Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (1.54 seconds)
Documents citing Tdm Infrastructure Private Limited vs Ue Development India Pvt.Ltd on 14 May, 2008

Subway Systems India Private Ltd vs S. Sasikala on 11 February, 2016

11. Therefore, the above definition makes it very clear that once the Award fit into the category or definition of Section 44, it could be enforced under Part II. In this regard the Apex Court in a Judgment reported in PASL Wind Solutions Private Limited vs. GE Power Conversion India Private Limited [2021 SCC Online SC 331] has held that Section 44 is party-neutral, having reference to the place at which the award is made and it is also clarified that the earlier Judgment in TDM Infrastructure Private Limited (supra) does not apply to Foreign Award which could be enforced under section 48 of the Act. Page 10 / 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ O.P.No.757 of 2017, O.A.Nos.9, 10 and 11 of 2018 and Appln.Nos.88 and 2299 of 2018
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sah Petroleums Ltd vs Sah Petroleums Ltd on 6 July, 2012

8. Apart from that I find that reliance placed by the plaintiff on the judgment of the Apex Court in TDM Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. UE 5/10 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:44:45 ::: nmsl2003-12 in suit(l)1725-12-918 Development India Private Limited 2008(2) UJ SC 0721 is well merited. In the said case, both the companies were incorporated in India, though Directors and the shareholders of the petitioner company were residents of Malaysia, had involved in the Arbitration Agreement.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - B R Gavai - Full Document

Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. vs Caf India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. on 14 August, 2014

53. The above discussion of mine sufficiently answers the submissions advanced by the learned Senior counsel for the plaintiff and also distinguish the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of TDM Infrastructure (supra) and all other line of authorities supporting the said proposition being factually different as in the instant case, the arbitral proceedings continue to be in the nature of the international commercial arbitration and the parties cannot be faulted on the count of the violation of the public policy.
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 1 - M Singh - Full Document

M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited Scomi ... vs Mumbai Metropolitian Region ... on 3 October, 2018

(iii) has been removed since the same is already covered under sub-section (ii). The intention is to determine the residence of a company based on its place of incorporation and not the place of central management/control. This further re-enforces the “place of incorporation” principle laid down by the Supreme 18 Court in TDM Infrastructure Private Limited v. UE Development India Private Limited, (2008) 14 SCC 271, and adds greater certainty in case of companies having a different place of incorporation and place of exercise of central management and control]” It would become clear that prior to the deletion of the expression “a company or”, there were three sets of persons referred to in Section 2(1)(f)(iii) as separate and distinct persons who would fall within the said sub-clause. This does not change due to the deletion of the phrase “a company or” for the reason given by the Law Commission. This is another reason as to why “an association” cannot be read with “body of individuals” which follows it but is a separate and distinct category by itself, as is understood from the definition of “person” as defined in the Income Tax Act referred to above.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 9 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Report No. 246 On Amendments To The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996

before the words "an association or a body of individuals [NOTE: The reference to "a company" In sub-section (iii) has been removed since the same is already covered under sub-section (ii). The intention is to determine the residence of a company based on its place of incorporation and not the place of central management/control. This further re-enforces the "place of incorporation" principle laid down by the Supreme Court in TDM Infrastructure Private Limited v. UE Development India Private Limited, (2008) 14 SCC 271, and adds greater certainty in case of companies having a different place of incorporation and place of exercise of central management and control]
Law Commission Report Cites 127 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ge Power Conversion India Private ... vs Pasl Wind Solutions Private Limited on 3 November, 2020

b. So far as the reliance placed on the decision in case of TDM (supra), Mr. Mihir Thakore would submit that the case of TDM (supra) will not be applicable and would not be relevant for the purposes of the proposition. Mr.Thakore would in rejoinder submit that he would distinguish this decision when he would come to the question of Mr. Hemani's submission on the point that two Indian parties cannot enter into an arbitration agreement to have a foreign seat of arbitration. What Mr.Thakore therefore would submit is that Part-I of the Act comprises of Sections 2 to 43 of the Act. Section 2(1)(f) and Section 2(2) of the arbitration agreement are covered under Part-I of the Act. When Section 2 is read, it categorically begins with the word "in this part"
Gujarat High Court Cites 71 - Cited by 0 - B Vaishnav - Full Document

All Nippon Airways Company Limited vs Japan Travel Service & Anr on 8 November, 2019

28. The Indian law has consciously and correctly departed from the same and chosen only the nationality test for defining an arbitration as "international" as is apparent from Section 2(1)(f) of the Arbitration Act, FAO-411/2016 Page 5 of 10 1996. Relying on the provision of Sections 2(2), 20 and 28, he further submits that the Arbitration Act, 1996 precludes Indian parties to a purely domestic dispute from choosing a place of arbitration outside India. Mr Kumar goes even further to submit that when both the parties are Indian, the substantive law governing the dispute must necessarily be Indian irrespective of the situs of the arbitration and irrespective of any provision in the contract between the parties to the contrary. He submits that the same principle applies with equal force to the arbitration law too, that is to say, that if it is not open to two Indian parties with regard to an entirely domestic dispute to derogate from the Indian laws of contract, evidence, etc. it is equally not open to them to derogate from the Indian arbitration law either. He relies on the judgment of this Court in TDM Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. UE Development India (P) Ltd. [(2008) 14 SCC 271] paras 19, 20 and 23. He, however, very fairly points out that this was a case under Section 11 and the point in issue here did not specifically arise for consideration in the said case.
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - N Waziri - Full Document
1   2 3 Next