Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a party may, after filing its statement of defence in arbitration, raise for the first time in proceedings under Section 34 a jurisdictional objection that the arbitral tribunal lacked authority because the dispute fell within the jurisdiction of a different tribunal under a State enactment.
Analysis: Section 16(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 requires any plea that the arbitral tribunal lacks jurisdiction to be raised not later than the submission of the statement of defence. The provision bars a party from participating in the arbitration, allowing the tribunal to proceed, and then challenging jurisdiction only after an adverse award. The expression in Section 34(2)(b)(i) concerning subject-matter not capable of settlement by arbitration is distinct from a routine objection to tribunal jurisdiction and does not permit a belated jurisdictional plea of this kind. Nor can such a plea be recast as a challenge based on public policy under Section 34(2)(b)(ii), because a conflict between a Central arbitration regime and a State law on forum allocation does not convert an untimely jurisdictional objection into a public policy objection.
Conclusion: The belated jurisdictional objection was barred and should not have been allowed to be introduced by amendment in the Section 34 proceedings.