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...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
Article 19 was construed holistically to determine the juridical seat: the clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction on courts at New Delhi evidenced party intent to select India as the seat, while reference to ICC Rules was held to govern only procedure/administration and the later ICC fixation of Singapore indicated a venue for convenience, not seat; consequently, Indian courts retained exclusive supervisory jurisdiction. Applying lex fori of the seat, standards of independence and disclosure were governed by the A&C Act, and the arbitrator's omission of prior professional involvement was treated as material non-disclosure under the Fifth Schedule, justifying doubt as to impartiality. A foreign anti-suit injunction from the venue court lacked subject-matter competence and could not operate as res judicata against the seat court; the appeal challenging the interim anti-arbitration injunction was dismissed. - HC
Article 19 was construed holistically to determine the juridical seat: the clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction on courts at New Delhi evidenced party intent to select India as the seat, while reference to ICC Rules was held to govern only procedure/administration and the later ICC fixation of Singapore indicated a venue for convenience, not seat; consequently, Indian courts retained exclusive supervisory jurisdiction. Applying lex fori of the seat, standards of independence and disclosure were governed by the A&C Act, and the arbitrator's omission of prior professional involvement was treated as material non-disclosure under the Fifth Schedule, justifying doubt as to impartiality. A foreign anti-suit injunction from the venue court lacked subject-matter competence and could not operate as res judicata against the seat court; the appeal challenging the interim anti-arbitration injunction was dismissed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
