Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
The High Court considered whether orders abeying arbitration...
Arbitration proceedings paused due to moratorium not perverse. Debt held as whole. No splitting arbitration. No jurisdiction under Article 226. Dismissed.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The High Court considered whether orders abeying arbitration proceedings during a moratorium period were so perverse as to warrant invoking writ jurisdiction due to a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction in the Arbitrator. The Court held that the debt under moratorium includes the liabilities of all borrowers and guarantors, without a distinction between them. The Court clarified that there is no provision for splitting arbitration proceedings, and they must be decided against all parties. The Tribunal's decision to stay proceedings during the moratorium was not illegal or perverse, thus the petition was dismissed. Sec. 138 and Sec. 139 of the IB Code were deemed irrelevant to the matter at hand.
The High Court considered whether orders abeying arbitration proceedings during a moratorium period were so perverse as to warrant invoking writ jurisdiction due to a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction in the Arbitrator. The Court held that the debt under moratorium includes the liabilities of all borrowers and guarantors, without a distinction between them. The Court clarified that there is no provision for splitting arbitration proceedings, and they must be decided against all parties. The Tribunal's decision to stay proceedings during the moratorium was not illegal or perverse, thus the petition was dismissed. Sec. 138 and Sec. 139 of the IB Code were deemed irrelevant to the matter at hand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
