Duty Of Courts To Examine And Reject Time Barred Claims To Prevent Parties From Being Drawn Into Costly Arbitration Processes: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma has held that it is the duty of courts to examine and reject time-barred claims to prevent parties from being trapped in protracted and costly arbitration processes. Brief Facts: The Petitioner approached the Gauhati High Court (“High Court”) and filed an application Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) for appointment of an Arbitrator as per the Arbitration Clause in a Contract...

Long-Term Capital Gains Exempted From Income Tax, Non-Disclosure Doesn't Amount To Loss Of Revenue: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has held that the long-term capital gains are exempt from income tax, and the non-disclosure while computing the long-term capital gains cannot result in causing prejudice to the department.The bench of Justice Kaushik Goswami has observed that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has initiated the proceedings simply on the basis of the proposal of the subordinate authority and has not applied his mind after perusal of the records called for by him, and the very...

Appointment Of Arbitrator When Claims Not Covered By GCC Would Cause Wastage Of Resources And Time: Gauhati High Court Dismisses S. 11 Application

The Gauhati High Court single bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma held that while the primary authority to determine non-arbitrability lies with the Arbitral Tribunal, the Court may intervene in manifestly non-arbitrable claims to prevent resource wastage. “To appoint an Arbitrator, even though there is no doubt in the view of this Court that the present dispute is not arbitrable, would lead to wastage of resources, besides being a sheer waste of time.” Brief Facts: The...

Employee Of Railways Cannot Be Appointed As Arbitrator, Violates Section 12(1) A&C And Perkins Eastman: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court single bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma held the personnel who is the employee of the Indian Railways cannot be appointed as an arbitrator as it would violate Section 12(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the law laid down in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. Vs. HSCC (India) Ltd. Section 12(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 outlines provisions related to the impartiality and independence of arbitrators. Brief...

MSMED Act | Conciliation Mechanism Under Section 18 Shall Be Followed To Resolve Payment Dispute: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Writ Petition

The Gauhati High Court single bench of Kaushik Goswami dismissed a writ petition noting that when a dispute arises regarding payment under Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, the mechanism under Section 18 shall be followed to resolve the dispute by way of a conciliation proceeding, failing which arbitration proceeding as prescribed under Section 18 to be conducted. Brief Facts: The Petitioner filed writ petition in the Gauhati High Court and challenged...

Appointment Of Arbitrators From Panel Of Serving/Retired Railway Officials Contravenes Section 12(5) & 7th Schedule: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court single bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma held that panel/appointment of the serving/retired officials of the Railways, as members of the Arbitral Tribunal, is hit by Section 12(5) and the 7th Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. “When the General Manager, N.F. Railway himself cannot be made an Arbitrator in view of Section 12(5) and the 7th Schedule to the 1996 Act, the panel/appointment of serving/retired officials of the Railways as Arbitrators...

Two Parallel Proceedings In Respect Of Same Period Not Permissible As Per CGST/SGST Act: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has held that two parallel proceedings in respect of the same period are not permissible as per the CGST/SGST Act.The bench of Justice Manish Choudhury has observed that Section 6 of the CGST/SGST Act, more particularly Section 6(2), indicates that once a proceeding is initiated in either of the two Acts, another proceeding for the same period under the other Act cannot be initiated.The respondent/department under the SGST Act issued a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice under...