Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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even though the appellant initially approached the Arbitration Tribunal u/s 7 of the 1983 Act after the contract was rescinded.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even though the appellant initially approached the Arbitration Tribunal u/s 7 of the 1983 Act after the contract was rescinded.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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
