Bom HC: Every Prisoner Has to Follow Rules & Can’t Be Allowed to Bring Prohibited Articles in Prison  ||  Delhi HC: Cannot Use Freedom of Speech to Instigate Public to Commit Unlawful Act  ||  Bom HC: No Consent Required for Additional Construction if Full Project Disclosed at Agreement Stage  ||  Calcutta High Court Commutes Death Sentence of Convict Who Stabbed Ex-Girlfriend 45 Times  ||  Kerala HC: Centre Can’t take Stand that it is Powerless to Waive Loans of Wayanad Landslide Victims  ||  P&H HC Grants Interim Bail to Accused to Marry the Victim  ||  Madras HC: Theatre Owners Cannot Fleece Movie Goers by Collecting Excess Amount  ||  Bombay HC: Practice of Placing Matters High on Board Creates a Class Within Litigants  ||  Delhi HC Directs Government to Consider Premature Release of Life Convict  ||  SC: Woman ADJ Objects to Remarks in ACR after Petition for Child Care Leave    

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