Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
The Supreme Court examined whether the Public Premises Act, 1971 overrides the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and if there was any error in appointing an arbitrator u/s 11 of the latter Act. The Court held that the dispute related to promises arising from an agreement dated 26.09.2012, concerning the right of renewal and the legality of enhanced demand, which subsisted until 11.09.2015. The Public Premises Act did not apply to this period, and the dispute depended on interpreting the agreement terms. The High Court did not err in appointing an arbitrator u/s 11, as the revision of storage charges and right of renewal arose during the contract's subsistence and were covered by the arbitration clause. The Court dismissed the appeal and imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 for unnecessary litigation.
The Supreme Court examined whether the Public Premises Act, 1971 overrides the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and if there was any error in appointing an arbitrator u/s 11 of the latter Act. The Court held that the dispute related to promises arising from an agreement dated 26.09.2012, concerning the right of renewal and the legality of enhanced demand, which subsisted until 11.09.2015. The Public Premises Act did not apply to this period, and the dispute depended on interpreting the agreement terms. The High Court did not err in appointing an arbitrator u/s 11, as the revision of storage charges and right of renewal arose during the contract's subsistence and were covered by the arbitration clause. The Court dismissed the appeal and imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 for unnecessary litigation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
