Arbitrator Nominated U/S 18(3) MSMED Act Erred In Deciding Merits After Finding Respondent Was Not MSME: Madras HC Upholds Setting Aside Of Award

The Madras High Coury bench of Justices R. Suresh Kumar and C. Saravanan has held that an Arbitrator ought not to decide the case on merits after coming to a conclusion that the respondent was not a Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprise (MSME) and therefore not entitled to invoke the machinery under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006. The court upheld the setting aside of the award passed by the Arbitrator.Brief Facts M/s. Sunwin Papers (Respondent)...

PMLA | Enforcement Directorate Is Well Within Rights To Challenge Closure Report In Predicate Offence: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently held that once a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was registered, the Enforcement Directorate was within its right to challenge the closure report filed in the Predicate Offence if the same resulted in miscarriage of justice.“During the pendency of complaint under PMLA, if the predicate offence is closed, in the present case, it resulted in miscarriage of justice, the Enforcement Directorate is well within its rights to place the facts before...

Award Can Be Set Aside On Grounds Of Patent Illegality If Decision Of Arbitrator Is Perverse Or Irrational: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court Bench of Justice C.Saravanan held that patent illegality as a ground for setting aside an Award is available only if the decision of the Arbitrator is found to be perverse or so irrational that no reasonable person would have arrived at the same or the construction of the contract is such that no fair or reasonable person would take or that the view of the Arbitrator is not even a possible view. Brief Facts The Award Debtor is a company established under the...

Pendency Of Criminal Appeal Against Conviction In Schedule Offence Not Bar For Proceeding With PMLA Trial: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently observed that pendency of a criminal appeal against the conviction in a schedule offence is not a bar to proceed wit trial in the PMLA case. The court stressed that the schedule case and the PMLA case are distinct and different and thus the trial in money laundering case could not be postponed merely on the pendency of a criminal appeal in the schedule case. “In any angle, pendency of a criminal appeal cannot be an absolute bar for proceeding with the PMLA...

Income Tax Assessee Who Failed To Avail Option To Request Personal Hearing Can't Claim That Personal Hearing Was Not Provided: Madras HC

The Madras High Court ruled that if an assessee does not take advantage of the opportunity to request a personal hearing from the department, they cannot later claim that they were denied a personal hearing. The Bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that “……though the department has given liberty to the assessee to request for personal hearing, the assessee failed to avail such an option. Therefore, the question of violation of natural justice will not arise.” Section 148A(b)...

Goods Shall Be Released Provisionally If Assessee Demonstrates Inclusion Of Transaction In GSTR-1 Return: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court stated that if the assessee is able to demonstrate that the transaction is included in the GSTR-1 Return, the goods shall be released provisionally. The Bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq directed the assessee to submit a copy of the GSTR-1 report, as it would reveal whether the subject transaction was disclosed as a zero-rated sale. Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 applies to persons who have paid a tax or any other amount, such as...

Mere Possession Of 'Proceeds Of Crime' Sufficient To Invoke PMLA, HC Cannot Restrict Its Meaning To Restrain Authorities: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently observed that the expression money laundering, as defined under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act has a wider meaning and the provisions of the Act could be invoked against a person for mere possession of proceeds of crime. The court added that since Section 3 is wider, the court could not restrict its meaning to restrain authorities from invoking the provisions of PMLA. “Therefore, mere possession of proceeds of crime would be sufficient...