SC extends limitation period for filing appeals until further orders due to COVID-19 surge
SECTIONS
Last Updated: Apr 28, 2021, 06:47 PM IST
Share
Synopsis
A bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana said the extraordinary situation caused by the sudden, second outburst of coronavirus requires extraordinary measures to minimise the hardship of litigant-public in all the states.
Agencies
The top court had been extending the limitation period by interim orders and finally decided to put an end to this keeping in mind the improved situation in the country and the fact that courts have started functioning.
The Supreme Court has extended the period of limitation for filing appeals from courts or tribunals by litigants until further orders in view of the steep rise in COVID-19 cases across the country.
COVID-19: SC extends limitation period for filing appeals until further orders
A bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana said the extraordinary situation caused by the sudden, second outburst of coronavirus requires extraordinary measures to minimise the hardship of litigant-public in all the states
PTI | April 28, 2021 | Updated 20:54 IST
Due to the onset of pandemic, the top court had taken a suo motu cognizance of the situation arising from difficulties that might be faced by the litigants across the country in filing cases within the limitation period and had passed the order
The Supreme Court has extended the period of limitation for filing appeals from courts or tribunals by litigants until further orders in view of the steep rise in COVID-19 cases across the country.
Supreme Court Extends Limitation Period For Filing Cases Till July 15; Revives March 2020 Order livelaw.in - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from livelaw.in Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Share This -
x
The Supreme Court held that parties to a contract who are Indian nationals or Companies incorporated in India can choose a forum for arbitration outside India. Nothing stands in the way of party autonomy in designating a seat of arbitration outside India even when both parties happen to be Indian nationals , the bench headed by
Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman observed.
The bench was considering the question whether two companies incorporated in India can choose a forum for arbitration outside India in the case
PASL Wind Solutions Private Limited Vs. GE Power Conversion India Private Limited.
In this case, a contract was entered between two companies, both incorporated in India under the Companies Act, 1956. Clause 6 (Arbitration Clause) provided that the disputes between them shall be referred to and finally resolved by Arbitration in Zurich in accordance with the Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce. As the disputes