Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
No valid arbitration agreement arose from the tender terms, because clause 22 only provided for departmental reference to the Collector and internal appeal, while clause 20 merely regulated the position pending dispute resolution. The State Government also lacked authority under Section 143-A(3) of the 1965 Act to impose arbitration or appoint an arbitrator in the absence of party consent. The resulting proceedings were coram non judice and the award was non-est, and the Municipal Council's participation did not create estoppel or waive the jurisdictional defect. The High Court's decision was upheld and the special leave petition was dismissed.
No valid arbitration agreement arose from the tender terms, because clause 22 only provided for departmental reference to the Collector and internal appeal, while clause 20 merely regulated the position pending dispute resolution. The State Government also lacked authority under Section 143-A(3) of the 1965 Act to impose arbitration or appoint an arbitrator in the absence of party consent. The resulting proceedings were coram non judice and the award was non-est, and the Municipal Council's participation did not create estoppel or waive the jurisdictional defect. The High Court's decision was upheld and the special leave petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.