Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J
Empire Industries Limited, Represented by Mr. Yogesh Grover – Appellant
Versus
Five Star Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
ORDER :
This petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the impugned arbitral award dated 02.11.2023 passed in favour of the respondent against the petitioners.
2. The petitioners are the respondents and the respondent is the claimant in the arbitration. The petitioners used the sea food processing facility of the respondent for the purpose of pre-processing, processing, packing and storing all type of marine products and they entered into an agreement dated 05.02.2018 with the respondent. There arose disputes between the respondent and the petitioners with regard to payment of Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST).
3. Clause 12 of the agreement dated 05.02.2018 is the payment of GST clause. As per the said clause, the applicable GST charges has to paid by the petitioners (Exporter) to the respondent (Processor). According to the petitioners, in respect of clause 12 of the agreement, they are liable only to pay GST at 5% as per the invoices raised by the respondent. Whereas, according to the respondent, since they have received show cause notices from the GST Department under Section 74 of the CGST Act claiming that the rate of G
The court upheld the arbitrator's award, confirming the petitioners' liability for differential GST and associated costs under the agreement, emphasizing limited grounds for judicial interference und....
The court emphasized that an arbitral award must be reasoned and address core contractual issues, with judicial intervention restricted to cases of patent illegality under Section 34 of the Arbitrati....
The limited grounds for interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, emphasize the concept of patent illegality and the criteria for setting asi....
Arbitrability of claims hinges on adherence to procedural agreements; claimants can seek interest despite contractual prohibitions, reflecting arbitral authority.
Liquidated damages require proof of actual losses; insufficient reasoning in arbitral decisions can render findings arbitrary.
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of interference with arbitral awards and the principle that courts should not interfere with arbitral awards unless there is a patent illegality or violation....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
