Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4782
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 95633 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
