Supreme Court: Vacancies From Resignations under CUSAT Act Must Follow Communal Rotation  ||  Supreme Court: Forest Land Cannot Be Leased or Used For Agriculture Without Centre’s Approval  ||  Supreme Court: Gravity of Offence and Accused’s Role Must Guide Suspension of Sentence under CrPC  ||  Supreme Court: Arbitral Awards Cannot be Set Aside For Mere Legal Errors or Misreading of Evidence  ||  SC Acknowledges Child Trafficking as a Grave Reality and Issues Guidelines to Assess Victim Evidence  ||  Allahabad HC: When Parties Extend an Agreement by Conduct, The Arbitration Clause Extends Too  ||  Supreme Court: Issues of Party Capacity and Maintainability Must Be Decided by Arbitral Tribunal  ||  Supreme Court: Omissions in Chief Examination Can Be Rectified During Cross-Examination  ||  Supreme Court: Items Given by Accused to Police Are Not Section 27 Recoveries under Evidence Act  ||  Gujarat High Court: Waqf Institutions Must Pay Court Fees When Filing Disputes in State Tribunal    

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