Expenses for overseas film shooting treated as services availed outside India, so no reverse charge service tax liability; cenvat reversals and penalt...
Electricity consumptionbased clandestine production estimates under the repealed Central Excise Act found insufficient; demand quashed and appeals all...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6561 to 6580 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4817 
Join Channel 
