Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Page of 4782
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 95636 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
