Stamp duty on foreign arbitral awards: non payment alone cannot block enforcement; legislature may lawfully impose a levy.
The statutory term "award" in Item 12 of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 does not include foreign awards, so foreign arbitral awards are not presently chargeable under that Schedule; consequently, non payment of stamp duty under the current statutory scheme does not automatically obstruct enforcement, though the legislature may lawfully amend the Act to subject foreign awards to stamp duty, and any levy must conform with non discriminatory treatment under the New York Convention. (AI Summary)

Seat of arbitration confers exclusive jurisdiction on the chosen courts even if no part of the cause of action arose there.
The seat of arbitration determines the law and courts that regulate arbitral proceedings; a party designated seat can operate as an exclusive jurisdiction clause, vesting the chosen courts with exclusive authority to supervise arbitration even if no part of the cause of action arose there. Section 20 distinguishes seat from venue, allowing tribunals to meet elsewhere without displacing the seat. A clear, unambiguous clause specifying the seat and exclusive jurisdiction ousts other courts and helps prevent forum shopping. (AI Summary)

Fugitive economic offender designation enables confiscation of an offender's property and bars civil claims pending declaration.
The Bill establishes a procedure whereby the Director files an application to a Special Court for declaring an individual a fugitive economic offender; the court issues a notice to appear and, if the individual fails to comply, may declare them a fugitive economic offender, confiscate proceeds of crime and any property owned in India, and appoint an administrator to dispose of assets to satisfy creditor claims. (AI Summary)

Procedural time limit in arbitration challenges should be read as directory to preserve judicial flexibility and justice.
Whether the one year disposal requirement for challenges to arbitral awards is mandatory or directory hinges on statutory purpose and consequences: although the provision uses "shall" and prescribes a one year procedural time limit measured from notice, it contains no sanction for breach, creating ambiguity. Courts have preferred a directory construction to preserve judicial discretion and prevent forfeiture of justice in complex matters or where systemic delay occurs; legislative amendment to temper the absolute phrasing would align the statute with its expeditionary aim. (AI Summary)