Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2161 to 2180 of 96140 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The SC allowed the appeal, set aside the HC's order and restored the execution court's position, holding that the arbitral award-drafted in conformity with the parties' MoU-did not grant compound interest and accordingly cannot be supplemented at execution. Under s.31(7)(a)/(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, party autonomy governs interest from cause of action to award date and the tribunal's discretion under clause (a) exists only in the absence of contrary agreement; clause (b) is contingent on an award. Because the tribunal awarded interest only until repayment and the MoU did not provide for compounding, the respondent's claim for compound interest in execution was rejected.
The SC allowed the appeal, set aside the HC's order and restored the execution court's position, holding that the arbitral award-drafted in conformity with the parties' MoU-did not grant compound interest and accordingly cannot be supplemented at execution. Under s.31(7)(a)/(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, party autonomy governs interest from cause of action to award date and the tribunal's discretion under clause (a) exists only in the absence of contrary agreement; clause (b) is contingent on an award. Because the tribunal awarded interest only until repayment and the MoU did not provide for compounding, the respondent's claim for compound interest in execution was rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
