Enterprise Contracting With Assignee Of Govt Recognised Concessionaire For Developing “Infrastructural Facility” Can Claim Deduction U/S 80IA(4) Of Income Tax Act: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court has held that an enterprise contracting with the assignee of a government recognised concessionaire for infrastructure development can, based on facts and circumstances of the case, be given the benefit of deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act 1961.The provision prescribes deductions in respect of enterprises engaged in infrastructure development. Sub-section (b) of the provision stipulates that the enterprise claiming deduction must have entered into an...

MSME Act Doesn't Bar Independent Arbitration Under Arbitration And Conciliation Act Based On Agreement Clause: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that Section 18 of the MSME Act does not create any substantive rights or liabilities but simply offers an alternative method for resolving disputes outside of court proceedings. The bench held that if a party involved in a dispute chooses to pursue arbitration independently under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, based on an arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties, the MSME Act does...

Composite Reference Can't Be Made Of Disparate Causes Of Action: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that composite reference to an Arbitral Tribunal cannot be made for disparate causes of action in different agreements with different parties as it contravenes the principles of privity, confidentiality, and party autonomy. Background: The Petitioner, the Secretary of Ganaudyog Bazar Unnayan & Service Cooperative Society Ltd., filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and...

Disputes Exceeding Rent Control Act Threshold Are Arbitrable If Lease Agreement Includes Arbitration Clause: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that when the total monthly payable amount surpasses the threshold for invoking the provisions of the Rent Control Act, the dispute becomes subject to arbitration if the lease agreement contains an arbitration clause. Further, the bench held that in a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court is not permitted to examine the merits of the disputes between the...

Arbitration Clause In Original Lease Deed Incorporated Into Deed Of Assignment When Deeds Are Interconnected And Consistent: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur has held that if a deed of assignment is properly interpreted as being interconnected and related to the original lease deed containing an arbitration clause, then the parties intended for the arbitration clause to be included in the deed of assignment. The bench held that interrelationship was not merely superficial but indicative of a deliberate and mutual intent between the parties to incorporate certain terms from the...

The Benefit Of Section 14 Of The Limitation Act Can Be Invoked For Exclusion Of Time In A Proceeding Under Section 34 Of The Arbitration And Conciliation Act: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the time spent in a writ petition on the same cause of action can be excluded from the limitation period for filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Brief Facts: Baid Power Services Private Limited (Petitioner) entered into an agreement with the Bihar Medical Services and Infrastructure Corporation...

The Court Can't Re-Appreciate Evidence Or Re-interpret Contracts While Examining Patent Illegality : Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that the court cannot re-appreciate evidence under the guise of patent illegality, as per the proviso to Section 34 (2-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It remarked that the Court cannot be sitting in appeal over the Tribunal's decision and cannot re-interpret the contract differently from the Tribunal without evidence of patent illegality. Brief Facts: A gas purchase and sale agreement dated...

Allegations Of Fraudulent Signatures On Arbitration Agreements Must Be Decided By Arbitrator, Not Court Under Section 11: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that allegations of a party's signature on an arbitration agreement being obtained through fraud or misrepresentation are matters that can be decided by the arbitrator and can't be resolved by the court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench further observed that the arbitral tribunal, similar to a civil court, has the authority to appoint experts when complex issues, such as...

Interim Measures Under Section 9 Of Arbitration Act Justified If Applicant's Rights Are Not Protected From Third Parties: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that granting interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is justified if the Applicant's rights are not protected from third parties, as this could render the arbitral reference irretrievably infructuous. Brief Facts: Bengal Shelter Housing Development Limited (Petitioner) entered into a development agreement with the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) to develop the...

No Prior Request Under Section 21 Needed For Section 11 Arbitration Applications: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that an application under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not require a prior request for reference to arbitration under Section 21. The bench held that invalidity of an arbitral proceeding due to the absence of prior notice under Section 21 and a unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is distinct from a situation under Section 11(5), where prior notice is necessary only for...

Applicants Seeking Pandemic Relaxation For Limitation Under Section 34 Petition Cannot Simultaneously Claim IBC Moratorium Protection: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya has held that if applicant of petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act seeks to benefit from the pandemic relaxation, it cannot simultaneously claim protection under the moratorium of Section 14 of the IBC. The bench held that to avail the pandemic relaxation, the applicant need to show that the pandemic initially prevented it from filing the application on time. The Supreme Court in In Re: Cognizance for...