Classification of exported insecticides under export tariff affirmed; reclassification and related penalties set aside and MEIS scrip jurisdiction rec...
Misclassification between copra and dry coconut: customs recovery and re-valuation quashed for lack of prior licensing-authority invalidation, appeals...
Enforcement against a non-party security provider is permitted where the provider voluntarily issued a cheque as security for the disputed arbitrable liability; the court treated the undated cheque, corresponding to the tribunal claim, as a voluntary guaranty thereby exposing the issuer to enforcement of the foreign arbitral award and corrective award. The decision rejected a requirement to pierce the corporate veil because liability rested on the 2nd respondent's own undertaking; the 1st respondent's insolvency reinforced the necessity of enforcement against the security provider to prevent injustice. The appellate order allows enforcement jointly and severally against both respondents on the cheque basis.
Enforcement against a non-party security provider is permitted where the provider voluntarily issued a cheque as security for the disputed arbitrable liability; the court treated the undated cheque, corresponding to the tribunal claim, as a voluntary guaranty thereby exposing the issuer to enforcement of the foreign arbitral award and corrective award. The decision rejected a requirement to pierce the corporate veil because liability rested on the 2nd respondent's own undertaking; the 1st respondent's insolvency reinforced the necessity of enforcement against the security provider to prevent injustice. The appellate order allows enforcement jointly and severally against both respondents on the cheque basis.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
