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...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
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 
