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...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Maintainability of curative petition - restoration of arbitral award which had been set aside by the Division Bench of the High court on the ground that it suffered from patently illegality. - The Supreme Court found that invoking curative jurisdiction was justified to prevent a miscarriage of justice. It highlighted the circumstances under which curative petitions could be entertained, emphasizing cases where there is a gross miscarriage of justice or abuse of process. The Court reiterated that interference with arbitral awards should be minimal and only on grounds of patent illegality or perversity. It emphasized that an arbitral tribunal's decision should not be disturbed unless it is evident that a reasonable person could not have arrived at such a decision based on the evidence presented.
Maintainability of curative petition - restoration of arbitral award which had been set aside by the Division Bench of the High court on the ground that it suffered from patently illegality. - The Supreme Court found that invoking curative jurisdiction was justified to prevent a miscarriage of justice. It highlighted the circumstances under which curative petitions could be entertained, emphasizing cases where there is a gross miscarriage of justice or abuse of process. The Court reiterated that interference with arbitral awards should be minimal and only on grounds of patent illegality or perversity. It emphasized that an arbitral tribunal's decision should not be disturbed unless it is evident that a reasonable person could not have arrived at such a decision based on the evidence presented.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
