Supreme Court
Supreme Court Criticises Arbitration Bill 2024 For Not Recognising Power To Implead Non-Signatories, Urges Union To Make Changes
The Supreme Court today (May 2) expressed its dissatisfaction with the continued absence of explicit statutory recognition for the power of arbitral tribunals to implead or join non-signatory parties. The Court noted with concern that, despite earlier omissions in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the newly proposed Arbitration and Conciliation Bill, 2024, which seeks to overhaul the legislation, also failed to address this critical issue.“The Department of Legal Affairs has now, once...
Customs Act | Engineering Services Fees Having Direct Nexus With Import Of Goods Fall Within Assessable Customs Value : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court yesterday (May 1) ruled that engineering and technical service fees paid by the importer must be included in the assessable value of imported spare parts under the Customs Act, 1962. The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan upheld that the 8% technical and engineering fee charged to the appellant(Coal India) should be included in the assessable value for determining customs duty. It was the case where the appellant floated a tender for spare parts for P&H...
GST | Bail Should Be Normally Granted For Offences Under S 132 CGST Act Unless Extraordinary Circumstances Exists : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently expressed surprise at the High Court and the Magistrate Court denying bail to a person accused of committing offences under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act.The Court observed that in cases like this, bail should normally be granted. The offences alleged against the appellant were under Clauses (c), (f) and (h) of Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The maximum sentence is of 5 years with fine.In this case,...
When Can Court Remand Arbitral Award To Tribunal Under S.34/37 Arbitration Act ? Supreme Court Explains
The Supreme Court Constitution Bench recently held that the powers of Courts to remand arbitral awards back to the Tribunal under S. 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 cannot be seen as a straight-jacket formula. The Court observed that an award should be remitted back only if there is a possibility to correct a defect in the award, but if the entire award suffers from substantial injustice and patent illegality, remittance should be avoided. The Constitution...
Courts Can Modify Arbitral Awards In Certain Circumstances Under S.34/37 Arbitration Act: Supreme Court By 4:1
Answering a reference, a Constitution Bench (by 4:1) of the Supreme Court held that Appellate Courts have limited powers to modify arbitral awards while exercising powers under either Section 34 or 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.The majority judgment by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna held that the Courts have a limited power under Section 34/37 to modify arbitral awards. This limited power can be exercised in the following circumstances :1. When the award is severable by...
S. 8 IBC | Service Of Demand Notice On Corporate Debtor's Key Managerial Personnel Is Valid To Trigger Insolvency Process : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 29) upheld the delivery of a demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) to the corporate debtor's Key Managerial Personnel (KMP), stating that the delivery of the notice to the KMP substantially complies with the requirement of Section 8 of IBC. Setting aside the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) ruling, the bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan allowed the Operational Creditor's appeal, stating...
S.34 Arbitration Act | Respect Arbitral Autonomy; Judicial Interference Should Be Minimal : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reiterated that the courts cannot go beyond the scope of Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) while deciding an application for setting aside of an award."the role of the court under Section 34 of the 1996 Act is clearly demarcated. It is a restrictive jurisdiction and has to be invoked in a conservative manner. The reason is that arbitral autonomy must be respected and judicial interference should remain minimal otherwise it will...
Central Excise Tariff Act | Test Reports Justifying Reclassification Must Be Disclosed to Manufacturer : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled that when a test report forms the basis for reclassification of the petrochemical products, necessitating a higher duty, than the copy of such test reports ought to be furnished to the manufacturer-taxpayer. The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the ₹2.15 crore central excise duty demand against M/s Oswal Petrochemicals Ltd., holding that the revenue authorities had violated principles of natural justice by failing to share key evidence—such as...
Arbitral Award For Claims Not Included In IBC Resolution Plan Can't Be Enforced: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently allowed an appeal challenging the enforcement of an arbitral award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) against Electrosteel Steels Ltd., holding that the award was non-executable in view of the resolution plan approved under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016.“we have no hesitation to hold that upon approval of the resolution plan by the NCLT, the claim of the respondent being outside the purview of the...