Insolvency moratorium does not shield company officers from cheque dishonour prosecution for liability arising before corporate insolvency proceedings...
Advance-ruling mechanism governs pending GST classification, exemption and taxability disputes, limiting writ review once the specialised forum functi...
The legality and validity of the termination of arbitral proceedings u/s 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The Supreme Court found no evidence of Sheil's abandonment of the claim. Regular participation in Marico's proceedings and absence of simultaneous scheduling were noted. - The Tribunal's duty to schedule hearings and manage proceedings was highlighted, and the mere absence of a party from a hearing does not imply abandonment or justify termination of proceedings. - The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, reinstating the arbitration proceedings and emphasizing the need for an active role by the Arbitral Tribunal in managing the process.
The legality and validity of the termination of arbitral proceedings u/s 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The Supreme Court found no evidence of Sheil's abandonment of the claim. Regular participation in Marico's proceedings and absence of simultaneous scheduling were noted. - The Tribunal's duty to schedule hearings and manage proceedings was highlighted, and the mere absence of a party from a hearing does not imply abandonment or justify termination of proceedings. - The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, reinstating the arbitration proceedings and emphasizing the need for an active role by the Arbitral Tribunal in managing the process.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
