Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6681 to 6700 of 96406 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The dominant issues were whether enforcement of the foreign arbitral awards was time-barred and whether res judicata precluded re-agitation of limitation. Since jurisdiction to entertain enforcement was never challenged and limitation involved mixed questions of law and fact, the earlier ruling that the petition was within Article 137 bound the parties; enforcement was therefore not refused on limitation. The Court also rejected the public policy objection, holding it did not bar enforcement; the awards were recognised as deemed decrees. On lifting the corporate veil, associated entities could be impleaded and execution levied only against properties/assets diverted from the award-debtor to them, not against their independent assets; no execution lay against an entity receiving no diverted assets. Costs were imposed on the award-debtor. - HC
The dominant issues were whether enforcement of the foreign arbitral awards was time-barred and whether res judicata precluded re-agitation of limitation. Since jurisdiction to entertain enforcement was never challenged and limitation involved mixed questions of law and fact, the earlier ruling that the petition was within Article 137 bound the parties; enforcement was therefore not refused on limitation. The Court also rejected the public policy objection, holding it did not bar enforcement; the awards were recognised as deemed decrees. On lifting the corporate veil, associated entities could be impleaded and execution levied only against properties/assets diverted from the award-debtor to them, not against their independent assets; no execution lay against an entity receiving no diverted assets. Costs were imposed on the award-debtor. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
