Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
Denial of Preferential Treatment under SAFTA overturned where unchallenged Country of Origin certificate warranted exemption under Notification benefi...
Continuing offence of money-laundering: discharge set aside and proceedings reinstated where laundering continued after inclusion of predicate offence...
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 4814 
Join Channel 
