Validity of faceless assessment procedure challenged for jurisdictional AO intervention mid-remand, resulting in quashing of assessment for procedural...
Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismis...
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 4823 
Join Channel 
