Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96046 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
SC affirmed the arbitral award, holding that the Development Agreement remained binding after the Supplementary Agreement failed to meet its conditions precedent. The court found L&T committed fundamental breaches by abandoning the project, failing to pay External Development Charges, and not fulfilling contractual obligations. The termination by PCL was justified. The court emphasized its limited powers under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act, confirming it cannot modify arbitral awards but only set aside or remand under specific circumstances. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the original arbitral tribunal's findings of coercion and breach of contract by L&T.
SC affirmed the arbitral award, holding that the Development Agreement remained binding after the Supplementary Agreement failed to meet its conditions precedent. The court found L&T committed fundamental breaches by abandoning the project, failing to pay External Development Charges, and not fulfilling contractual obligations. The termination by PCL was justified. The court emphasized its limited powers under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act, confirming it cannot modify arbitral awards but only set aside or remand under specific circumstances. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the original arbitral tribunal's findings of coercion and breach of contract by L&T.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
