Seat Of Arbitration Retains Jurisdiction Over Execution Proceedings Irrespective Of Location Of Judgment Debtor's Assets: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna has held that the seat court of an arbitration always retains jurisdiction over execution proceedings irrespective of where the award-debtor is located or has its assets, even when another execution petition is pending in another jurisdiction. Brief Facts The petitioner and the respondent company had entered into an exclusive consultancy agreement. Under the agreement, the petitioner was appointed as Exclusive Consultant and...

Defaulting Director Can Be Disqualified From All Companies, S.164 Is Reasonable Restriction To Article 19(1)(g): Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that under Section 164 of the Companies Act 2013, an individual can be disqualified from being a Director in a company against which allegations are made, as well as regarding any other company in which the individual is a director against whom no allegations are made.The petitioner directors had argued that they had been disqualified from the company–M/s Vihaan, as regards which allegations have been made, but also as regards any other company, and that they...

Karnataka High Court Directs GST Department To Establish Tracking System For Notices Sent To Taxpayers Via Email

The Karnataka High Court has directed the GST department to establish tracking system for notices sent to the taxpayers via email Justice Suraj Govindaraj stated that it is required for the department to establish a system to ascertain delivery of e-mail notices, when the said e-mail was opened and when the email was read. In this case, the assessee/petitioner has challenged the adjudication orders under 73 of CGST Act, 2017 for the period April 2020- March 2021. The assessee ...

IGST Not Leviable On Secondment Of Employee From Overseas Group Companies: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court held that IGST is not leviable on secondment arrangement with overseas entities. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum was addressing the issue of whether a secondment constitutes a taxable supply of manpower services or a non-taxable employer-employee relationship exempt under Schedule III of the CGST Act. In this case, the during the period from July 2017 to March 2023, the assessee avers that employees of its overseas group companies were seconded to work in ...

Gram Panchayat Cannot Levy Property Tax On Industrial Establishment Within Notified Industrial Areas: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that the Gram Panchayat cannot levy or collect property taxes in respect of Industrial establishments located within areas notified by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB). Mere execution of a lease-cum-sale agreement or any administrative communication cannot vest power in the Gram Panchayat to levy tax in the absence of express delegation or statutory backing.Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus while allowing a batch of petitions and...

Ad Tax Cannot Be Imposed On Educational Institutions For Putting Up Non-Commercial Signages On Their Property: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has set aside an advertisement tax demand notice issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to an educational institution for displaying non-commercial signage and boards on its own property.Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus while allowing the petition filed by BS Gupta, Secretary of Gupta Education Trust, who had challenged the legality/validity of the order issued by BBMP, under Section 134 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. The court...

Named Arbitrator In Notice U/S 21 Of A&C Act Can't Pass Orders Without Consent Of Other Party Or Order Of Appointment U/S 11: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj has held that a person who is the named Arbitrator in a notice issued under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot enter reference and pass orders without the other person consenting thereto or without an order of appointment of Arbitrator by institution or a Court under Section 11 of the Act. Brief Facts The Petitioners filed the writ petition seeking to quash the proceedings pending before...

Once Parties Intend To Resolve Their Dispute By Arbitration, It Is Needless For Court To Decide Whether Partnership Was At Will: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court bench of Chief Justice N. V. Anjaria and Justice K. V. Aravind has held that when both parties have agreed to resolve their disputes regarding the nature of the partnership through arbitration, it is unnecessary for the Court to determine whether the partnership is one "at will." Such issues are more appropriately left for adjudication by the arbitrator. Brief Facts: N. H. Gowda (Appellant) and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are partners in appellant No.3 firm,...

Karnataka High Court Grants Ex-Parte Injunctions In Favour Of Neil Patel Digital LLC In Dispute Over Breach Of LLP Agreement

The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj has passed ex-parte injunctions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in favour of Neil Patel Digital LLC (“NPD LLC”). The disputes had arisen from breach of the covenants of a Limited Liability Partnership Agreement. The LLP Agreement contained various negative covenants restricting the Respondent No. 1 in respect of, among other things, transfer of funds beyond stipulated limits, appointment of key...

Value Of Land Under Works Contract Is Not Exigible To VAT: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court stated that value of land under works contract is not exigible to VAT. The Division Bench of Justices Krishna S Dixit and Ramachandra D. Huddar was addressing the issue of whether levying tax on receipt for land cost i.e., immovable property, which does not constitute consideration for works contract under Composition Scheme of KVAT is sustainable. In this case, Appellant/Assessee is a Limited Liability Partnership engaged in the business of executing civil...

Awarded Amount Cannot Be Enhanced Under Section 34 Of Arbitration Act: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court bench of Mr Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar has held that the District Judge, while deciding a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), is not empowered to increase the amount awarded by the Arbitrator. The findings of the Arbitrator with respect to the awarded amount can only be set aside if they contravene any of the grounds specified under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act; however, the awarded amount cannot be...

Petition U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act Cannot Be Decided Without Summoning Entire Record To Verify Service Of Notice: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court bench of Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar has held that a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) cannot be decided without first summoning the entire arbitration record to determine whether the notice was actually served on the other party. Brief Facts: Respondent No. borrowed a loan from the Appellant and when the Respondent committed default in repaying the amount, arbitration proceedings were initiated under...