Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
