You may also like...
-
Such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that as the dispute itself is not resolved by MSEF Council, only the matter has been referred to Arbitration with the consent of the parties, further the contract governing the parties also provides for such reference to arbitration, the second respondent has also already invoked the Arbitration Clause by issuing notice in the year 2013 itself and the petitioner has also participated in the said arbitration proceedings, now the petitioner cannot challenge the impugned order at this belated stage that to when the arbitration proceedings is in the final stage. Further, when the parties have consciously agreed to resolve the dispute arising out of the contract by way of arbitration, they can very well agitate their right before the Arbitrator and canvass their points and no prejudice would be caused to them since the Arbitrator has been independently appointed by the Arbitration Center of the Madras High Court. Such view of the matter, this Court finds no merit in this writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 03.01.2023 Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No kk To The Chairman, Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Represented by its Regional Joint Director of Industries and Commerce, Thiru-vi-ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. The Hon’ble Presiding Arbitrator, Madras High Court Arbitration Centre, High Court, Parry’s Corner, George Town, Chennai – 600 108. N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. kk W.P.No.6216 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.6834 of 2021 03.01.2023
by Sekar Reporter · Published January 7, 2023
-
We are not going to rely on newspapers to arrive at judicial decisions”, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday when a petitioner referred to media reports about statement of vice-chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) on the alleged police atrocities on students protesting against the
by Sekar Reporter · Published December 19, 2019
-
Justice M.Duraiswamy and T.V.Tamilselvi held that even if the assessee is engaged in the category of activity of “object of general public utility”, they are entitled for registration under Section 12A. Therefore, the court held that the assessee can claim registration under Section 12A by categorising the activity of the assessee as “object of general public utility”. “In these circumstances, we do not find any error or irregularity in the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. We find no ground much less any substantial question of law to interfere with the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,” the court while dismissing the appeal said.
by Sekar Reporter · Published February 10, 2021
