In a case where there is a dispute/controversy on the mandate of the arbitrator being terminated on the ground mentioned in section 14(1)(a), such a dispute has to be raised before the “court”, defined under section 2(e) of the Act, 1996 and such a dispute cannot be decided on an application filed under section 11(6) of the Act, 1996.
The brief facts of the case are that during a road rage, Gurnam Singh died in a scuffle and Sidhu & his friend faced charges of culpable homicide. The trial court post trial acquitted both the accused in1999 as it was of the view that the death was not caused by subdural haemorrhage and the deceased suffered sudden cardiac arrest under stress because of which he fell and received two abrasions leading to subdural haemorrhage.
SC held that recommendations of the GST Council are not binding on the Union and States. It held that Recommendations of the GST Council to only have a persuasive value, particularly when interpreted along with the objective of the GST regime to foster cooperative federalism and harmony between the constituent units;
C.C.,C.E. & S.T.-Bangalore Vs Northern Operating Systems Pvt Ltd. (Supreme Court) A co-joint reading of the documents on record show show that the assessee had operational or functional control over the seconded employees; it was potentially liable for the performance of the tasks assigned to them. That it paid (through reimbursement) the amounts equivalent to […]
Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh Vs. State of Goa (Supreme Court) What can be said to be an arithmetical or clerical error has been dealt with and considered by this Court in the case of Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (supra). It is observed and held that an arithmetical mistake is a mistake of calculation; a clerical […]
Duomatic Principle can be briefly stated as ‘anything the members of a company can do by formal resolution in a general meeting, they can also do informally, if all of them assent to it.
Cox And Kings Limited Vs Sap India Private Limited (Supreme Court of India) Supreme Court referred following aspects of application of doctrine of ‘Group of Companies’, which is mostly utilised to bind non-signatories to an Arbitration Agreement, to a larger Bench for relook- A. Whether the Group of Companies Doctrine should be read into Section 8 of the Act or whether […]
Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (Supreme Court) The issue to be answered here is whether summons and trial notice should have been quashed on the basis of factual defences. The corollary therefrom is what should be the responsibility of the quashing Court and whether it must weigh the evidence presented […]
J. Sekar @ Sekar Reddy Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Supreme Court of India) It is most relevant to note that CBI after investigation in the main case in RC MA1 2016 A0040 submitted the closure report before the Additional Sessions Judge, CBI Court, Chennai in exercise of power under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The said report […]
Thomas Daniel Vs State of Kerala (Supreme Court of India) This Court in a catena of decisions has consistently held that if the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud of the employee or if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the […]
