Kerala High Court: ED Can Investigate Without FIR in Scheduled Offence Cases (CMRL Matter)  ||  Delhi High Court Upholds TRAI Rule Capping TV Advertisements at 12 Minutes Per Hour  ||  Supreme Court Directs High Courts to Deliver Judgments in 3 Months and Bail Orders in One Day  ||  Supreme Court: Successful Resolution Applicant Cannot Negotiate Further After CoC Approval  ||  Supreme Court: Succession Law Applies, Not Primogeniture, to Ex-Royal’s Private Estate Inheritance  ||  Supreme Court: Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Challenge Arbitrator’s Section 16 Decision  ||  Supreme Court: Sanyasi Status Cannot Be Ground to Reject Land Compensation Claim  ||  Supreme Court: Section 33(1)(a) of Arbitration Act Cannot Alter Nature of Interest in Award  ||  Supreme Court: Society Office Bearers Not Liable for Cheque Dishonour Without Active Business Role  ||  Supreme Court: Asking a Woman to Adjust in Marriage Does Not Amount to Cruelty By In-Laws    

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