Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Section 35 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act binds not only the parties to an award but also persons claiming through or under them, so an award may be executed against non-signatories where their capacity or possession is derived from the award-debtor. Applying Cheran Properties and Cox and Kings, the HC found that the special purpose vehicle was created and controlled by the petitioners for their benefit, with its management, finances and operations entirely sourced from them; on those facts, the vehicle was inseparable from the petitioners for execution purposes. The executing court was therefore justified in proceeding against them under Section 35 read with Section 36 and Order XXI Rule 11 CPC, and the execution objections were rejected.
Section 35 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act binds not only the parties to an award but also persons claiming through or under them, so an award may be executed against non-signatories where their capacity or possession is derived from the award-debtor. Applying Cheran Properties and Cox and Kings, the HC found that the special purpose vehicle was created and controlled by the petitioners for their benefit, with its management, finances and operations entirely sourced from them; on those facts, the vehicle was inseparable from the petitioners for execution purposes. The executing court was therefore justified in proceeding against them under Section 35 read with Section 36 and Order XXI Rule 11 CPC, and the execution objections were rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
