Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95714 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even though the appellant initially approached the Arbitration Tribunal u/s 7 of the 1983 Act after the contract was rescinded.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even though the appellant initially approached the Arbitration Tribunal u/s 7 of the 1983 Act after the contract was rescinded.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 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
