Skip to main content

After arbitration, witness has no role

After an award is passed in an arbitration, there cannot be any examination or cross-examination of witnesses in court on an allegation of legal misconduct by the arbitrator. The court can only examine the records of the arbitration proceedings, the Supreme Court has stated in its judgment, Cochin Shipyard Ltd vs Apeejay Shipping Ltd. "Examination of any witness in court is impermissible to substantiate legal misconduct on the part of the arbitrator. It is because it must be palpable from the proceedings," the court said. In this case, the government undertaking agreed to build a ship for Apeejay. Disputes arose between them which were referred to arbitration by a retired Supreme Court judge. The shipyard moved the civil judge to execute the award of 2009. Apeejay then wanted to examine the arbitrator and the general manager (GM) on its allegation that the arbitrator was guilty of legal misconduct (not moral misconduct, which is different in law). The judge rejected it. The Kerala High Court also rejected the demand, but allowed the GM to be examined along with the records of arbitration. The shipyard, therefore, moved the Supreme Court against the demand for examination of witness. It ruled that the examination should be only of the evidence on record and not of witnesses through oral examination.

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/compulsory-pre-emptive-buying-held-illegal-115111500777_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more