Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 29 - August 4, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 291 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 298 NOMINAL INDEX Thejo Engineering Limited Versus The Deputy Director of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 291 Vipul Kumar Tulsian and anr vs M/s.Sundaram Finance Ltd, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 292 Larsen & Toubro Limited vs M/s.Texmo Pipes and Products Limited, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 293 The Secretary, Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly v P Sivakumar (batch cases), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 294 Deepak and Another v The Chief Educational Officer and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 295 Felix Jerald v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 296 Natraj v Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 297 A Manikandan v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 298 REPORT Foreign Tax Credit Can't Be Denied In Spite Of Accepting Computation: Madras High Court Case Title: Thejo Engineering Limited Versus The Deputy Director of Income Tax Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 291 The Madras High Court has held that the claim of foreign tax credit cannot be denied in spite of accepting the computation. The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, on examining the company tax return and the activity statements, appears prima facie that the petitioner has remitted taxes through the Australian branch. It is clear that foreign tax credit in respect thereof was claimed by the petitioner by filing Form 67 with relevant annexures. On examining the intimation under Section 143(1) and the rectification order, the foreign tax credit was computed by the assessing officer, and the computation tallied with the foreign tax credit claim of the assessee. In spite of accepting the computation of the taxpayer, the tax credit relief was denied. Unilateral Appointment Of Arbitrator & Non Service Of Notice :Madras High Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award Case Title: Vipul Kumar Tulsian and anr vs M/s.Sundaram Finance Ltd Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 292 The Madras High Court bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has set aside an arbitral award where the opposite party proceeded with arbitration unilaterally and appointed the Arbitrator without any intimation to the claimants. Further, the claimants neither received notices of hearing nor appeared before the Tribunal, and consequently, the Arbitrator did not afford any opportunity to claimants to contest the matter. Therefore, the bench held that such an arbitral award was against the public policy of India and violated the principles of natural justice. Formal Contract Signature Not Required To Enforce Arbitration Clause If Parties Are Ad Idem: Madras High Court Case Title: Larsen & Toubro Limited vs M/s.Texmo Pipes and Products Limited Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 293 The Madras High Court division bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has held that if it is proved that if it is established that the parties are ad idem, a formal contract signature by the other party is not necessary to enforce the arbitration agreement. The High Court noted that, to establish an arbitration agreement, there must be mutual consent between the parties. Section 7(4)(b) of the Arbitration Act allows an arbitration agreement to be derived from various forms of communication, including electronic means, as amended by the 2015 Amendment Act. This provision states that even without a formal contract, if parties are found to be ad idem, they cannot avoid liability under the agreement. The High Court emphasized the importance of the parties' intentions in determining the existence of an arbitration agreement. It held that arbitration is fundamentally consensual and its enforcement relies on the parties' agreement to settle disputes through this mechanism. Madras HC Revives Breach Of Privilege Notices Issued To CM Stalin & Other MLAs, Says Proceedings Didn't Lapse Merely Due To Change In Govt Case Title: The Secretary, Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly v P Sivakumar (batch cases) Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 294 The Madras High Court on Wednesday set aside a single judge order that quashed show cause notices issued to current CM MK Stalin and other MLAs from the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party on the issue of breach of privilege while displaying gutka sachets inside the Tamil Nadu Legislative assembly in 2017. The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan made it clear that issues such as breach of privilege could not be washed away with a new assembly. The court highlighted that such issues should be deliberated for the people's best interest. Though it was argued that the breach of privilege proceedings lapse with the dissolution of the assembly, the court noted that if such a view was to be accepted, the purpose of granting privileges would become meaningless. The court highlighted that in such situations, the members may end up not taking the privileges seriously thus leading to utter chaos. RTE Act Extends To Education From Kindergarten To 8th...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 29 - August 4, 2024

Upasana Sajeev

Tags