Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
HC upheld the arbitral award, finding no grounds for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court determined that the arbitrator's reasoning was legally sound and based on available evidence. The award did not demonstrate patent illegality or violation of public policy. The court emphasized its limited review role, noting it cannot re-appreciate evidence or modify the arbitral award. Consequently, the petition challenging the arbitral award was dismissed, affirming the arbitrator's decision on contractual terms and GST liabilities.
HC upheld the arbitral award, finding no grounds for interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court determined that the arbitrator's reasoning was legally sound and based on available evidence. The award did not demonstrate patent illegality or violation of public policy. The court emphasized its limited review role, noting it cannot re-appreciate evidence or modify the arbitral award. Consequently, the petition challenging the arbitral award was dismissed, affirming the arbitrator's decision on contractual terms and GST liabilities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
