Audit Assessment Under Orissa VAT Act Is Invalid If Audit Visit Report Is Time-Barred: High Court

The Orissa High Court has held that an audit assessment under Section 42 of the OVAT Act (Odisha Value Added Tax Rules, 2005) cannot be initiated when the AVR (Audit Visit Report) is beyond the limitation period. Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Murahari Sri Raman were examining whether the Assessing Authority has jurisdiction to proceed with Audit Assessment under Section 42 of the OVAT Act by issuing of statutory notice in Form VAT-306 on the basis of the AVR submitted under Section...

Bank Cannot Unilaterally Withdraw Money From Joint Account To Recover Loan Owed By One Of The Holders: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has recently ruled that a bank cannot unilaterally withdraw money from a joint account to recover a loan owed by only one of the account holders. The Court was dealing with a petition filed by Bharat Chandra Mallick, a retired railway employee, who challenged the State Bank of India's deduction of Rs 5 lakh from a joint account he held with his wife without prior notice. The deduction was made towards a loan owed by his wife. A bench of Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi in...

Court May Direct Deposit Of 100% Of Awarded Amount Before Granting Stay U/S 36(3) Arbitration Act: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court held that directing a 100% deposit of the awarded amount as a pre-condition for granting stay under section 36(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) is legally valid and consistent with the settled jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi held that “where the arbitral award is in the nature of a money decree, a direction to deposit 100% of the awarded sum is neither punitive nor excessive but serves to secure the...

Cheque Dishonour Proceedings Can Be Sustained Against Directors & Signatories Of Company Even If It Is Declared Insolvent: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court, Bench comprising Justice Chittaranjan Dash, has ruled that the proceedings under section 138 of the NI Act will sustain against the directors or signatories of the company even if the entity has been declared insolvent under the IBC, 2016. The complainant extended a loan of Rs. 1 Cr. to Zenith Mining Pvt. Ltd., which remains unpaid. The check issued by the respondent was dishonored twice with the remark 'refer to drawer.' These events led the complainant to...

Objections U/S 47 CPC Can't Be Entertained In Enforcement Of Arbitral Awards U/S 36 Of A&C Act: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has recently held that objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC') cannot be allowed to be raised in the enforcement proceeding of an arbitral award, as enunciated under the provision of Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('A & C Act').While bringing clarity as to applicability of Section 47 of CPC to arbitral proceedings, a Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi held –“Allowing objections under Section 47 of the CPC,...

Clause 18 Of Vivad Se Vishwas-II Scheme Is Mandatory If Claim Satisfies Twin Test: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court, while hearing an appeal u/s 37 of the A&C Act, a Writ Petition filed by the Respondent for directions to the Appellant to consider the offer made under appeal, observed Vivad se Vishwas II (contractual disputes) scheme (“the scheme”), observed that Clause 18 of the scheme is mandatory in nature. The bench of Justice Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi observed that once a contractor chooses to settle under such terms, the procuring entity cannot deny the claim without...

Reconstituted GSTAT Selection Committee Has Power To Restart Process Afresh: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court held that the reconstituted GSTAT (Central Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal) selection committee has the authority to restart the entire appointment process. “…….Mere offering the candidature in a public employment does not create indefeasible or inchoate right into the appointment. Even a person, whose name is included in the select list, cannot claim a vested right on appointment. It is within the prerogative of the Committee or the Appointing...

MSME Council's Order Declaring Jurisdiction To Decide Dispute Between Parties Can Be Challenged Only U/S 34 Of A&C Act: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court bench of Justice K.R. Mohapatra has held that once the MSME Council initiates arbitration following the termination of conciliation proceedings, any order passed by the Council regarding its jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute can only be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The aggrieved party cannot invoke Article 227 of the Constitution to seek setting aside of an award passed under the MSMED Act. Brief Facts: M/s Odisha...

Lawyers Running Individual Practice Exempt From Levy Of GST, Service Tax: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has reminded the GST and Service tax authorities not to harass practicing lawyers by issuing them notices for levy of GST or service tax.A Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice BP Routray thus quashed the notices issued to a Bhubaneswar based lawyer demanding service tax of Rs.2,14,600/- and penalty of Rs.2,34,600/- plus interest.It observed, “in view of the admitted fact that the Petitioner is a practicing lawyer…the Department the Petitioner is exempted from levy of...

Court Cannot Appoint Arbitrator In Absence Of Arbitration Agreement Between Disputing Parties: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has held that Court cannot appoint an arbitrator to resolve dispute between the parties in absence of any arbitration agreement. The Single Bench of Acting Chief Justice Arindam Sinha (as the Judge then was) referred to Section 11(6-A) (appointment of arbitrators) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to hold that –“Reference to arbitration can only be compelled when there is existence of an arbitration agreement…On application to Court for appointment of arbitrator,...

Appeal In Commercial Dispute Arising From Arbitration Act Must Be Filed Before Commercial Appellate Court, Not HC: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court bench of Justice S.K. Panigrahi has held that a plain reading of Sections 6 and 10(3) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, leads to the conclusion that the appropriate 'court' to consider a commercial dispute, even if it arises under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, would be the commercial court and an appeal would, therefore, lie only before the Commercial Appellate Court being the District Court. Brief Facts: The appellant is the owner of 4 acres 875...

Violation Of Provisions Of Arbitration Act Or MSMED Act Can Be Adjudicated By Court U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Orissa High Court

An Orissa High Court bench of Justice K.R. Mohapatra has dismissed a writ petition upon holding that the petitioner, without availing the efficacious statutory remedy u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act had approached the Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for which the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretionary power to entertain it.Additionally, the court held that violation of any provisions of the Arbitration Act and/or the MSMED Act can be effectively adjudicated...