Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere de...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9201 to 9220 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
SC allowed the appeals filed by the Appellant, set aside the arbitral award dated 27.04.2022 (corrected 26.07.2022) and quashed the judgments/orders of the high court, and dismissed the appeals by the Respondents. The Court held the arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction by effectively rewriting contract terms and applying a post-hoc policy, rendering the award patently illegal and in conflict with public policy. The award was set aside under s.34(2A) and s.34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the errors constituting a breach of fundamental principles of justice that could not be cured by merits review.
SC allowed the appeals filed by the Appellant, set aside the arbitral award dated 27.04.2022 (corrected 26.07.2022) and quashed the judgments/orders of the high court, and dismissed the appeals by the Respondents. The Court held the arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction by effectively rewriting contract terms and applying a post-hoc policy, rendering the award patently illegal and in conflict with public policy. The award was set aside under s.34(2A) and s.34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the errors constituting a breach of fundamental principles of justice that could not be cured by merits review.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
