Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
Popular Search: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: form 3cd :: empanelment :: TDS :: cpt :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: VAT RATES :: VAT Audit :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: due date for vat payment :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4%
« News Headlines »
 ICAI to organise two-day international conference in Hyderabad
 Here's how to calculate tax payable on your capital gains
 Income Tax calculations for the financial year 2016-17
 CPE Events 17 October - 22 October 2016
 High Court raps I-T Department for wrong tax demand
  CBDT signs 5 advance pricing pacts with Indian taxpayers
 Finance ministry warns tax officials of action against GST protest
 Big changes for small units under GST
 Parliament’s winter session to begin on November 16 to expedite GST rollout
 Income-tax (27th Amendment) Rules, 2016 - 92/2016
 Announcement - Clarifications in Respect of MEF 2016-17

Time-bar rule relaxed
July, 17th 2006

The Supreme Court last week relaxed a rule regarding the time limit in cases under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The court ruled that if a party filed a suit in a court which had no jurisdiction, under the bona fide belief that it had jurisdiction, the period lost in the proceedings would not be counted for the time-bar under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 
The judgment was passed in State of Goa versus Western Builders and several other appeals. In this case, the courts barred hearing to the Goa government as it was late and had moved the wrong court. 
The government also lost in the Bombay High Court, which maintained that under the new arbitration law, it was time-barred from filing a suit. The Supreme Court set aside all such orders and ruled that the benefit of Section 14 was available to parties under the new arbitration law. 
State Bank wins indemnity case 
The Supreme Court last week set aside a judgment of the Bombay High Court in a case, State Bank of India versus Mula Sahakari Sakhar Kharkhana Ltd. The cooperative sugar factory had a contract with Pentagon Engineering Ltd for setting up a paper factory from bagasse. 
The bank furnished a guarantee/indemnity for the deal. When disputes arose, the matter went to the high court, which held that the deed was a bank guarantee and should be honoured as such. 
On appeal, the Supreme Court held that it was not an unconditional bank guarantee, but constituted a contract of indemnity. 
Sentence quashed in cheque case 
The Supreme Court last week set aside a judgment of the Kerala High Court in a case of dishonoured cheque (MS Narayana Menon versus State of Kerala) and quashed the sentence of one-year imprisonment on the drawer. 
A member of the Cochin Stock Exchange alleged that the drawer of the cheque used to carry on transactions in shares and one of the cheques bounced because of insufficient funds. The drawer of the cheque maintained that it was given for the purpose of discounting. 
He also contended that the broker was in dire financial need and the cheque was furnished as a loan. The trial court stated that the drawer had not discharged the burden of proof under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The high court upheld the view. 
However, the Supreme Court stated that while the drawer had discharged his burden of proof, the broker had failed to do so. The sentence was set aside. 
Tribunal to decide bonus spat 
The Supreme Court last week set aside a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and asked an industrial tribunal to settle a dispute between AP Foods and more than 200 of its workers. The state government stopped the payment of ex-gratia bonus. 
The high court quashed the decision. The government undertaking appealed to the Supreme Court, which said it was an industrial dispute and could not be decided by the high court. The apex court referred the dispute to the tribunal. 

M J Antony

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
System Testing Solution Manual Software Testing Solutions Automation Software Testing Solutions System Workflow Testing System Manual Testing

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions