SC: Clarificatory Statement Does Not Constitute a Binding Undertaking for Contempt Proceedings  ||  Supreme Court: Litigant Cannot be Worse Off for Filing an Appeal under ‘No Reformatio in Peius’  ||  Orissa HC: Article 22(1) Arrest Rights Pre-Exist, Written Grounds Ruling Not Prospective  ||  Kerala HC: Kissing a Child’s Penis Constitutes Penetrative Sexual Assault under POCSO  ||  Madras HC: Married Daughter Cannot be Denied Compassionate Appointment Solely for Her Marriage  ||  Bombay High Court: Child Welfare Prevails as ‘Joint Parenting’ is Not Recognised in Indian Law  ||  Kerala HC: Minor’s Consent or Relationship with Accused Holds No Relevance under POCSO Act  ||  Bombay HC: Failure to Prove Exact Quantum of Loss Does Not Bar Compensation  ||  CCPA Fines Dial4Trade Rs. 10 Lakh for Online Ammonium Nitrate Listing Featuring Blast Images  ||  Supreme Court: Multiple Cases Alone Cannot Justify an Externment Order    

Armada (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. Ashapura Minechem Ltd. - (High Court of Bombay) (08 Sep 2015)

Execution of arbitration of arbitral award impermissible without permission of BIFR

MANU/MH/2374/2015

Arbitration

Mere violation of Indian law is not sufficient to raise an objection for enforcement of the foreign award under Section 48 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. In a case where Petitioner sought execution of awards made by a foreign arbitrator, the Court held that though the awards were decreed, the Petitioner could not go ahead the same without permission from the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, in violation of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

Relevant : Section 22 Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 Act Tropic Shipping Company Limited vs. Kothari Global Limited MANU/MH/0790/2001 Penn Racquet Sports vs. Mayor International Ltd. MANU/DE/0147/2011

Tags : ARBITRATION   SICA   FOREIGN   BIFR  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved