Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 520 (1.42 seconds)
Documents citing Bharat Aluminium Co vs Kaiser Aluminium Technical ... on 6 September, 2012

Shree Krishna Vanaspati Industries (P) ... vs Virgoz Oils & Fats Pte Ltd & Ors on 27 November, 2024

4. It is the petitioner's contention that the judgements of the Supreme Court in Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A. and Another (supra) and Venture Global Engineering v. Satyam Computer Services Ltd. and Another (2008) 4 SCC 190, have only been prospectively overruled by the Supreme Court in Bharat Aluminium v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Ltd. (supra) and therefore maintainability of the present petition, where the impugned award pre-dates the judgement in Bharat Aluminium v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Ltd. (supra), would not be impacted. In this regard, reliance has been placed on paragraph 195-197 of the said judgement which reads as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S Datta - Full Document

Trammo Dmcc (Formerly Known As ... vs Nagarjuna Fertilizers And Chemicals ... on 9 October, 2017

20. In view of the above discussion, the contentions as urged on behalf of the respondent cannot be accepted. If the interpretation of the provisions of Section2(1)(e)(ii) of the Act as sought to be placed on behalf of the respondent is accepted, it would bring about an anomalous situation defeating the intent of the legislative provisions, as derived from a cumulative reading of the amending provisions as noted above. The purpose and object of the amended provisions of the 2015 Act must certainly prevail over a narrow interpretation which would defeat the purpose and object of the 2015 Amendment Act. The petitioner who holds monetary awards against the respondent would be prevented from ::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2017 01:56:21 ::: Pvr 38/40 carbpl359-17=7oct17new.doc approaching the court for interim reliefs where the assets of the respondent are available within the jurisdiction of this Court. As clearly seen from observations in paragraph 97 of the Bharat Aluminium Company Vs. Kaiser Aluminium Technical (BALCO) (supra), then in Brace Transport Corporation of Monrovia, Bermuda Vs. Orient Middle East Lines Ltd., Saudi Arabia & Ors. (supra), Wireless Developers Inc. Vs. Indiagames Limited (supra), and Tata International Ltd. Vs. Trisuns Chemical Industry Limited (supra), the Court would have territorial jurisdiction if the monies/the bank accounts are located within the jurisdiction of the Court. The legislature would not envisage a situation that a party can invoke jurisdiction of the Court to enforce a monetary award under Section 47 and 49 of the Act, however, for any relief of the nature Section 9 interalia contemplates the jurisdiction of the same Court would not be available. This would create a complete incongruity in giving effect to the provisions of Section 9 in a situation as in the present case and defeat the legislative intent.
Bombay High Court Cites 70 - Cited by 4 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document

Pasl Wind Solutions Private Limited vs Ge Power Conversion India Private ... on 20 April, 2021

Finally, the cases of Enercon (India) Limited v. Enercon GMBH (2014) 5 SCC 1 and Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Inc. (2012) 9 SCC 552 relied on by the Respondent in relation to its submissions that the closest and most real connection test under Indian law do not assist the Respondent because that test is only relevant where the seat is unclear. Moreover, Bharat clearly held that the applicability of section 28 of the Indian Act is restricted to the substantive law of the contract and does not apply to the seat of the arbitration. Conclusion For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal therefore finds that the arbitration clause in the Settlement Agreement is valid and will proceed to apply the Swiss Act because the seat of the arbitration is Zurich, Switzerland.” 3.5. This procedural order was not challenged by either of the parties. Vide the said procedural order, the seat of the arbitration was stated to be Zurich, Switzerland. The respondent suggested Mumbai, India as a convenient venue in which to hold arbitration proceedings as costs would be reduced thereby. The appellant objected to this suggestion. At the Case Management Conference dated 28.06.2018, the learned arbitrator decided that though the seat is in Zurich, all hearings will be held in Mumbai, acceding to the application made by the respondent. Since the mountain did not come to Muhammad, Muhammad, in the form of the learned 5 arbitrator, went to the mountain and held all sittings at the convenient venue in Mumbai.
Supreme Court of India Cites 108 - Cited by 14 - R F Nariman - Full Document

M/S R.K.Mineral Development Pvt. Ltd vs Hindalco Industries Limited on 21 July, 2022

The appeals are disposed of accordingly.‖ It is evident from the above referred para of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court that by taking note of the judgment rendered in Bharat Aluminium Company v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. (Supra) wherein in no uncertain terms has referred to ―place‖ as ―juridical seat‖ for the purpose of Section 2(2) of the Act. It made further clear that Sections 20(1) and 20(2) where the word ―place‖ is used, refers to ―juridical seat‖, whereas in Section 20(3), the word ―place‖ is equivalent to ―venue‖ and basis upon the same, on the given facts of the said case, the seat of arbitration has been held to be at Mumbai in view of Clause 19 of the aforesaid agreement.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document

Anilkumar Phoolchand Sanghvi And 2 Ors vs Chandrakant P Sanghvi And 7 Ors on 22 December, 2015

1 to 5 has rightly distinguished the said judgment of Supreme Court in case of Bharat Aluminium Company (supra) on the ground that in the arbitration agreement in this matter, there was no provision that the Mumbai would be the seat or place of arbitration and on the ground that the said judgment of the Supreme Court would apply with the prospective effect and not with retrospective effect.
Bombay High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Mr. Gulamali Amrullah Babul And 2 Ors vs Shabbir Salebhai Mahimwala on 29 October, 2015

55) Insofar as judgment of Supreme Court in case of Bharat Aluminium Company and Ors. vs. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Service Inc. and Ors. (2012) 9 SCC 552 is concerned, the Supreme Court in the said judgment has dealt with the issue whether Part I or Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would apply to a foreign seated arbitration or not. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the said judgment is totally misplaced.
Bombay High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 3 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next