Non-Signatory, Non-Existent LLP Cannot Invoke Arbitration Protection Through Group Of Companies Doctrine: Meghalaya High Court

The Meghalaya High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Suraksha Salvia LLP against the State Government's termination of a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) for a diagnostic centre in Shillong, ruling that a company that was not even in existence on the date of agreement execution cannot seek protection under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice H.S. Thangkhiew, on Tuesday, upheld the Commercial Court's...

Award Holder Cannot Claim Compound Interest When Tribunal Grants Only Simple Interest In Arbitral Award: Meghalaya High Court

The Meghalaya High Court set aside an order of the Commercial Court, Shillong which had accepted the calculation of the award holder's method of calculating interest and directed Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (PGCIL) to pay the remaining amount under an arbitral award. The Court held that the Executing Court had effectively modified the award by permitting computation of compound interest when the award simply contemplated only simple interest. Justice B. Bhattacharjee held that...

Disputes Over Disaffiliation Of State Golf Associations Can Be Referred To Arbitration Under Clause 66 Of IGU Rules: Meghalaya High Court

The Meghalaya High Court bench of Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, in a notable judgment has observed that the dispute resolution clause provided in Clause 66 of the IGU Rules and Regulations would apply to instances of disaffiliation of a state golf association by the Indian Golf Union (IGU) and the arbitration would be conducted under the aegis of Arbitration Commission of the Indian Olympic Association. However, seeing the gross violations of principles of natural justice, the Court allowed...

Once Revision Order Become Final, No Question Of Passing Another Order Will Arise: Meghalaya High Court

The Meghalaya High Court has held that once the revision order becomes final, no question of passing another order will arise.The bench of Chief Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice W. Diengdoh has observed that the Assessing Officer had passed an order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was set aside by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong. The order of reassessment was passed by the assessing officer. Once the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,...

Meghalaya High Court Directs Customs Commissioner To Refund Rs. 60 Lakhs For Destroying Seized Betel Nuts

The Meghalaya High Court has directed the customs commissioner to refund Rs. 60 lakh for destroying seized betel nuts.The bench of Justice H. S. Thangkhiew has observed that the Tribunal found that the goods were neither imported nor proved to be smuggled. Though the case was assailed before the Division Bench and ultimately before the Supreme Court, it was dismissed.The goods of the petitioner, betelnuts weighing 32 MT, had been seized by the customs commissioner. The petitioner prayed for...

Resolution Applicant Not Bound To Pay Past Dues When No Claim Is Made, Even If Electricity Dues Are Statutory In Character: Meghalaya High Court

The Meghalaya High Court has held that a State authority cannot compel a successful resolution applicant under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code) to pay past electricity dues, if the State authority has not made any claim in respect of its dues under approved resolution plan.The Petitioner-Company, Reliance Infratel was admitted to insolvency and a resolution plan was approved by the National Company Law Tribunal. Reliance Projects and Property Management Solutions...

Right Of Appeal Relating To Value Of Service Maintainable Before Supreme Court: Meghalaya High Court

The Meghalaya High Court has held that the right of appeal relating to the value of service is maintainable before the Supreme Court.The bench of Chief Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice W. Diengdoh has observed that there is an appellate remedy available to the appellant or to the aggrieved party in terms of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944; the issue pertaining to the value of service cannot be agitated before the High Court. The party has a right only before the Supreme Court in...

Mandate Of The Arbitral Tribunal Can Only Be Extended By The High Court If The Tribunal Was Constituted Pursuant To Directions Under Section 11(6) Of The A&C Act: Meghalaya High Court

The Bench of Justice H.S. Thangkhiew of Meghalaya High Court has held that the mandate of the arbitral tribunal can only be extended by the High Court under Section 29A of the A&C Act if the tribunal was constituted pursuant to the directions issued by the Court under Section 11(6) of the Act.The Court held that though the Court may have directed the nominee arbitrators of the parties to appoint the presiding arbitrator, the mandate of the tribunal constituted pursuant to such directions can...

Principal Civil Courts Can Extend Or Substitute Mandate Of Arbitrator If Not Originally Appointed By High Court Or Supreme Court: Meghalaya High Court

The Meghalaya High Court single judge bench of Justice H. S. Thangkhiew held that Principal Civil Courts of original jurisdiction have the jurisdiction to extend or substitute the mandate of arbitrators under Section 29A of the A&C Act, 1996, only when the arbitrator was not appointed by the High Court or the Supreme Court. Brief Facts:An Arbitral Tribunal was established on March 13, 2019, to address a dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent. However, it faced...

Excise Act | Meghalaya High Court Upholds Order Granting Interest To Assessee On Refund Of Deposit Made 'Under Protest' During Investigation

The Meghalaya High Court on Wednesday upheld the order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) granting interest on the delayed refund of a deposit made by the assessee under protest, during investigation for allegedly claiming excess cenvat credit.Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh observed that Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which bars payment of interest for refund of duty or interest will not be attracted to this case...

Order Of Executing Court Staying Execution Of Award Under O 21, R 26 CPC Is Within Jurisdiction: Meghalaya High Court

The Meghalaya High Court has ruled that there is no specific provision in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) as regard execution or stay of an arbitral award. Therefore, the order passed by the Executing Court who stayed the execution of the award by resorting to Order XXI Rule 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), was within its jurisdiction, the court held. The bench of Justice W. Diengdoh observed that the Executing Court had passed the order to enable...

Meghalaya High Court Imposes ₹10L Cost On PWD For Unnecessary Litigation, Says "Voluminous Tomes" Won't Dissuade Judges From Looking Deep

The Meghalaya High Court while upholding an arbitral award has ordered the Public Works Department (National Highway) to pay a contractor Rs. 10 lakh over and above the award amount, saying that PWD put the contractor through unnecessary litigation."This is a complete waste of time and a reckless exercise undertaken by an irresponsible appellant...It has become fashionable, particularly for public sector undertakings and government litigants, to throw sheafs of paper at the court and believe...