Calcutta HC: Award May Be Set Aside if Tribunal Rewrites Contract or Ignores Key Clauses  ||  Delhi HC Suspends Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s Life Term, Holding Section 5(C) of POCSO Not Made Out  ||  Calcutta High Court: Arbitration Clause in an Expired Lease Cannot be Invoked For a Fresh Lease  ||  Delhi High Court: 120-Day Timeline under Section 132B Of Income Tax Act is Not Mandatory  ||  NCLAT Reaffirms That Borrower's Debt Acknowledgment Also Extends Limitation Period for Guarantors  ||  NCLAT: Oppression & Mismanagement Petition Cannot Be Filed Without Company Membership on Filing Date  ||  Supreme Court Quashes Rajasthan Village Renaming, Says Government Must Follow its Own Policy  ||  NCLAT: NCLT Can Order Forensic Audit on its Own, No Separate Application Required  ||  NCLAT Reiterates That IBC Cannot be Invoked as a Recovery Tool for Contractual Disputes  ||  Delhi HC: DRI or Central Revenues Control Lab Presence in Delhi Alone Does Not Confer Jurisdiction    

Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. and Ors. v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd. - (High Court of Bombay) (28 Sep 2015)

Avitel’s petition against arbitral award dismissed

MANU/MH/2603/2015

Arbitration

The Bombay High Court dismissed Avitel Post Studioz’ petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against arbitral awards passed in 2012 and 2014. It found no ambiguity in the agreement entered into between Avitel and HSBC which excluded the Act, 1996, save for one provision. Reiterating the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, the court determined the awards to be challengeable in Singapore, seat of the arbitrators.

Relevant : Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd. Vs. ONGC Ltd. MANU/SC/0834/1998 Bharat Aluminium Company Vs. Kaiser Aluminum Technical Services Inc.MANU/SC/0722/2012

Tags : ARBITRATION   SEAT   CHALLENGE   EXCLUDE   JURISDICTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved