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...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
541 to 560 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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even though the appellant initially approached the Arbitration Tribunal u/s 7 of the 1983 Act after the contract was rescinded.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even though the appellant initially approached the Arbitration Tribunal u/s 7 of the 1983 Act after the contract was rescinded.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 
