Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
