The Court held that once the statutory deadline expires, an arbitrator becomes functus officio and cannot be granted a fresh extension. It ordered substitution under Section 29A(6), reinforcing strict timelines for arbitral awards.
The Court ruled that failure to meet strict payment deadlines in an IBC-supervised sale justified full forfeiture. It held that such sales are governed by IBC and NCLT orders, not Contract Act protections.
SC emphasized that contempt power is not a sword to silence criticism but includes the power to forgive when remorse is genuine. The High Court wrongly imposed punishment despite an unconditional apology and resignation by the contemnor.
The High Court and Supreme Court confirmed that reopening assessments on depreciation and goodwill claims in a Slump Sale transaction was invalid, as material facts were fully disclosed and original assessments completed.
Since the assessment order did not refer to initiating penalty under Section 271D, the Court held the penalty void. This reinforces that penalty jurisdiction arises only from recorded satisfaction.
The Supreme Court ruled that ICCs can inquire into complaints against employees from different departments, ensuring procedural protections under the POSH Act are maintained for aggrieved women.
The Court noted that the writ petition challenging alleged fraudulent ITC was dismissed but allowed additional time to pursue a statutory appeal. The ruling permits the appeal to be filed without being treated as time-barred.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the revocation of a customs broker licence for misdeclaring consignor details in diplomatic cargo. The ruling confirms findings of regulatory violations that facilitated gold smuggling.
The Gujarat High Court held that the assessee disclosed all material facts and the reopening notice under section 148/147 was a change of opinion, lacking jurisdiction.
Summary: The Supreme Court held that a sub-vendor cannot force arbitration against a principal employer without contractual privity. BCL’s claim failed as it lacked genuine intent to be bound by HPCL’s agreement.
