Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
