Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 99 (1.75 seconds)
Documents citing Reliance Industries Limited & Anr vs Union Of India on 23 May, 2014

Suraj Agri Business Pte Ltd vs Kandla Export Corporation Through ... on 13 January, 2023

"18. It is important to note that in paragraph 32 of Bhatia International itself this Court has held that Part-I of the Arbitration Act, 1996 will not apply if it has been excluded either expressly or by necessary implication. Several judgments of this Court have held that Part-I is excluded by necessary implication if it is found that on the facts of a case either the juridical seat of the arbitration is outside India or the law governing the arbitration agreement is a law other than Indian law. This is now well settled by a series of decisions of this Court [see: Videocon Industries Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr., (2011) 6 SCC 161, Dozco India Page 34 of 53 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 13 20:57:41 IST 2023 C/SCA/285/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2023 Private Limited v. Doosan Infracore Company Limited, (2011) 6 SCC 179, Yograj Infrastructure Limited v. Ssang Yong Engineering and Construction Company Limited, (2011) 9 SCC 735), the very judgment in this case reported in Reliance Industries Limited v. Union of India, (2014) 7 SCC 603, and a recent judgment in Harmony Innovation Shipping Ltd. v. Gupta Coal India Ltd. & Anr., (decided on 10th March, 2015 in Civil Appeal No. 610 of 2015)]."
Gujarat High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - B Vaishnav - Full Document

Raffles Design International India ... vs Educomp Professional Education ... on 7 October, 2016

81. Mr Dutt, learned counsel had earnestly contended that in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Videocon Industries (supra) Harmony Innovation Shipping Ltd. (supra) and Reliance Industries (supra) it was clear that the parties had implicitly agreed to exclude Section 9 of the Act to the arbitral proceedings , because they had agreed that the agreement would be construed and considered in accordance with law in Singapore.
Delhi High Court Cites 88 - Cited by 25 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Akrata Shipping S.A vs Pipavav Defense And Offshore ... on 19 September, 2017

"18. It is important to note that in para 32 of Bhatia International itself this Court has held that Part I of the Arbitration Act, 1996 will not apply if it has been excluded either expressly or by necessary implication. Several judgments of this Court have held that Part I is excluded by necessary implication if it is found that on the facts of a case either the juridical seat of the arbitration is outside India or the law governing the arbitration agreement is a law other than Indian law. This is now well settled by a series of decisions of this Court [see Videocon Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, Dozco India (P) Ltd. v. Doosan Infracore Co. Ltd., Yograj Infrastructure Ltd. v. Ssang Yong Engg. and Construction Co. Ltd., the very judgment in this case reported in Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and a recent judgment in Harmony Innovation Shipping Ltd. v. Gupta Coal India Ltd.]."
Gujarat High Court Cites 85 - Cited by 0 - C L Soni - Full Document

Eitzen Bulk A/S vs Ashapura Minechem Limited & Anr on 13 May, 2016

“18. It is important to note that in para 32 of Bhatia International itself this Court has held that Part I of the Arbitration Act, 1996 will not apply if it has been excluded either expressly or by necessary implication. Several judgments of this Court have held that Part I is excluded by necessary implication if it is found that on the facts of a case either the juridical seat of the arbitration is outside India or the law governing the arbitration agreement is a law other than Indian law. This is now well settled by a series of decisions of this Court [see Videocon Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, Dozco India (P) Ltd. v. Doosan Infracore Co. Ltd., Yograj Infrastructure Ltd. v. Ssang Yong Engg. and Construction Co. Ltd., the very judgment in this case reported in Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and a recent judgment in Harmony Innovation Shipping Ltd. v. Gupta Coal India Ltd.].” We see no reason to take a different view. In Bhatia International’s case, this Court concluded as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 30 - S A Bobde - Full Document

Union Of India vs Reliance Industries Limited And Ors on 22 September, 2015

Videocon Industries Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr., (2011) 6 SCC 161, Dozco India Private Limited v. Doosan Infracore Company Limited, (2011) 6 SCC 179, Yograj Infrastructure Limited v. Ssang Yong Engineering and Construction Company Limited, (2011) 9 SCC 735), the very judgment in this case reported in Reliance Industries Limited v. Union of India, (2014) 7 SCC 603, and a recent judgment in Harmony Innovation Shipping Ltd. v. Gupta Coal India Ltd. & Anr., (decided on 10th March, 2015 in Civil Appeal No. 610 of 2015)].
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 47 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Devas Multimedia Private Limited vs Antrix Corporation Limited on 28 February, 2017

42. As far as the decisions on the point that 'seat' is akin to ‗jurisdiction' are concerned, the decisions in Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (supra), A v. B (supra), Prima Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. v. Lost City Developments LLC (supra) and Enercon (India) Ltd. v. Enercon GMBH (supra), were all in the context of international arbitration and cannot ipso facto be made applicable to domestic arbitrations.
Delhi High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 4 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Aniket Sa Investments Llc vs Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Private ... on 29 January, 2021

Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (2014) 7 SCC 603 : (2014) 3 SCC (Civ) 737] [5.Indus Mobile Distribution (P) Ltd. v. Datawind Innovations (P) Ltd., (2017) 7 SCC 678 : (2017) 3 SCC (Civ) 760] KPD/Nitin/SSP 32 / 45 COMAPL-516-2019-Final.doc the arbitration was designated as Mumbai, it would carry with it the fact that courts at Mumbai alone would have jurisdiction over the arbitration process. The second reason given was that in any case, following the Hakam Singh3 principle, where more than one court can be said to have jurisdiction, the agreement itself designated the Mumbai courts as having exclusive jurisdiction. It is thus wholly incorrect to state that Indus Mobile Distribution (P) Ltd.5 has a limited ratio decidendi contained in para 20 alone, and that para 19, if read by itself, would run contrary to the 5-Judge Bench decision in BALCO4.
Bombay High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 9 - S J Kathawalla - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next