Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Supreme Court decision on natural justice, arbitration scope, arbitrator's award, and interest rates. Trust's appeal dismissed. Company's appeal partially allowed.

        Paradip Port Trust Versus Unique Builders

        Paradip Port Trust Versus Unique Builders - [2001] 30 SCL 592 (SC), 2001 AIR 846, 2001 (1) SCR 668, 2001 (2) SCC 680, 2001 (2) JT 477, 2001 (1) SCALE 504 Issues Involved:
        1. Violation of principles of natural justice.
        2. Scope of arbitration agreement and claims.
        3. Arbitrator's award being arbitrary or unsustainable.
        4. Award of interest pendente lite and future interest.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
        The trust argued that the Arbitrator violated natural justice principles by accepting documents without notifying the trust after closing the proceedings. The High Court found that adequate opportunities were given to both parties at each stage, and this argument was abandoned by the trust. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that the parties did not lead any oral evidence and relied on the documents placed before the Arbitrator. Thus, the contention of violation of natural justice was rejected.

        2. Scope of Arbitration Agreement and Claims:
        The arbitration clause in the agreement was broad enough to cover all disputes between the parties. The trust contended that certain claims (Nos. 2 and 7) were beyond the scope of the agreement. However, the Arbitrator awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 8,51,315 against a total claim of Rs. 12,93,260, making it impossible to determine if these specific claims were included. The Supreme Court held that the award was within the scope of the arbitration clause and the terms of the contract, rejecting the argument that the award was beyond the scope or arbitrary.

        3. Arbitrator's Award Being Arbitrary or Unsustainable:
        The Supreme Court reiterated that an Arbitrator's award is binding and can only be set aside under specific circumstances outlined in sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Court emphasized that it is not open to speculate on the reasons for a non-reasoned award or to investigate the Arbitrator's mental process. The award was found to be neither arbitrary nor unsustainable, and the trust's contention was dismissed.

        4. Award of Interest Pendente Lite and Future Interest:
        The High Court denied interest pendente lite based on a precedent, which was later overruled by a Constitution Bench. The Supreme Court agreed that the Arbitrator had the power to award such interest but upheld the High Court's denial due to the lack of a specific claim or argument for it. However, the Supreme Court found no valid reason to deny future interest and awarded it at 12% per annum from the date of the decree until payment. The award of interest from 28-9-1982 to 10-1-1985 at 18% per annum was justified, as the trust repudiated the contract on the former date.

        Conclusion:
        The Supreme Court dismissed Civil Appeal No. 3683 of 1996 filed by the trust, finding no merit in the arguments presented. Civil Appeal No. 4144 of 1996 filed by the company was allowed to the extent of awarding future interest, modifying the High Court's order accordingly. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found