Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Arbitration award challenged u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Arbitrator allowed 3% of contract amount as on-site establishment expenses using Hudson's formula. High Court erred in setting aside award on grounds of non-payment of bills and lack of discussion on interest claim. Supreme Court held High Court's reasoning insufficient for interference u/s 37, restoring award. Pre-reference interest governed by substantive law, not solely Section 31(7)(a). Contract did not prohibit pre-reference interest, so High Court's interference unwarranted. Appeal disposed of, award upheld.
Arbitration award challenged u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Arbitrator allowed 3% of contract amount as on-site establishment expenses using Hudson's formula. High Court erred in setting aside award on grounds of non-payment of bills and lack of discussion on interest claim. Supreme Court held High Court's reasoning insufficient for interference u/s 37, restoring award. Pre-reference interest governed by substantive law, not solely Section 31(7)(a). Contract did not prohibit pre-reference interest, so High Court's interference unwarranted. Appeal disposed of, award upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
