Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
Customs-controlled container movement now extends to DP World facilities, subject to segregation, inspections, reconciliation, and EXIM cargo priority...
The Supreme Court examined a challenge u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against an arbitral award and the grant of conditional stay on its execution. The High Court had directed the respondent, a statutory undertaking, to furnish a bank guarantee only for the principal amount awarded, excluding interest and costs, reasoning that the respondent was not a "fly-by operator." The Supreme Court held that the Arbitration Act does not distinguish between governmental and private entities, and the High Court erred in basing its decision on the respondent's status as a statutory authority. The Court modified the High Court's order, directing the respondent to deposit 75% of the decretal amount, inclusive of interest, by a specified date, conditional upon which the enforcement of the arbitral award would be stayed. The Court emphasized that the principles governing arbitration proceedings cannot vary based on the parties' status.
The Supreme Court examined a challenge u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against an arbitral award and the grant of conditional stay on its execution. The High Court had directed the respondent, a statutory undertaking, to furnish a bank guarantee only for the principal amount awarded, excluding interest and costs, reasoning that the respondent was not a "fly-by operator." The Supreme Court held that the Arbitration Act does not distinguish between governmental and private entities, and the High Court erred in basing its decision on the respondent's status as a statutory authority. The Court modified the High Court's order, directing the respondent to deposit 75% of the decretal amount, inclusive of interest, by a specified date, conditional upon which the enforcement of the arbitral award would be stayed. The Court emphasized that the principles governing arbitration proceedings cannot vary based on the parties' status.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
