S. 33 Arbitration Act | Clarification On Award Can Be Issued Even After Arbitral Tribunal Becomes Functus Officio : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that although the Arbitral Tribunal becomes functus officio after passing an award, it would still retain the limited jurisdiction to clarify or correct errors in an award under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). The bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the appeal filed against the Delhi High Court's decision allowing the respondent to seek clarification from the Arbitral Tribunal about whether...

Arbitration Can't Be 'Optional' When Agreement Provides Arbitration Clause : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that there cannot be an 'optional' arbitration, where parties are required to mutually agree to invoke the arbitration clause.Setting aside the MP High Court's decision, the Court said that there is nothing like 'optional arbitration' that could be invoked after both parties mutually agree to invoke the arbitration clause. According to the Court, arbitration is not 'optional' in practice.“In our view, it cannot be said that the arbitration clause is optional in the sense...

Disputes Falling Exclusively Within Jurisdiction Of Statutory Authorities Aren't Arbitrable : Supreme Court Reiterates

The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that disputes falling exclusively within the jurisdiction of statutory authorities are not arbitrable.While holding so, the bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta ruled that the dispute related to wages and termination of an employee were non-arbitrable and would be exclusively dealt with by the statutory authorities established under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (“PW Act”) and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”). “Insofar as...

ED Can Instruct Prosecutors On Facts, But Cannot Instruct How Prosecutors Should Act In Court: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (December 11) held that while the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and its director can give instructions related to facts of a case to prosecutors, they cannot dictate the prosecutors' actions in court.“We may also note here that the Enforcement Directorate and its Director can give instructions to public prosecutors on facts of the case. However, the Enforcement Directorate or its Director cannot give any instructions to the public prosecutor about what he ought to...

S. 14 Limitation Act Applicable To Proceedings Under Arbitration & Conciliation Act : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.Section 14 of the Limitation Act provides for the exclusion of the time spent in pursuing bona fide proceedings in a wrong forum from the computation of the period of limitation.A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra observed that it was necessary to interpret the provisions of the Limitation Act liberally as there is only a limited window to...

Supreme Court Flags “Disturbing Features” In ED's Arrest Of Ex-IAS Officer In Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam

The Supreme Court on Friday (December 6) highlighted “disturbing features” of the arrest of former IAS officer Anil Tuteja by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case connection with the Chhattisgarh liquor scam andA bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih noted that Tuteja was taken by ED from the ACB office, interrogated throughput the night and then shown as arrested only at 4 am in the morning.“We must record a very disturbing feature of...

Subsequent Purchaser Of Imported Vehicle Cannot Be Asked To Pay Customs Duty; Liability On Importer : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled that the 'subsequent purchaser' of an imported motor car cannot be called an 'importer' to attract the liability under the Customs Act, 1962 to pay customs duty on the import of the vehicle. The bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice N Kotiswar Singh heard the appeal preferred by the subsequent purchaser of a Porsche Car against the High Court's decision upholding the demand of custom duty of ₹17,92,847 from the appellant along with other individuals on the...

Supreme Court Judgment In 'Arvind Kejriwal' Requiring ED To Supply 'Reasons To Believe' To Arrestee Cannot Apply Retrospectively: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that the condition of supplying the “reasons to believe” by ED to a person arrested under PMLA as a separate document as per Supreme Court's ruling in Arvind Kejriwal case ought to be applied prospectively. Justice Anish Dayal said that the ED could not be expected to comply with the additional condition, if the arrest was made in the pre-Arvind Kejriwal judgment period. On July 12, the Supreme Court, while granting bail to Kejriwal in the liquor policy case, had...

Explained| Why Supreme Court Allowed Benefit Of TOLA In Extending Timelimits For Issuing Income Tax Reassessment Notices

The Supreme Court in its recent decision allowed the revenue authorities to issue notices for reassessment under the Income Tax Act for the period between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 by granting the benefit of time extensions under Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions Act) (TOLA) 2021. Here is a detailed breakdown of the key issue involved and the analysis of the Court in allowing a batch of 727 appeals filed by the Income Tax Department against the various...

TOLA Extends Income Tax Reasssment Timelimit; Notices Can Be Issued After 2021 Under Old Regime : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday (October 3) set aside the judgments of the High Courts which held that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions Act) (TOLA) 2021 will not extend the time limit for issuing notices for re-assessment under the Income Tax Act.A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra delivered the judgment allowing a batch of 727 appeals filed by the Income Tax Department against the various orders...

'Technological Impediment Can't Be A Reason To Harass Assessee' : Supreme Court Asks Income Tax Dept, CBDT To Resolve Software Issues

Technological impediment cannot be a reason to harass an assessee, said the Supreme Court while asking the Income Tax Department to upgrade its software to ensure that mistakes do not occur in the future.The Court directed that the Central Board for Direct Taxes should also take necessary steps for rectifying the software.A bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta was hearing an appeal filed by an assessee questioning the imposition of surcharge on Rs. 1.57 Crores and demanding...

Writ Petition Against An Award Passed By A Facilitation Council Under MSMED Act Not Maintainable: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that a writ petition against an award passed by a Facilitation Council under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006 would not be maintainable. The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra held that the correct remedy against an award under the Act was provided under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and approaching a High Court instead of pursuing the said remedy...