Jurisdictional validity: notice issued by a non jurisdictional officer invalidates reassessment where no formal transfer or independent verification o...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5581 to 5600 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Tribunal considered whether a security deposit taken under an interim order could continue to be retained under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code where the underlying contractual dispute was to be addressed through arbitration. It held that retention of the deposit after the miscellaneous application had been finally decided required an independent assessment under the Arbitration Act, and that directing continued retention under the IBC before arbitration commenced would be arbitrary. By consent, the impugned direction was modified so the amount would remain only as security until either party initiates arbitration, after which further custody of the amount would be governed by the arbitrator's orders on appropriate interlocutory applications.
The Tribunal considered whether a security deposit taken under an interim order could continue to be retained under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code where the underlying contractual dispute was to be addressed through arbitration. It held that retention of the deposit after the miscellaneous application had been finally decided required an independent assessment under the Arbitration Act, and that directing continued retention under the IBC before arbitration commenced would be arbitrary. By consent, the impugned direction was modified so the amount would remain only as security until either party initiates arbitration, after which further custody of the amount would be governed by the arbitrator's orders on appropriate interlocutory applications.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.