and Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the IT Act does not apply mandatorily to RDDB proceedings; therefore no separate three-/four-/seven-year bar can be imported into recovery actions under the RDDB Act. Jurisdiction to execute arises after the recovery certificate attains finality under ss.19 and 25, and limitation for recovery proceedings is governed by Article 136 of the Limitation Act. Sales conducted beyond the aspirational time-limits are irregular but not void; decrees affected by such defects must be assailed by appropriate appellate or review remedies, and constructive res judicata precludes collateral relitigation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.