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 Supreme Court held that the Arbitration Act would apply in the case, even though the appellant initially approached the Arbitration Tribunal u/s 7 of the 1983 Act after the contract was rescinded. The State government did not object to the applicability of the 1983 Act during the Section 11(6) petition under the Arbitration Act. The award amount was relatively small at Rs. 6,52,235/- with interest, and setting it aside solely on the ground of failure to invoke the 1983 Act would be unjust. The appellant had initially approached the 1983 Act before seeking arbitrator appointment. The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 142 to ensure complete justice, setting aside the impugned judgment and restoring the Section 37 appeal to the High Court for deciding on merits.
The Supreme Court held that the Arbitration Act would apply in the case, even though the appellant initially approached the Arbitration Tribunal u/s 7 of the 1983 Act after the contract was rescinded. The State government did not object to the applicability of the 1983 Act during the Section 11(6) petition under the Arbitration Act. The award amount was relatively small at Rs. 6,52,235/- with interest, and setting it aside solely on the ground of failure to invoke the 1983 Act would be unjust. The appellant had initially approached the 1983 Act before seeking arbitrator appointment. The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 142 to ensure complete justice, setting aside the impugned judgment and restoring the Section 37 appeal to the High Court for deciding on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
