401

The procedural irregularities like some of the Orders not been signed by the Arbitrator and one of the Arbitrators not being present during certain Arbitral Proceeding are such which do not affect the rights of the parties or cause denial of justice to any of the parties – MMTC Ltd. Vs. Aust Grain Exports Pty. Ltd. – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble High Court referred the judgment in Jigar Vikamsey v. Bombay Stock Exchange Limited that the Arbitral Award can suffer from irregularity but the irregularity cannot be a ground to set aside the Award unless such irregularity goes to the root of the matter and shocks the conscience of the Court thus making the Award illegal.
In the present facts, the procedural irregularities like some of the Orders not been signed by the Arbitrator and one of the Arbitrators not being present during certain Arbitral Proceeding are such which do not affect the rights of the parties or cause denial of justice to any of the parties. These irregularities are not such which may affect the decision of the Arbitrators.

The procedural irregularities like some of the Orders not been signed by the Arbitrator and one of the Arbitrators not being present during certain Arbitral Proceeding are such which do not affect the rights of the parties or cause denial of justice to any of the parties – MMTC Ltd. Vs. Aust Grain Exports Pty. Ltd. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Both Provident Fund and Gratuity Fund is to be paid in full as per the Provisions of EPF and NP Act, 1952 and Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Central Board of Trustees Vs. Shri Kumar Rajan RP Hindustan Newsprint Ltd. – NCLAT Channai

NCLAT held that in the Jet Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Welfare Association Vs. Ashish Chhawchharia, Resolution Professional of Jet Airways (India) Ltd. & Ors. (2022) ibclaw.in 861 NCLAT judgment, a clear direction was given to the Successful Resolution Applicant to make payment of the admitted claims towards Provident Fund dues and the same was upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jalan Fritsch Consortium Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Anr. (2023) ibclaw.in 12 SC. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that the share of workmen dues shall be kept outside the Liquidation assets and the concerned workmen/Employees shall have to be paid the same, out of such Provident fund, Gratuity Fund, if any available. The words, ‘if any available’, cannot be read to mean that the workmen and empolyees are not entitled for Provident fund, Gratuity Fund, Pension fund, if not available with the Liquidator.

Both Provident Fund and Gratuity Fund is to be paid in full as per the Provisions of EPF and NP Act, 1952 and Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Central Board of Trustees Vs. Shri Kumar Rajan RP Hindustan Newsprint Ltd. – NCLAT Channai Read Post »

Scroll to Top