Calcutta High Court held Arbitrator’s refusal to decide question of interest under the MSMED Act constitutes a “decision” and therefore, can be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
“The decree holder was not required to await the outcome of the objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, however, if it did choose to remain under a self-imposed embargo, then it can’t demand interest.”
“A levy of interest on refund must undoubtedly follow where it was found that the amount has been unjustifiably retained or remitted with undue delay and thus, the respondents cannot be permitted to retain moneys which are otherwise not due or are otherwise liable to be returned.”
“The Tribunal provided reasons for the findings delivered, and there was no perversity apparent on the face of the record or which goes to the root of the matter. Therefore, the impugned Award could not be said to be patently illegal.”
Allahabad High Court clarified that the decision rendered in Divakar Dwivedi case must apply to all the Judicial Officers, irrespective of the fact that they had not filed writ petitions.
by Ketan D. Parikh†
The Manipur High Court held that paucity of funds could not be a ground for denying payment of salaries and therefore, directed the release of salaries due payable for ten years along with interest at 6% per annum.
The Supreme Court observed that taxation depends upon the language of the charging section and what is brought to tax within the four corners of the charging section.
Delhi High Court: In a case filed questioning whether the cumulative sum of Rs. 1,80,10,000/- deposited on behalf of the
Delhi High Court: In a petition filed challenging the vires of Rule 14 of Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT): While deciding the instant appeal wherein the relevant question arose that whether the interest paid on late
Jharkhand High Court: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order
Allahabad High Court: Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. allowed a bail application in a case registered under sections 376, 506 Penal Code, 1860
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): The Division Coram of Sulekha Beevi C.S. (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical
On 04-07-2022, the Central Consumer Protection Authority (‘CCPA’) has issued Guidelines to prevent unfair trade practices and to protect the consumer interest
Calcutta High Court: Amrita Sinha, J. disposed of a petition which was filed by an Assistant Teacher who retired from service on
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) partly allowed an appeal which raised the question as to
Gujarat High Court: Biren Vaishnav, J., reiterated that, interest on delayed payment of gratuity is mandatory and not discretionary. The petitioner had
by Bishwajit Dubey† and Prafful Goyal††
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 25
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): The Coram of Dinesh Singh (Presiding Member) and Justice Karuna Nand Bajpayee (Member) expressed that in