Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The SC held that Indian courts have jurisdiction to appoint arbitrators under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, despite conflicting clauses in the Distributor Agreement. While the arbitration venue was Bogota, Colombia, and procedural rules of the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre at the Chambers of Commerce in Bogota applied, Clause 16.5 explicitly granted supervisory jurisdiction to Indian courts in Gujarat. The Court determined that Indian law governed the arbitration agreement's validity, scope, and interpretation, making the A&C Act applicable. Clause 18's provision that awards conform to Colombian law pertained only to arbitration proceedings and did not override Clause 16.5's stipulation that Indian law governed the agreement and disputes. The arbitration petition was allowed.
The SC held that Indian courts have jurisdiction to appoint arbitrators under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, despite conflicting clauses in the Distributor Agreement. While the arbitration venue was Bogota, Colombia, and procedural rules of the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre at the Chambers of Commerce in Bogota applied, Clause 16.5 explicitly granted supervisory jurisdiction to Indian courts in Gujarat. The Court determined that Indian law governed the arbitration agreement's validity, scope, and interpretation, making the A&C Act applicable. Clause 18's provision that awards conform to Colombian law pertained only to arbitration proceedings and did not override Clause 16.5's stipulation that Indian law governed the agreement and disputes. The arbitration petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.