Madras High Court
Approval From Higher Authority Mandatory For Issuing Notice U/S 148 Income Tax Act After Expiry Of 3-Year Limitation: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has held that under the new regime, approval from a higher authority, such as the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or the Principal Director General, is mandatory to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act after the expiry of a three-year limitation period. Justice C. Saravanan stated that …….three years from the end of the Assessment Year 2016-2017, 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, to issue Section 148 Notice under the new regime had already...
Transactions Purely Commercial; Public Trust Doctrine Can't Defeat Limitation: Madras HC Dismisses GAIL Appeals In ₹246 Cr Dispute
In an important ruling for the natural gas sector, the Madras High Court Bench of Justices G Jayachandran and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar denied appeals by GAIL (India) Limited against five natural gas supplier companies in arbitrations aggregating to Rs. 246 crores, observing that natural gas transactions are commercial and GAIL could not invoke the public trust doctrine to escape limitation.Five companies, M/s Arkay Energy (Rameswaram) Limited, M/s Coromandel Electric Co Ltd, M/s Sahell Exports...
Petition U/S 34 A&C Act Filed With Deficit Court Fee Is Non-Est Unless Paid Within Limitation Period: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court held that filing of a petition with deficit court fee does not amount to proper presentation. If the entire court fee is not deposited within the limitation period under section 34(3) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), the court is divested of its power to condone the delay. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that "filing of a petition with deficit Court fee cannot be construed as proper presentation of the petition. If such presentation of the...
Test Of Prejudice Irrelevant When Tribunal Is Constituted Without Consent Of JV Partner: Madras High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award
The Madras High Court set aside an arbitral award passed against M/s Nilakantan & Brothers Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (“the petitioner”) on the ground that since the arbitral tribunal was constituted without obtaining the consent of a Joint Venture Partner, it lacked jurisdiction. The court further held that the appointment cannot be validated merely on the ground that no prejudice would be caused to a party. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that “the Tribunal did not go into this...
Principles Of Natural Justice Are Non-Negotiable In Arbitral Proceedings Even If Tribunal Is Comprised Of Lay Persons: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court, while setting aside an arbitral award, has observed that despite the arbitral Tribunal comprising elder family members, who are lay persons and not well-trained legal minds, the principles of natural justice have to be followed. If an award is passed without giving an opportunity to either of the sides to present their case, the same would violate Section 34(2)(a)(iii) of the A&C Act. The bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, while hearing a challenge under ...
Customs Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Issue Directions Under GST Law: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court recently held that Customs authorities have no jurisdiction to issue directions under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) law. The Court struck down a February 2021 public notice issued by the Chennai Customs that sought to regulate the GST treatment on auctioned cargo.A single bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh ruled that such powers lie exclusively with authorities designated under the GST Act."It is not known as to where the 1st respondent gets the power and jurisdiction to...
Deliberate Non-Participation In Arbitral Proceedings Not Grounds To Resist Enforcement Of Award: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh has observed that when a party purposely fails to avail an opportunity duly accorded by the Arbitral Tribunal to present its case, it cannot later use its own default as a ground to resist enforcement of the resultant award. Facts The Petitioner, M/s Vittera BV (“Vittera”) filed the present petition seeking enforcement of the final award dated 30.04.2020 against the Respondent, M/s SKT Textile Mills (“SKT”) under Sections 47...
Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations | 'Offence Report Need Not Be Penal'; 90-Day Period Begins Only Upon Receipt Of Report: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court stated that the offence report under Regulation 17(1) Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, need not necessarily have a penal connotation. Also, it stated that the 90-day limitation period begins only upon receipt of the offence report.The bench stated that, "the offence report must be received by the office of the licensing authority, and the limitation period will start running only from the date of its receipt. Even if the licensing authority can be attributed...
'Being Cheated By Music Companies': Ilaiyaraaja Tells Madras High Court In Copyright Infringement Case Against Sony Music
Renowned music composer Ilaiyaraaja, on Wednesday(October 22) told the Madras High Court he is being cheated by music companies who continued to use his songs without authorisation. The submission was made before Justice N Senthilkumar, who was hearing a plea filed by the musician against Sony music against unauthorised usage of his songs. The court had previously directed the music company to provide day-to-day accounts of revenue generated through the streaming of Ilaiyaraaja's songs....
Arbitral Proceedings Cannot Continue Once Moratorium Under IBC Is In Effect, Creditors' Recourse Lies Before Liquidator: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that arbitration proceedings cannot continue after commencement of liquidation, any order passed thereafter is not legally sustainable. However, considering that continuation of arbitration proceedings would be futile and that the petitioner had not been informed of the commencement of the liquidation, the court allowed the petitioner to file its claim before the liquidator. Background: M/s. AL Tirven Steels Ltd. had...
Application U/S 29A Of A&C Act Is Not Maintainable After Termination Of Proceedings Following Arbitrator's Withdrawal: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court held that section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) can be invoked only when the proceedings are pending. It cannot be invoked when the arbitral tribunal has become functus officio. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that “in the case in hand, the proceedings were abandoned and consequently stood terminated as was explained supra. Thereafter, there is no question of filing an application seeking for extension of time for a...