Bombay High Court
Benefit Of S.14 Of Limitation Act Extends To Delayed Filing Of Petition U/S 34 Of A&C Act Due To Prosecution In Good Faith In Another Court: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court bench of Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Advait M. Sethna has held that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) can be extended to the petitioner who committed delay in filing an application to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) due to the prevailing legal position at the time of filing, which was subsequently changed. Brief Facts: Disputes and differences had...
Court Must Assign Reasons For Accepting Or Rejecting Grounds Of Challenge U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court bench of Justices A.S. Chandurkar and Rajesh Patil has held that a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) cannot be dismissed merely by stating that the scope of interference is limited; the court must address each ground of challenge and provide reasoned findings. Brief Facts: The appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'NAFED') and the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'REPL') entered into two Tie Up...
Bombay High Court Injuncts Owner Of Kapani Resorts From Alienating Any Interest In Properties Until Conclusion Of Arbitral Proceedings
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has injuncted the owner of Kapani Resorts and Greater Kailash Property from alienating any interest in the Resorts and the property under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), until the conclusion of arbitral proceedings Brief Facts: Under the Agreement executed between Mr. Manmohan Kapani (Petitioner) and the Respondents, the petitioner will infuse USD 1 million in the Kapani Resorts to...
Setting Aside Of Arbitral Award Leaves It Open To Parties To Choose To Arbitrate Again: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court Bench of Justice Somsekhar Sundaresan has observed that once an arbitral award has been set aside by the court in the exercise of its powers under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the parties would be restored to the original position and a fresh arbitration in such circumstances would not amount to the proverbial “second bite at the cherry”. Background In disputes between the Applicant, Batliboi Environmental Engineering Ltd....
Arbitration Clause In Invoices Can Be Binding On Parties When They Acted Upon The Invoices And No Objections Were Raised: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has observed that where the correspondence between the parties included invoices which contained an arbitration clause and the parties acted upon those invoices without protesting, then it could be deemed that the party had accepted the arbitration clause. Background Facts and Issue The Respondent had availed of services of the Petitioner for outdoor advertisements on hoardings. The Petitioner made a claim for...
Relief For Karan Johar As Bombay High Court Refuses To Permit Release Of 'Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar' Film
In a big win for film-maker and producer Karan Johar, the Bombay High Court on Friday refused to lift the stay on the release of a film "Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar" which was imposed in June last year.Single-judge Justice Riyaz Chagla said that the makers of the film 'unauthorisedly' by using Johar's name and personality attributes in the title of their film, prima facie, violated his personality rights, publicity rights and also his right to privacy. "Further, the Plaintiff (Johar)...
LLP Can Be Bound By Arbitration Clause Despite Not Being Signatory To LLP Agreement: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that the mere fact that an LLP is not a signatory to an LLP Agreement does not, by itself, preclude it from being a party to arbitration proceedings initiated between Partners under the arbitration clause of such an agreement. The Court observed that an LLP is not a “third party” to its LLP Agreement but an entity with rights and obligations vis-à-vis its partners as per the statutory scheme of the LLP Act. The Arbitral...
Restaurant Service Or Bakery Product? Bombay High Court To Decide If Donuts & Cakes Should Be Taxed At 5% Or 18% Under GST
The Bombay High Court is to decide whether the donuts and cakes should be classified as restaurant service or a bakery product under Goods and Services Tax. The Division Bench of Justices B.P Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla were addressing the issue of whether the supply of donuts falls within the ambit of restaurant services under Service Accounting Code (SAC) 9963 or should be categorized as a bakery product subject to separate tax treatment under the Goods and Services Tax...
ITAT Cannot Perpetuate Ex-Parte Order: Bombay High Court Orders Tribunal To Grant Opportunity Of Hearing To Assessee Before Proceeding On Merits
The Bombay High Court has disapproved of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal against an ex-parte order passed against a former employee of Pfizer Healthcare without providing him an opportunity of hearing.Stating that ITAT cannot “perpetuate” the ex-parte order, a division bench of Justices GS Kulkarni and Advait M. Sethna directed the Tribunal to hear the employee de novo, so far as his prayer for the grant of exemption under section 89 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is...
ITAT Cannot Overstep Its Authority By Deciding On Merits When It Had Already Concluded Appeal Was Not Maintainable: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court stated that ITAT cannot overstep its authority by deciding on merits when it has already concluded an appeal was not maintainable. The Division Bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that “Once the ITAT concluded that the Appeal before it against the impugned communication/order was not “maintainable”, there was no question of the ITAT evaluating the impugned communication/order on its merits or making any observations or recording any findings...
Court At Designated Venue In Arbitration Agreement Can Entertain Application U/S 11 Of Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan has held that the court having supervisory over designated venue of the Arbitration proceedings would have jurisdiction to entertain application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) in absence of any contrary indicia indicating any other place to be the seat of arbitration. Brief Facts: The present application under section 9 of the Arbitration Act has been filed seeking...