Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
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 
