Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
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 
