Supreme Court: Past Ad Hoc Service Counts for Pension, Not Seniority Against Direct Recruits  ||  SC: CPC Amendment Allowed When New Facts and Reliefs Directly Relate to Existing Dispute  ||  SC: Governing Law Clause Relevant to Determine Arbitral Seat When Two Venues Are Named  ||  Supreme Court: Section 161 CrPC Statements Can Be Considered at Cognizance Stage, Not at Trial  ||  Bombay High Court Directs Release of Protesters Held over Anti-ECI Agitations  ||  Kerala High Court Orders State to Pay Rs. 21,000 Post-Surgery Assistance to Transgender Person  ||  Madras High Court: DVAC Not Entitled to Blanket RTI Exemption in Corruption Cases  ||  Karnataka High Court Strikes Down Enhanced SC/ST Quota for Breaching 50% Reservation Cap  ||  Delhi HC: First-Come, First-Served Policy for Ramleela Ground Allotment is Unfair  ||  Kerala HC Upholds Automatic Revocation of Christian Wills on Marriage under S.69 Succession Act    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved