Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The SC held that the limitation period for filing objections to an arbitral award under Article 119(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963 commences from the date the parties become aware of the existence of the award, not necessarily from the formal notice of filing. The respondents were aware of the award's filing on 21.09.2022 when the District Court directed them to clear fees for furnishing the award. Hence, the limitation expired on 20.10.2022, rendering the appellant's application u/s 17 on 10.11.2022 valid. The parties must scrutinize the award upon becoming aware of its accessibility, and the formal notice date of 18.11.2022 held no significance. The appeal was allowed.
The SC held that the limitation period for filing objections to an arbitral award under Article 119(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963 commences from the date the parties become aware of the existence of the award, not necessarily from the formal notice of filing. The respondents were aware of the award's filing on 21.09.2022 when the District Court directed them to clear fees for furnishing the award. Hence, the limitation expired on 20.10.2022, rendering the appellant's application u/s 17 on 10.11.2022 valid. The parties must scrutinize the award upon becoming aware of its accessibility, and the formal notice date of 18.11.2022 held no significance. The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
