Taxpayers With Pending Appeals Eligible For 50% Relief Under 2020 Samadhan Scheme: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court stated that taxpayers with pending appeals are eligible for 50% relief under the 2020 Samadhan Scheme (The Madhya Pradesh Karadhan Adhiniyamon Ki Puranee Bakaya Rashi Ka Samadhan Adhyadesh, 2020). Justices Vivek Rusia and Binod Kumar Dwivedi observed that the assessee's case is pending before the appellate authority, and the department wrongly considered the case of the assessee under Category 1 of Section 4(1) of the Ordinance, which deals with the amount...

Ex Parte Order Can Be Recalled If Party Complies With Directions & Legal Issues Require Full Hearing For Proper Adjudication: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar has held that an ex parte order may be recalled when the concerned party appears later, complies with the court's directions, and the matter involves complex legal issues requiring a fair hearing from both sides for an effective adjudication. Brief Facts: This application has been filed for recalling an ex-parte order passed by this Court on 15.07.2024, whereby this Court has held that the award submitted by the ...

Appointing Arbitrator U/S 3(G)(5) Of National Highways Act Does Not Constitute Seat Of Arbitration, Is Rather A Convenient Venue: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court Bench at Gwalior of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke has observed that appointment of arbitrator under Section 3(G)(5), National Highways Act, 1956 (“NH Act”) will not amount to the seat of the arbitrator rather it would be a convenient venue and therefore courts where a part of cause of action had arisen will also have jurisdiction over such arbitral proceedings. While holding so the Court highlighted the difference between ordinary arbitral proceedings...

Repetition Of Old & Overruled Arguments Not Sufficient To Reopen Concluded Adjudications In Review Petition Assailing Arbitration Order: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court Bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke has held that repetition of old and overruled arguments is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications as the review proceedings under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of CPC challenging an arbitration order cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. The scope of review is very limited. Brief Facts of the case: The petitioner has filed a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC challenging the order...

Application U/S 94 Of IBC Cannot Be Entertained Against Sole Proprietorship Firms: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Prem Narayan Singh has held that since sole proprietorship firms are not included in the definition of the corporate person under section 3(7) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), an application under section 94 of the Code cannot be entertained. Brief Facts: The petitioner is an owner of the property situated at House No.437-B, Katju Nagar, Ratlam, M.P. The aforesaid property was mortgaged as a...

Matter Relating To Partnership Act & Partnership Deed Where Third-Party Rights Are Involved Cannot Be Referred To Arbitration: Madhya Pradesh HC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court Bench of Justice Anand Pathak held that when matter relates to Partnership Act and partnership deed and third-party rights are also involved then it cannot be referred to arbitration. Brief Facts: M/s Om Jai Gurudev is a partnership firm in which 11 partners existed initially. The partnership deed for the firm was constituted on 18.07.2017 and the deed was amended on 20.03.2019 wherein the firm was reconstituted and except the applicant and the...

Arbitrator Empowered To Pass Order For Dissolution Of Partnership Firm Once Dispute Is Referred: Madhya Pradesh HC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar has held that the Arbitrator is empowered to pass an order for dissolution of the partnership firm once the matter is referred. Brief Facts This application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short „the Act of 1996‟) has been filed by the applicant, one of the partners of a partnership firm M/s. P. N. Builders and Developers, for appointment of Arbitrator to settle the dispute between...

Interest Cannot Be Awarded By Arbitrator When Awarding Of Interest Is Prohibited In Contract: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Vinay Saraf has held that the tribunal has no discretion to award payment of interest when there is clear prohibition in the contract that the interest cannot be given. Brief Facts This petition has been filed to challenge the award to the limited extent that interest on the refund of security deposit and earnest money has unfairly been awarded. In this case, no one appeared on behalf of the respondents despite...

Executing Court Cannot Go Behind Award To Modify Or Declare It Void: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justices Vivek Rusia and Binod Kumar Dwivedi has held that executing court cannot go behind the award or decree to modify or declare it void. Brief Facts This appeal has been filed against an order passed by the Executing Court by which while dismissing the petition, the court also set aside the award. It is the contention of the appellant that award had become final as the respondent / judgment debtor has not filed any appeal under Section...

Award Can Be Set Aside U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act If Arbitrator Travels Beyond Arbitration Agreement: Madhya Pradesh HC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar affirmed that if arbitrator travels beyond the terms of the arbitration agreement while passing an award, such an award is liable to be set aside under section 34 of the Arbitration Act.Brief FactsThis Arbitration Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the appellant-United India Insurance Co. Ltd., against the order dated 14.11.2017, passed by the District Judge, Ratlam in Misc.Civil...

Order Passed U/S 148A(d) Income Tax Act Is Not Appealable, Writ Jurisdiction Can Be Invoked: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act 1961 is not an appealable order, therefore, the only remedy with an aggrieved party is to invoke writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Proceedings under Section 148A are initiated when Income Tax officers suspect that a taxpayer may have concealed income during any assessment year. Section 148(1)(b) contemplates issue of show cause to provide an opportunity of hearing to the...

Plea Of Limitation Shall Be Deemed To Be Waived If Not Raised Before Arbitrator U/S 16 Of Arbitration Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar affirmed that plea of limitation cannot be allowed to be raised first time under section 34 of the Arbitration Act if no such plea was taken before the Arbitrator under section 16 of the Act. The court further observed that it shall be deemed to have been waived as per section 4 of the Act. Brief Facts This arbitration appeal under Section 37(1) (b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter to be...