Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing Naval Gent Maritime Ltd. vs Shivnath Rai Harnarain (I) Ltd. on 8 March, 2000

Trusuns Chemical Industry Ltd. vs Tata International Ltd. on 5 March, 2004

A foreign award if allowed to be enforced is a deemed decree. It can be enforced anywhere that the respondents may have money. In other words, it is in the nature of forum hunting. The expression subject-matter of the award and the subject-matter of the arbitration agreement are two different and distinct expressions. In respect of a foreign award, if the expression subject-matter of the award was to mean the same thing as the subject-matter of the arbitration agreement, in most cases there would be no Court available where the award could be enforced as the entire cause of action in respect of the subject-matter of the arbitration could be the foreign country. Merely because in the instant case, the contract was entered into in India cannot result in a different interpretation. The expression as the explanation itself permits forum hunting if that expression can be used. After considering all these provisions a similar view was taken in Arbitration Petition Lodg. No. 427 of 2001 in the case of Naval Gent Martine Ltd., v. Shivnath Rai Harnarain (I) Ltd., and Ors., decided on 5th July, 2001 in which at the ad interim stage, apart from other issues, the issue as to the meaning of the expression "subject-matter of the award" was in issue and has been similarly answered.
Gujarat High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - P Majmudar - Full Document

Khanji Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs Shiptrade Inc. on 31 March, 2000

10. It would be improper for me to venture onto the merits of the dispute. That must await the presentation of a defense or opposition from the respondent. From an account filed before me, pertaining to the proceedings in the Court of the Hon'ble Judge, is appears that the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 were relied upon by the respondent and not those of the Arbitration Act, 1940. I had occasion to consider questions similar to these in OMP 200/99 titled Naval Gent Maritime Ltd. v. Shivnath Raj Hamarain (I) Ltd., I had observed as follows:
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - V Sen - Full Document

Moser Baer India Ltd. vs Koninklijke Philips Electronics Nv. ... on 22 April, 2008

After considering Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Western Co. of North America ; British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Shanmughavilas Cashew Industries ; SNI Aerospatiale v. Lee Kui Jak (1987) 3 All ER 510; Spiliada Maritime Corporation v. Cansulex Ltd. (1986) 3 All ER 843; Airbus Industrie GIE v. Patel (1998) 2 All ER 257; British Aerospace Plc v. Dee Howard Co. (1993) 1 Lloyd's Rep 368; Donohue v. Armco Inc. (2002) 1 All ER 749 (HL); SABAH Shipyard (Pakistan) Ltd v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Karachi Electrics Supply Corporation Ltd. 2002 EWCA Civ 1643 (CA), the Supreme Court held:
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 11 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

(India Tv) Independent News Service Pvt ... vs India Broadcast Live Llc And Ors. on 10 July, 2007

53. Learned senior counsel for defendant No. 1 placed reliance on the judgment of the House of Lords in Spiliada Maritime Corporation v. Cansulex Ltd. [1986] 3 All E.R. 844 in which the Court on consideration of various authorities summarized the principles applicable insofar as granting of stay on the ground of forum non conveniens is concerned. Broadly, the principles are as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 30 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Tata International Ltd., Mumbai vs Trisuns Chemical Industry Ltd., Kutch on 12 October, 2001

A foreign award if allowed to be enforced is a deemed decree. It can be enforced anywhere that the respondents may have money. In other words it is in the nature of forum hunting. The expression subject matter of the award and the subject matter of the arbitration agreement are two different and distinct expressions. In respect of a foreign award, if the expression subject matter of the award was to mean the same thing as the subject matter of the arbitration agreement, in most cases there would be no Court available where the award could be enforced as the entire cause of action in respect of the subject matter of the arbitration could be the foreign country. Merely because in the instant case, the contract was entered into in India cannot result in a different interpretation. The expression as the explanation itself permits forum hunting if that expression can be used. After considering all these provisions a similar view was taken in Arbitration Petition Lodg. No. 427 of 2001 in the case of Naval Gent Marline Ltd. v. Shivnath Rai Harnarain (I) Ltd. and Ors., decided on 5th July, 2001 in which at the ad interim stage, apart from other issues, the issue as to the meaning of the expression "subject matter of the award" was in issue and has been similarly answered.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 13 - F I Rebello - Full Document

P.K.Pandian vs Komala on 10 July, 2008

In J. Naval Kishore V. I. Swarnabhadran (2008(1) CTC (2008(1) CTC 97) a Division Bench of this Court considered the proof of execution of a Will as well as the issue relating to the marking of a xerox copy of the alleged family arrangement. It was in the said factual context that the Division Bench observed that as per Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, unless the non-production of the original is satisfactorily explained, secondary evidence cannot be looked into. Since the document sought to be marked in the said case was a xerox copy, the Bench observed that the possibility of manipulation in xerox copy cannot be ruled out. However, the facts of present case are entirely different and as such, the said judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent has no application in the factual scenario of the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - K K Sasidharan - Full Document

Euro-Asia Chartering Corporation ... vs Fortune International Ltd. on 27 September, 2002

That was a case where the respondents had no office and did not carry on business within the jurisdiction of this Court. Moreover, it was not averred that the respondent had any money within the jurisdiction of the Court. On the facts of that case, it was held that this Court had no jurisdiction since the subject matter of the Award did not lie within the jurisdiction of this Court. The facts of this case are clearly different, though I am in respectful agreement with the ratio which has been laid down in the judgment of my learned brother, Mr. Justice F.I. Rebello, Here service has been duly effected on the office of the respondent in Mumbai.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document
1