Permanent establishment tests: independent subsidiary premises and principal-to-principal dealings did not create Indian taxability for offshore suppl...
Valuation Officer estimates govern property-value additions once statutory valuation is invoked, requiring fresh consideration of objections and compa...
Waiver of written show-cause notice may prevent a later procedural challenge after participation in customs adjudication, preserving statutory appella...
Retrospective invalidity of ocean-freight IGST supports refunds despite non-party status and prior credit utilisation, subject to authorised appeal gr...
Additional evidence in departmental appeals may include show-cause-notice material without introducing a new case where it merely corroborates existin...
Reasoned rectification orders require consideration of expenditure disclosed in income-tax returns, preventing revision based on incomplete income com...
Modified returns after business reorganisations cannot trigger fresh scrutiny once the original assessment was complete, invalidating related transfer...
Page of 4901
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 98020 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Article 227 supervisory intervention in ongoing arbitration is...
Article 227 review permits intervention in arbitration only for manifest, patent inherent jurisdictional defects, not representational authority disputes.
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
Article 227 supervisory intervention in ongoing arbitration is confined to a manifest and patent lack of inherent jurisdiction. Where the arbitration agreement, its invocation for a joint venture, and commencement of the reference are undisputed, a dispute over a liquidator's authority to represent the joint venture and continue proceedings falls within the arbitral tribunal's competence. A joint venture constituent that remains silent after notice of the liquidator's asserted authority may be treated as having acquiesced. Equitable supervisory relief is unavailable where intervention seeks to terminate a pre-existing claim rather than protect the joint venture's interests, particularly where the conduct is in bad faith.
Article 227 supervisory intervention in ongoing arbitration is confined to a manifest and patent lack of inherent jurisdiction. Where the arbitration agreement, its invocation for a joint venture, and commencement of the reference are undisputed, a dispute over a liquidator's authority to represent the joint venture and continue proceedings falls within the arbitral tribunal's competence. A joint venture constituent that remains silent after notice of the liquidator's asserted authority may be treated as having acquiesced. Equitable supervisory relief is unavailable where intervention seeks to terminate a pre-existing claim rather than protect the joint venture's interests, particularly where the conduct is in bad faith.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.