International Airports Authority v. K.D. Bali

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 5 Kolkata vs. Premier Tie Up Pvt Ltd

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

…ward is vitiated. He relied upon the following decisions:- a. ACE Pipeline Contracts (P) Ltd. v. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. reported in (2007) 5 SCC 304, paragraph 21; b. International Airports Authority v. K.D. Bali, (1988) 2 SCC 360 reported in (1988) 2 SCC 360; c. Himadri Chemicals & Industries Ltd. v. Steel Authority of India Limited reported in 2012 SCC Online CAL 3589, paragraphs 22, 23, and 28. 24. He submits that in view of the clear mandate of Section 12 of the Act, there is no need to prove actual bias on the part of the Arbitrator. The award is therefore vitiated. He relies upon paragraph…

Commnr. of Customs, Bangalore vs. M/S. G.M. Exports

Appeals are disposed of

Bench: Us; Some Of Them Are From The Bombay High Court Judgment Dated 15.12.2011 & The Kerala High Court Judgment Dated 15.07.2009. Others Are Appeals Against A Karnataka Tribunal (Bangalore) Judgment & A Bombay Tribunal Judgment, Which Follows The Bombay High Court Judgment Referred To Above. Since All These Appeals Raise A Common Question Of Law Of Some Complexity Relating To Anti-Dumping Duty, The Said Appeals Have Been Bunched Together & Are Being Disposed Of Together. It May Also Be Stated That The Preponderant View, That Is The View Of Both The Bombay & Kerala High Courts & The Bombay Tribunal, Is In Favour Of The Construction Suggested By Revenue. Only The Karnataka Tribunal (Bangalore) Has Decided In Favour Of The Assessee. 2

…llowed by the Courts of Law. To support we may refer to Justice H.R. Khanna's opinion in Addl. Distt. Magistrate Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla [(1976) 2 SCC 521 : AIR 1976 SC 1207], Jolly George 35 Page 36 JUDGMENT Varghese v. Bank of Cochin [(1980) 2 SCC 360 : AIR 1980 SC 470] and Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey, [(1984) 2 SCC 534 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 313 : AIR 1984 SC 667].” [at para 15] 21. Similarly in Daya Singh Lahoria v. Union of India and others, (2001) 4 SCC 516, when construing Section 21 of the Extradition Act, 1962, this Court referred to the Extradition Treaty a…

Commnr. of Customs, Bangalore vs. M/S. G.M. Exports

Appeals are disposed of

Bench: Us; Some Of Them Are From The Bombay High Court Judgment Dated 15.12.2011 & The Kerala High Court Judgment Dated 15.07.2009. Others Are Appeals Against A Karnataka Tribunal (Bangalore) Judgment & A Bombay Tribunal Judgment, Which Follows The Bombay High Court Judgment Referred To Above. Since All These Appeals Raise A Common Question Of Law Of Some Complexity Relating To Anti-Dumping Duty, The Said Appeals Have Been Bunched Together & Are Being Disposed Of Together. It May Also Be Stated That The Preponderant View, That Is The View Of Both The Bombay & Kerala High Courts & The Bombay Tribunal, Is In Favour Of The Construction Suggested By Revenue. Only The Karnataka Tribunal (Bangalore) Has Decided In Favour Of The Assessee. 2

…llowed by the Courts of Law. To support we may refer to Justice H.R. Khanna's opinion in Addl. Distt. Magistrate Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla [(1976) 2 SCC 521 : AIR 1976 SC 1207], Jolly George 35 Page 36 JUDGMENT Varghese v. Bank of Cochin [(1980) 2 SCC 360 : AIR 1980 SC 470] and Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey, [(1984) 2 SCC 534 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 313 : AIR 1984 SC 667].” [at para 15] 21. Similarly in Daya Singh Lahoria v. Union of India and others, (2001) 4 SCC 516, when construing Section 21 of the Extradition Act, 1962, this Court referred to the Extradition Treaty a…