Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
Maintainability of an appeal depended on the power the tribunal purported to exercise, so a challenge to an order moved and dealt with under Section 17 was examinable under Section 37(2)(b), though the order was not a routine joinder order. On merits, the tribunal correctly preserved the parties' positions by allowing the same person already connected to the arbitration to participate also as trustee, pending the unresolved issue whether he had ceased to be a partner. The Court distinguished legal ownership from beneficial enjoyment, noted that a trust is not a separate legal entity, and found no perversity or error of law. The petition was rejected.
Maintainability of an appeal depended on the power the tribunal purported to exercise, so a challenge to an order moved and dealt with under Section 17 was examinable under Section 37(2)(b), though the order was not a routine joinder order. On merits, the tribunal correctly preserved the parties' positions by allowing the same person already connected to the arbitration to participate also as trustee, pending the unresolved issue whether he had ceased to be a partner. The Court distinguished legal ownership from beneficial enjoyment, noted that a trust is not a separate legal entity, and found no perversity or error of law. The petition was rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.