Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Interference with a domestic arbitral award under s.37, after affirmance under s.34, was limited to the statutorily prescribed grounds, including "patent illegality" under s.34(2A), which excludes mere erroneous application of law or reappreciation of evidence. "Patent illegality" requires perversity such as findings based on no relevant evidence, ignoring vital evidence, considering extraneous matters, or an irrational conclusion that shocks judicial conscience, and must be applied cautiously. Since the award was supported by some evidence and plausible reasoning, and the arbitrator's approach was a possible view, the appellate court impermissibly reassessed evidence and applied an unduly strict standard of proof; the appeal was allowed and the interference set aside - SC
Interference with a domestic arbitral award under s.37, after affirmance under s.34, was limited to the statutorily prescribed grounds, including "patent illegality" under s.34(2A), which excludes mere erroneous application of law or reappreciation of evidence. "Patent illegality" requires perversity such as findings based on no relevant evidence, ignoring vital evidence, considering extraneous matters, or an irrational conclusion that shocks judicial conscience, and must be applied cautiously. Since the award was supported by some evidence and plausible reasoning, and the arbitrator's approach was a possible view, the appellate court impermissibly reassessed evidence and applied an unduly strict standard of proof; the appeal was allowed and the interference set aside - SC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
