Single Petition U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act Is Maintainable Against Composite Arbitral Award: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held that a single petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) is maintainable challenging a composite arbitral award disposing of multiple references. A bench led by Justice Shampa Sarkar held that “the Court does not hesitate to hold that the learned arbitrator and the parties understood the proceeding before...

Proceedings For Conciliation & Arbitration Under MSME Act Cannot Be Clubbed: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has set set aside two ex-parte orders passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC), Daman holding that the council acted in breach of mandatory two stage procedures under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSMED Act”). The court remitted the matter for fresh arbitration in accordance with law. A bench led...

[Arbitration Act] Doctrine Of Merger Inapplicable When Superior Forum Has Not Decided Issue In Question: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court held that the doctrine of merger does not preclude the decree holder from claiming post award interest at 18% under section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). The court quashed an order passed by the Principal District Judge by which it rejected the review application. The court directed the State of Gujarat to recalculate and...

Revisional Powers U/S 56 KVAT Act Are Limited, Clarificatory Orders Have Only Prospective Effect: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court stated that revisional powers under Section 56 of the KVAT Act (Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003) are limited, and clarificatory orders only have a prospective effect. Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that with reference to the power to issue clarification under Section 94 of the Act, the Commissioner has been empowered to hold...

Mere Change In Arbitral Rules Does Not Frustrate Arbitration Agreement: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakru and Justice C.M. Joshi has set aside interim injunctions granted by Commercial Court by which it restrained L & T Infra Investment Partners Advisory Pvt. Ltd. (“L&T Infra”) from proceeding with arbitration under the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) Rules against Bhoruka Power...

Delhi High Court Orders Economic Offences Wing To Probe Alleged Forgery Of Customs Stamps At Airport

The Delhi High Court has asked the Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police to conduct an enquiry into alleged forgery of Customs stamps at the Delhi International Airport.A division bench comprising ​​justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain passed the direction after the Department claimed that the Customs stamp on an air traveller's representations in connection with their seized...

Mere Registration Of FIR Or Pendency Of Proceedings Before DRT Does Not Bar Reference To Arbitration: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Advait M. Sethna has held that the disputes between Mangal Credit and Fincorp Limited and Ulka Chandrshekhar Nair are arbitrable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) even though allegations of fraud and forgery were raised and a criminal was filed in which no progress has been made. The Court further held...

Voluntarily Filed Returns Cannot Be Revised Through Additional Evidence Under Rule 29 ITAT Rules: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court held that voluntarily filed returns cannot be revised through additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules (Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963). Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 permits the Tribunal to admit additional evidence for any substantial cause. Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon...

FIRC Need Not Match Each Transaction, Periodic Certificate Sufficient If Total Forex Benefit Proven: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that a Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC) need not correspond to each individual transaction and it may reflect a period as a whole, provided that the overall benefit being claimed is fully substantiated by the total foreign exchange remittance.FIRC is issued by bank as proof of international payments for exports.A division bench comprising...

[S.6 CGST Act] J&K&L High Court Upholds GST Show Cause Notices Based On Intelligence Inputs

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that intelligence-based enforcement actions can be initiated by either the Central or the State tax authorities, irrespective of taxpayer assignment, and such actions do not require a separate notification for cross-empowerment.The court dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by several companies challenging show cause notices issued...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Interfere With Rejection Of AAI's ₹9.34 Crore CENVAT Credit

The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with an order of the GST authority rejecting CENVAT Credit to the tune of Rs.9.34 crores claimed by the Airport Authority of India.A division bench comprising ​​justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain noted that the central authority had failed to furnish documents in support of its claim and said, “there is no jurisdictional error...

Claims Raised After Commencement Of Insolvency Proceedings Stand Extinguished, Not Amenable To Arbitration: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh has observed that claims which are not a part of the Resolution Plan on the date of approval, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to arbitrate such claims. Put differently, post-insolvency commencement date claims which are not made a part of the Resolution Plan are not arbitrable. Facts The present petition...