Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (3.00 seconds)
Documents citing Gmr Energy Limited vs Doosan Power Systems India Private ... on 14 November, 2017

Barminco Indian Underground Mining ... vs Hindustan Zinc Limited on 20 July, 2020

76. The judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of GMR Energy Ltd. (supra) and that of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Sassan Power Ltd. (supra), which were cited by Mr. Diwan, hardly lend any support to the cause of his client. Dealing with almost (Downloaded on 20/07/2020 at 08:19:04 PM) (29 of 37) [ARBAP-10/2020] identical facts, the High Courts in these cases have held that seat of arbitration being abroad, Part-I of the Act of 1996 will not apply, as mandated by sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Act. There can be no two opinion about coverage of the arbitration in question under Part-II of the Act. The bone of contention or main controversy in the present case is, as to whether the arbitration between the parties is an International Commercial Arbitration or not? and further since Part-I of the Act is not applicable, whether the definition clause being its integral component, can be resorted to or not.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - D Mehta - Full Document

Amazon.Com Nv Investment Holdings Llc vs Future Coupons Private Limited & Ors. on 18 March, 2021

The decision of the Supreme Court in Chloro Controls was followed in GMR Energy Limited v. Doosan Power Systems India Private Limited & Ors., 2017(6) Arb LR 447 (Delhi) wherein GMR Energy Limited, a guarantor to GMR Chattisgarh Energy Limited (―GCEL‖) was sought to be made a party to the arbitration proceedings between Doosan Power Systems India Private Limited, GMR Infrastructure Limited and GCEL. Relying on the decision in Chloro Controls, it was held that GMR Energy Limited was the alter ego of GCEL as (a) GCEL was a joint venture of the GMR Group with GMR Energy as the parent company; (b) GMR Energy and GCEL did not maintain their separate legal personalities and comingled corporate funds; (c) GMR Energy guaranteed to make certain payments on behalf of GCEL, and discharged its liability by making part payment of the same; (d) at the time of entering into two MoUs with Doosan India, GMR Energy had acquired a 100% stake in GCEL.
Delhi High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 1 - J R Midha - Full Document

M/S Arupri Logistics Pvt Ltd vs Shri Vilas Gupta And Ors on 24 July, 2023

Insofar as the principles relating to the lifting of the corporate veil and the ―group of companies‖ principle was concerned, learned counsel in addition to the judgements of the Supreme Court in Chloro Controls and Cheran Properties Limited vs. Kasturi and Sons Limited19 also sought to draw sustenance from the following observations as rendered by the Court in GMR Energy Limited vs. Doosan Power Systems India Private Limited & Ors20:-
Delhi High Court Cites 101 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

Imc Limited vs Deendayal Port Trust on 24 July, 2018

19. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Thakore also referred  to   the   judgment   in   case   of  GMR   Energy   Ltd.   Vs.  Doosan   Power   Systems   India   Pvt.   Ltd.   7   Ors.,  reported in 2017 (6) ARBLR 447 (Delhi) and relying  upon   the   observations   made,   he   submitted   that   in  this judgment, it has been discussed as to whether  the Hon'ble Arbitral Tribunal has jurisdiction to  pierce the corporate veil taking a different view  of   the   matter.   He   emphasized   that   the   Hon'ble  Arbitral Tribunal has also considered this aspect  and   observations   made   by   the   Hon'ble   Bombay   High  Court would not be binding.
Gujarat High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - R H Shukla - Full Document

Tecpro Systems Limited vs Telangana State Power Generation ... on 25 September, 2019

62. The Delhi High Court in GMR Energy Limited Vs. Doosan Power Systems India Private Limited5 held while dealing with arbitration under part I of the Act that the arbitration agreement signed by a subsidiary Company is binding on its parent company, applying the 'alter ego' and 'Group of Companies' doctrines. 5 MANU/DE/3689/2017 30 MSR,J A.A.No.106 of 2018 Ameet Lal Chand Shah goes beyond the 'parent-subsidiary' relationship and extends the rule to one among a group of Contracts
Telangana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - M S Rao - Full Document
1