During the arbitration proceedings, the plaintiff applied to the Delhi Supreme Court and requested an extension of time in accordance with section 29A of the Act. By order of 25 September 2019, the Honourable Single Judge extended by 18 months the time limit for the arbitral tribunal to close the proceedings and render its award, and validly from 24 June 2019. However, during the course of the proceedings, section 29A of the Act was amended by the 2019 amendment. Since the respondent is a corporation established under Turkish law, the current arbitration has the character of an international commercial arbitration under the law. In light of the 2019 amendment, the arbitral tribunal asked the parties to seek clarification on its order of 25 September 2019. The High Court relied on A.S. Gauraya v. S.N. Thakur, (1986) 2 SCC 709, which concluded that a law declared by the Supreme Court also applies to proceedings pending with retroactive effect. As a result, the Court retroactively gave effect to the legislation passed in the Joseph Shine case on the proceedings pending before it.
In Joseph Shine, Section 497 of the IPC and Section 198(2) of the CrPC was found to be contrary to Articles 14, 15(1) and 21, and therefore unconstitutional. Consequently, in the case of Joseph Shine, the conviction and sentence awarded to the applicant under Article 497 were quashed and quashed. [Rupesh v. Charandas, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 6292, of 14-12-2018] The complainant was accused of having sexual relations with the complainant`s wife. He was tried and convicted by the court of justice for adultery under article 497 of the IPC. His appeal to the supplementary judge was dismissed. He has therefore submitted this request for review. He was requested that the present motion be granted in light of the decision in the Joseph Shine case, in which the Supreme Court had declared section 497 unconstitutional. Meanwhile, Section 140 of the CGST Act has been amended by the Finance Act 2020, with the CGST Act having been amended to allow for rules that, in addition to the transitional way of eligible missions, “impose a deadline”. However, the amendment should be applied retroactively from 01.07.2017; the change was not notified immediately.
During the same period, different proceedings were under way before different high courts on the issue of transitional credit. . . .