Cal. HC: Cannot Differentiate Between Contractual and Permanent Employees For Maternity Leave  ||  Supreme Court: Entering Into Sale Agreement With Minor is Void and Unenforceable  ||  SC: Information Disclosing Cognizable Offence to Be Recorded as FIR & Not in General Diary  ||  Delhi High Court: Deployment of CISF Personnel Shall be Based on Operational Requirements  ||  All. HC: Returning Unpaid Check With Endorsement of Account Closed Amounts to Dishnonor of Cheque  ||  Karnataka HC: Courts Should Ensure That Legal Procedures Are Not Abused in Order to Reduce Burden  ||  Utt. HC: Joining in Service Cannot Be Denied to Woman on The Ground of Her Pregnancy  ||  Kar. HC: Can’t Stretch Protection u/a 21 to Those Posing Threat to Nation’s Sovereignty & Integrity  ||  Delhi High Court: Can’t Stop Student From Entering Exam Hall Once Admit Card Issued  ||  Supreme Court Asks Medical Colleges Either to Pay Stipend or Not Have Internship    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved