It is incumbent upon the Courts to see the validity of an arbitration agreement, that it passes the test of the requirement of Indian Stamp Act, 1899, before considering an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
Quippo Construction Equipment Limited Vs Janardan Nirman Pvt. Limited (Supreme Court); Civil Appeal No. 2378 of 2020; Dated: 29/04/2020 FACTS The Respondent, a business of infrastructure development activities approached the Claimant who is engaged in a business of providing equipment for infrastructure activities. The Claimant gave certain equipment on rent to the Respondent in lieu […]
PRELUDE Recently, hundreds of companies have announced that they would be moving their bases from China to India. This has come amidst the allegations on China that it was responsible for the origin of the Corona Virus and had intentionally let the Virus spread across the world to gain political and financial advantage over other […]
The Tribunal held that in the absence of any power of recall or review being available to the Tribunal, the present case at hand does not fall within the confines of Section 420 of the Companies Act, 2013 nor Rule 11 of the NCALT Rules, 2016. As recourse, the Applicant should have approached the Appellate Tribunal under Section 61 of the Code.
Despite the repeated appraisal of arbitral clauses in contracts between parties by both the legislature and judiciary as the key to arbitration becoming the preferred mode for commercial dispute resolution as long as such clauses remain impartial, several Government organizations and Public Sector Undertakings have one-sided clauses for dispute resolution in their agreements. The Bombay High Court also took note of the same.
The Court herein has settled that when the party has been given enough opportunity accorded to them and has failed to take advantage of the same during the arbitral proceedings, it cannot later go on to say that fair hearing was not given to the party.
An arbitral tribunal must decide in accordance with the terms of the contract, but if an arbitrator construes a term of the contract in a reasonable manner, it will not mean that the award can be set aside on this ground. Construction of the terms of a contract is primarily for an arbitrator to decide unless the arbitrator construes the contract in such a way that it could be said to be something that no fair minded or reasonable person could do.
Temporary non-use of premises due to the lockdown which was announced due to the COVID-19 outbreak cannot be construed as rendering the lease void under Section 108(B)(e) of the TPA. The tenant cannot also avoid payment of rent in view of Section 108(B)(l).
TaxGuru and AMLEGALS brings together TAXEBINAR TAXEBINAR | Pandemic Pro Webinar | GST Unveiled | 14th May, 2020 | Thursday | 4.00 to 5.00 P.M Register for the Webinar at: No Registration Charge | A Must for CFO, CEO & In-House Indirect Professionals | What is your Tax Strategy post Covid-19? The broader concept of […]
Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 provides that any person aggrieved with the order of the Adjudicating Authority can file an appeal against such order before the Appellate Authority. The said provisions also provide that such appeal shall be filed within a period of three months from the date on which the order is communicated to such person.
