Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
SC upheld the dismissal of the appellants' S.37 appeal, affirming the S.34 order and the arbitral award granting interest, including post-award interest, at 24% p.a. SC reiterated that under S.31(7)(a) the arbitral tribunal may award pre-award interest subject to contractual terms, while under S.31(7)(b) post-award interest is mandatory, with only the rate being discretionary; absent a specified rate, the statutory rate applies. The contractual rate of 24% p.a. was held not to offend public policy under S.34(2)(b), as exorbitance of interest alone does not constitute violation of the fundamental policy of Indian law unless it is shockingly perverse. The challenge based on the Usurious Loans Act, 1918 and related legislation was rejected. The appeal was dismissed.
SC upheld the dismissal of the appellants' S.37 appeal, affirming the S.34 order and the arbitral award granting interest, including post-award interest, at 24% p.a. SC reiterated that under S.31(7)(a) the arbitral tribunal may award pre-award interest subject to contractual terms, while under S.31(7)(b) post-award interest is mandatory, with only the rate being discretionary; absent a specified rate, the statutory rate applies. The contractual rate of 24% p.a. was held not to offend public policy under S.34(2)(b), as exorbitance of interest alone does not constitute violation of the fundamental policy of Indian law unless it is shockingly perverse. The challenge based on the Usurious Loans Act, 1918 and related legislation was rejected. The appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
