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 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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
