9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in view of Explanation in the Arbitration and Concilliation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the "Amended Ordinance-2015") or whether the District Court would cease to have jurisdiction to proceed with the execution of the foreign arbitration awards, after coming into force of the Explanation to Section 47 by way of the Amended Ordinance-2015 and the execution pending before the District Judge has to be filed in the High Court? In brief, the petitioner filed an application before the District Judge, Gurgaon, under Section 47 (Part II) of the Act for enforcement and execution of the foreign arbitration awards passed by the Sole Arbitrator appointed by the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre in Hong Kong under the terms of the repayment agreement dated 27.05.2013 executed between the petitioner and respondent No.2. During the pendency of the said execution application, Amended Ordinance-2015, promulgated by the President of India on 23.10.2015, came into force and hence, an application was filed by respondent No.2 for dismissal of the execution application for want of jurisdiction on the ground that the execution application is not maintainable in te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence as may be necessary to prove that the award is a foreign award. (2) If the award or agreement to be produced under sub-section (1) is in a foreign language, the party seeking to enforce the award shall produce a translation into English certified as correct by a diplomatic or consular agent of the country to which that party belongs or certified as correct in such other manner as may be sufficient according to the law in force in India. Explanation - In this Section and all the following sections of this Chapter, "Court" means the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the award if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, but does not include any civil court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court, or any Court of small causes." Explanation provided in the Amended Ordinance-2015 "21. In Section 47 of the Principal Act, for the Explanation, the following Explanation shall be substituted, namely:- 'Explanation- In this section and in the sections following in this Chapter "Court" means ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Rs. 12,500/- for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. The assessee's appeal was allowed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the penalties imposed were cancelled holding that in view of the amendment made to Section 274(2) of the IT Act with effect from 01.04.1971, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had lost his jurisdiction. Thereafter, on the Revenue's application, the Appellate Tribunal referred the consolidated case to the Orissa High Court under Section 256(1) of the IT Act with the question of law that "whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, and on a true interpretation of Section 274, as amended by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to whom the case was referred prior to April 1, 1971, had jurisdiction to impose penalty?" The Division Bench of the Orissa High Court answered the question in favour of the assessee and, thereafter, the matter reached to the Supreme Court. It was observed by the Supreme Court that till April 1, 1971 the Income Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act if the minimum penalty imposable exceeded Rs. 1,000/- and in such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l order if the amount of income in respect of which the particulars have been concealed did not exceed Rs. 25,000/-". Finally, the following observations were also made by the Supreme Court:- "26. Surely the amending Act does not show that the pending proceedings before the court on reference abate. 27. We are thus of the considered view that the advisory opinion given by the High Court to the question referred to it was wrong and the answer should be in favour of the appellant and it is held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to whom the case was referred prior to April 1, 1971 had jurisdiction to impose the penalty. The view expressed by the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Om Sons and the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. M.Y. Chandragi does not, therefore, lay down the correct law." On the other hand, in Sudhir G. Angur's case (supra), the facts were that respondents No.1 and 2 therein filed a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the "CPC"). The appellants opposed the grant of leave, which was allowed and the revision filed against that order was dismissed. While contesting the grant of leave, the appellants did n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
