Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
The High Court exceeded its limited jurisdiction u/s 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by undertaking a detailed examination of the factual matrix and assessing the auditor's report, instead of merely ascertaining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court clarified that the referral courts' limited jurisdiction u/s 11 must not be misused to force parties into costly arbitration, but this does not determine the merits, which the Arbitral Tribunal is rightfully equipped to decide. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order, reiterating the narrow scope of judicial scrutiny at the Section 11 stage after the 2015 amendment.
The High Court exceeded its limited jurisdiction u/s 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by undertaking a detailed examination of the factual matrix and assessing the auditor's report, instead of merely ascertaining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court clarified that the referral courts' limited jurisdiction u/s 11 must not be misused to force parties into costly arbitration, but this does not determine the merits, which the Arbitral Tribunal is rightfully equipped to decide. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order, reiterating the narrow scope of judicial scrutiny at the Section 11 stage after the 2015 amendment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
