Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95833 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 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
