Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 914 (2.45 seconds)
Documents citing Renusagar Power Co. Ltd vs General Electric Co on 7 October, 1993

Raffles Education Investment ( India) ... vs Educomp Professional Education ... on 7 July, 2023

(a) to (e) of Article I had to be fulfilled and in Article II, it was prescribed that even if the conditions laid down in Article I were fulfilled recognition and enforcement of the award would be refused if the court was satisfied in respect of matters mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c). The principles which apply to recognition and enforcement of foreign awards are in substance, similar to those adopted by the English courts at common law. (See Dicey & Morris, The Conflict of Laws, 11th Edn., Vol. I, p. 578.) It was, however, felt that the Geneva Convention suffered from certain defects which hampered the speedy settlement of disputes through arbitration. The New York Convention seeks to remedy the said defects by providing for a much more simple and effective method of obtaining recognition and enforcement of foreign awards.
Delhi High Court Cites 83 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

The Governor Of Tamil Nadu vs Jm Combines

(SCC pp. 727-28 & 744-45, paras 31 & 74) “31. Therefore, in our view, the phrase “public policy of India” used in Section 34 in context is required to be given a wider meaning. It can be stated that the concept of public policy connotes some matter which concerns public good and the public interest. What is for public good or in public interest or what would be injurious or harmful to the public good or public interest has varied from time to time. However, the award which is, on the face of it, patently in violation of statutory provisions cannot be said to be in public interest. Such award/judgment/decision is likely to adversely affect the administration of justice. Hence, in our view in addition to narrower meaning given to the term “public policy” in Renusagar case [Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co., 1994 Supp (1) SCC 644] it is required to be held that the award could be set aside if it is patently illegal.
Madras High Court Cites 121 - Cited by 0 - M Duraiswamy - Full Document

Raj Television Network Ltd vs Thaicom Public Company Limited on 14 July, 2017

71.The Supreme Court clarified that the principles in the case of Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. (supra) must apply for the purpose of section 48(2)(b) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and insofar as the proceedings for setting aside the award under section 34 of the Arbitration Act is concerned, the principles laid down in the case of O.N.G.C. Ltd. vs. Saw Pipes Ltd. (supra) governed the said proceedings. The Supreme Court accordingly held that the enforcement of the award would be refused under section 48(2)(b) in which if such enforcement would be contrary to (i) fundamental policy of Indian law or (ii) the interest of India ; or (iii) justice or morality.
Madras High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 2 - M Sundar - Full Document

National Highway Authority Of India vs M S Ssangyong Engineering And ... on 8 April, 2024

27. Coming to each of the heads contained in Saw Pipes [(2003) 5 SCC 705 : AIR 2003 SC 2629] judgment, we will first deal with the head ―fundamental policy of Indian law‖. It has already been seen from Renusagar [Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co., 1994 Supp (1) SCC 644] Signature Not Verified O.M.P. (COMM) 340/2021 Page 50 of 114 Digitally Signed By:SARIKA BHAMOO VERMA Signing Date:15.04.2024 20:01:30 judgment that violation of the Foreign Exchange Act and disregarding orders of superior courts in India would be regarded as being contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law. To this it could be added that the binding effect of the judgment of a superior court being disregarded would be equally violative of the fundamental policy of Indian law.
Delhi High Court Cites 67 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document

The Governor Of Tamil Nadu vs Jm Combines

(SCC pp. 727-28 & 744-45, paras 31 & 74) “31. Therefore, in our view, the phrase “public policy of India” used in Section 34 in context is required to be given a wider meaning. It can be stated that the concept of public policy connotes some matter which concerns public good and the public interest. What is for public good or in public interest or what would be injurious or harmful to the public good or public interest has varied from time to time. However, the award which is, on the face of it, patently in violation of statutory provisions cannot be said to be in public Page 130/141 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.S.A.(Cad) Nos.75 and 76 of 2022 interest. Such award/judgment/decision is likely to adversely affect the administration of justice. Hence, in our view in addition to narrower meaning given to the term “public policy” in Renusagar case [Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co., 1994 Supp (1) SCC 644] it is required to be held that the award could be set aside if it is patently illegal.
Madras High Court Cites 122 - Cited by 0 - M Duraiswamy - Full Document

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs M/S P.M. Electronics Ltd. on 26 February, 2020

27. Coming to each of the heads contained in Saw Pipes [(2003) 5 SCC 705 : AIR 2003 SC 2629] judgment, we will first deal with the head "fundamental policy of Indian law". It has already been seen from Renusagar [Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co., 1994 Supp (1) SCC 644] judgment that violation of the Foreign Exchange Act and disregarding orders of superior courts in India would be regarded as being contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law. To this it could be added that the binding effect of the judgment of a superior court being disregarded would be equally violative of the fundamental policy of Indian law.
Allahabad High Court Cites 96 - Cited by 0 - S Agarwal - Full Document

Devas Employees Mauritius Pvt. Ltd vs Antrix Corporation Limited & Ors. on 17 March, 2023

In Renusagar [Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co., 1994 Supp (1) SCC 644] , this Court observed that violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, a statute enacted for the ―national economic interest‖, and disregarding the superior Courts in India would be antithetical to the fundamental policy of Indian law. Contravention of a statute not linked to public policy or public interest cannot be a ground to set at naught an arbitral award as being discordant with the fundamental policy of Indian law and neither can it be brought within the confines of ―patent illegality‖ as discussed above. In other words, contravention of a statute only if it is linked to public policy or public interest is cause for setting aside the award as being at odds with the fundamental policy of Indian law. If an Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA FAO(OS) (COMM) 289/2022 Page 111 of 132 Signing Date:17.03.2023 17:39:36 Neutral Citation Number : 2023:DHC:1933-DB arbitral award shocks the conscience of the court, it can be set aside as being in conflict with the most basic notions of justice. The ground of morality in this context has been interpreted by this Court to encompass awards involving elements of sexual morality, such as prostitution, or awards seeking to validate agreements which are not illegal but would not be enforced given the prevailing mores of the day.
Delhi High Court Cites 97 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next