Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Against IRCTC In Dispute Over Reimbursement For Catering Services, Sets Aside Interest As 'Patently Illegal'

The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur has reiterated the limited scope of interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“A&C Act”). The court upheld the arbitral award granted in favour of M/s Brandavan Food Products Ltd. (“Claimant”) in a dispute regarding the reimbursement of differential costs for meals and beverages supplied under a catering contract with the Indian Railways Catering and...

Award Cannot Be Set Aside When No Objections Were Raised Before Arbitrator Or Court U/S 12(5) Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul held that the award cannot be set aside solely on the ground that the appointment of the Arbitrator was illegal in view of section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (Arbitration Act) when no such objections were raised before the Arbitrator or the court under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Brief Facts: The dispute arose from a license agreement executed between Bhadra International India Pvt....

S.107 CGST Act Prescribes Independent Regime Of Limitation For Filing Appeals, Application Of S.5 Limitation Act Stands Excluded: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that since Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prescribes an “independent regime” to determine the limitation period for filing statutory appeals, the provision for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands excluded.A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma observed, “The facility to seek condonation can be resorted provided the legislation does not construct an independent regime with respect to...

No Unfettered Right To Cross-Examine Person Making Statements U/S 138(B) Customs Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a person facing charges under the Customs Act, 1962 does not have an unfettered right under Section 138B, to cross-examine the informant or person making incriminatory statements.Section 138(B) of the Customs Act of 1962 deals with the admissibility of statements made during customs proceedings.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma relied on Kanungo & Co. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta and Others (1983) where a...

Imposition Of Conditions By Customs For Provisional Release Of Seized Goods 'Discretionary': Delhi HC Tunes Down 130% Bank Guarantee

The Delhi High Court has held that the imposition and severity of conditions imposed by the Customs Department for permitting provisional release of seized goods is “discretionary” in nature.In doing so, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma scaled down the alleged onerous condition imposed on an importer, for executing a Bank Guarantee of 130% of the deferential duty.It observed, “The calculated amount for the bank guarantee would be substantial and may almost...

Not An Enabling Provision, Proscribes Reassessment Action Beyond Limitation: Delhi HC Explains Timelines U/S 149 Of Income Tax Act

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, which prescribes a limitation period for initiating reassessment against an assessee, is not an enabling provision but rather a proscription on the Assessing Officer's powers.A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed,“The opening sentence of Section 149(1) of the Act clearly indicates that the time limit as prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Act is a hard stop....

Delhi High Court Upholds Validity Of S.132 Of Companies Act Establishing National Financial Reporting Authority, NFRA Rules

The Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 132 of the Companies Act, 2013, and Rules 3, 8, 10 and 11 of the National Financial Reporting Authority Rules, 2018.Section 132 of the Companies Act states: (1) The Central Government may, by notification, constitute a National Financial Reporting Authority to provide for matters relating to accounting and auditing standards under this Act.A division bench comprising Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma...

Superannuation Fund | Limit On Deduction Of Employer's Contribution Applies To Initial/ Annual Contribution, Not Additional Payments: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that the limit prescribed under Section 36(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act 1961, on deductions that an employer can seek for contributions made towards superannuation funds, applies only at the stage of setting up the fund or making ordinary annual payments.A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said any contribution made additionally in discharge of an overarching obligation would not be rendered as a disallowable expense.It thus...

Corporate Debtor Immune From Prosecution Under PMLA Post Approval Of Resolution Plan: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has held that in accordance with Section 32A(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), a Corporate Debtor that has successfully undergone a resolution process under Section 31 of the IBC shall not be prosecuted for offences committed prior to the commencement of the CIRP. Brief Facts On 26.07.2017 the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) initiated corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against...

What Is The Time Period Surviving U/S 149 Of Income Tax Act For Issuing Reassessment Notices: Delhi High Court Explains

The Delhi High Court has interpreted the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal to elucidate the time period surviving under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for issuing reassessment notices.A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar concluded that the period between 20 March 2020 to 30 June 2021 would be excluded from limitation, in view of Section 3(1) of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act,...

Award Passed By Improperly Appointed Arbitrator Is Non-Est In Law And Invalid: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh has held that it is settled law that the Arbitrator is a creature of the contract and has to function within four corners of contract. If a particular mechanism is contemplated for his appointment, the same must be followed in its true letter, spirit and intent, failing which the Arbitrator is without jurisdiction and the appointment is non-est and invalid. Brief Facts: The petitioner was awarded the work of “Civil works for raising...

Adobe India Is Not Dependent Agent PE Of Adobe Ireland: Delhi High Court Negates Attribution Of Further Profits

The Delhi High Court has upheld an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to the effect that Adobe Systems India Pvt. Ltd is not a dependent agent permanent establishment (DAPE) of Adobe Systems Software Ireland Ltd.In doing so, a division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar affirmed that no further attribution of profit can be made as Adobe India was remunerated at arm's length.As per the AO, Adobe India was not a mere PE (Permanent Establishment) but a DAPE.PE...