TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 642
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion arises out of the non-payment of an amount of Rs. 47,25,000/- due to the petitioner towards goods supplied to the 2nd respondent under Invoice No. PA 192 dated 24.01.2025. 2. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, though the goods were duly supplied to the 2nd respondent, the sale consideration was not received by the petitioner on account of the fraudulent diversion of the payment instructions. According to the petitioner, the payment was sought to be diverted by furnishing altered bank account particulars through an email purportedly sent from the petitioner's email identification, without the knowledge or consent of the petitioner. 3. In the above circumstances, the petitioner preferred O.A. No.73/2025 before the 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respondent and that there was also no serious dispute regarding the fact that the sale consideration had not reached the petitioner's bank account. 6. The principal issue noticed by the Council was the alleged fraudulent alteration or diversion of the bank account particulars communicated through an email purportedly originating from the petitioner. The Council observed that clarification regarding the manner in which the email had been sent and the new bank account details had been communicated required examination. The Council further observed that the allegations raised by the parties involved matters of a criminal nature and penal provisions and proceeded to hold that such matters were outside its jurisdiction. 7. On the said ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re the Council itself or by referring the dispute to an appropriate arbitral institution or centre. 10. I have heard Adv. Yeshwanth Shenoy, appearing on behalf of Adv. Aysha Abraham, learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. The apprehension of the petitioner is that, by dismissing O.A.No.73/2025, the Council has effectively brought the petitioner's claim for recovery of Rs. 47,25,000/- to an end, notwithstanding its own finding that the goods had admittedly been supplied and that the sale consideration had not been received by the petitioner. Such an approach, according to the petitioner, defeats the very object and statutory mechanism contemplated under Section 18 of the Act. 12. It is pertinent to note that institutional arbit....