Constitutional personal-liberty safeguards limit PMLA twin bail conditions where completed investigations lead to prolonged incarceration before trial...
Automated airline software subscriptions without human intervention fail technical-services characterisation and do not make available underlying tech...
Business support recruitment and training receipts qualify for presumptive business taxation, not professional taxation under technical consultancy ru...
Treaty exemption for foreign permanent-establishment management fees prevailed, while dividend expense disallowance remained limited to an accepted al...
Centralised assessment transfers: participation after requesting centralisation can bar technical jurisdictional challenges, while assessment disputes...
Binding precedent remains operative despite pending challenge, supporting deletion of interest disallowance when debt is converted into preference sha...
Page of 4912
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
121 to 140 of 98239 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Arbitral sittings at Cuttack, chosen merely for the arbitrator's...
Juridical seat versus arbitral venue determines supervisory court jurisdiction, while timely award challenges remain within the prescribed limitation period.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Arbitral sittings at Cuttack, chosen merely for the arbitrator's convenience, constituted a venue rather than the juridical seat and did not give Cuttack courts supervisory jurisdiction. An arbitrator's appointment by a High Court exercising statewide jurisdiction did not confine jurisdiction to courts at its location or trigger exclusive jurisdiction under Section 42 on that basis. The contractual forum clause made the District Judge where the work was executed competent to hear applications to set aside the award. Applications filed within the prescribed three-month period were not time-barred.
Arbitral sittings at Cuttack, chosen merely for the arbitrator's convenience, constituted a venue rather than the juridical seat and did not give Cuttack courts supervisory jurisdiction. An arbitrator's appointment by a High Court exercising statewide jurisdiction did not confine jurisdiction to courts at its location or trigger exclusive jurisdiction under Section 42 on that basis. The contractual forum clause made the District Judge where the work was executed competent to hear applications to set aside the award. Applications filed within the prescribed three-month period were not time-barred.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.