Topic
The Delhi High Court upheld arrest warrants against an authorized representative for concealing bank assets during execution of an arbitral award, holding that Order XXI Rule 41(3) CPC imposes personal liability despite the corporate veil.
Bombay HC grants interim protection under Section 9, directing deposit of Rs.2,14,99,523 with 18% interest and asset disclosure within seven days. Court relies on repeated MOU admissions of liability and dishonoured security cheques, preserving prima facie case for secured creditor.
Bombay High Court mandates asset disclosure as a precondition for enforcing a foreign arbitral award under Section 9, directing security for USD 610,818.68. The ruling underscores that non-disclosure of executable assets may jeopardize interim protection, reinforcing the need for compliance with enforcement proceedings.
Bombay High Court rules that interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act remains available even after a Section 34 challenge, but only if the applicant demonstrates concrete evidence of potential asset dissipation. The court permitted asset disclosure and deposit of the awarded amount to prevent award frustration, setting a precedent for post-award asset protection in arbitration disputes.
The Bombay High Court granted interim asset disclosure and injunction against a former HR employee who siphoned over Rs. 8 crores through fake payroll claims, relying on his own confession and evidence of investments in real estate and bank accounts. This ruling reinforces that courts will not hesitate to freeze assets even before trial when fraud is confessed and funds are demonstrably dissipated, setting a critical precedent for corporate fraud recovery.
Bombay High Court grants interim asset disclosure and injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, affirming courts' power to preserve subject matter before arbitral proceedings commence.
Bombay High Court holds that repeated failure to disclose assets in execution proceedings constitutes contempt, reinforcing judicial authority over debtor obfuscation.
ITAT holds that unexplained gold under Section 69A must be valued at the assessee's actual cost price, not customs or market rate, setting a precedent for asset valuation in income tax assessments.