Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 99 (0.95 seconds)
Documents citing Avitel Post Studioz Limited And Ors. vs Hsbc Pi Holding (Mauritius) Limited on 19 August, 2020

Bentwood Seating System P Ltd vs Airport Authority Of India & Anr. on 11 March, 2025

23. The Bench of three-Judges therefore held that serious allegations of fraud ought not to be adjudicated in arbitral proceedings and are best left to the Courts. The Arbitral Tribunal, after applying the law laid down by the Apex Court in A. Ayyasamy (supra), Rashid Raza (supra), Avitel Post Studioz (supra) and Vidya Drolia (supra), came to the conclusion that the facts of the present case are complex in nature. The Arbitral Tribunal would have to examine witnesses who are officers from governmental authorities and/or those outside the country, and therefore, it is difficult to summon those witnesses before the Ld. Sole Arbitrator. The Ld. Sole Arbitrator would also have to take the assistance of the Ministry of External Affairs to summon those witnesses which can be more expediently handed over by the Civil Courts than by the Arbitral Tribunal. The allegations of fraud are not of forgery but fabrication of documents of foreign companies/authorities and therefore this could be more conveniently adjudicated by the Civil Courts than by the Arbitral Tribunal.
Delhi High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document

M/S Devicebook Innovation Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Turaco Mobile Private Limited & Ors on 27 February, 2023

74. The judgment in Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. [Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd., (2021) 4 SCC 713 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 656] interprets Section 17 of the Contract Act to hold that Section 17 would apply if the contract itself is obtained by fraud or cheating. Thereby, a distinction is made between a contract obtained by fraud, and post-contract fraud and cheating. The latter would fall outside Section 17 of the Contract Act and, therefore, the remedy for damages would be available and not the remedy for treating the contract itself as void.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

The Managing Director Bihar State Food ... vs Sanjay Kumar on 5 August, 2025

IX. However, the allegations of fraud with respect to the arbitration agreement itself stand on a different footing. This position is generally recognized as a dispute which is in the realm of non-arbitrability26. In such cases, the arbitral tribunal will not examine the allegation of fraud but will consider the submission only for the purpose of examining exclusion of jurisdiction. This principle, in its 24 See: A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam and Ors.; (2016) 10 SCC 386 para 25, Rashid Raza v. Sadaf Akhtar; (2019) 8 SCC 710 para 4, Avitel Post Studioz Limited v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Limited, (2021) 4 SCC 713, para 35. 25 Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements; (2024) 6 SCC 1.
Supreme Court of India Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - P S Narasimha - Full Document

Sh. Deepak Dhingra vs Sh. Rakesh Dhingra Dhingra on 2 November, 2022

74. The judgment in Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. [Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd., (2021) 4 SCC 713 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 656] interprets Section 17 of the Contract Act to hold that Section 17 would apply if the contract itself is obtained by fraud or cheating. Thereby, a distinction is made between a contract obtained by fraud, and post-contract fraud and cheating. The latter would fall outside Section 17 of the Contract Act and, therefore, the remedy for damages would be available and not the remedy for treating the contract itself as void.
Delhi District Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajiv Kalia vs M/S Homp Llp on 17 August, 2022

It is enough to state that there is a sea change between Section 8 of the 1996 Act and Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, as has been held in paras 17 to 21 of Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd. [Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd., (2021) 4 SCC 713] Post amendment, it is clear that the judicial authority before which an action is brought shall, if the other conditions of Section 8 are met, refer the parties to arbitration unless it finds that prima facie, no valid arbitration agreement exists. As has been held hereinabove, in the present case, the finding that is returned is correct -- a valid arbitration agreement certainly exists as the agreements that are sought to be cancelled are not stated not to have ever been entered into.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Guduguntla Kotaiah vs B.Krishna on 20 July, 2022

From the above decision, it is clear that where there are simple allegations of fraud which do not go to the root of the contract and the existence of arbitration agreement, such disputes are arbitrable. However, the party alleging fraud has to prima facie satisfy the court that facts constituting such fraud exist. In the present case, the Respondent has stated that a subsequent agreement dated 27.03.2018 was entered into and regular payments were made under the said agreement. However, the Respondent has failed to place any material on record suggesting that an agreement dated 27.03.2018 was entered into. No copy of the agreement dated 27.03.2018 was placed before this Court. Further, no payment 8 receipts evidencing payment of Rs. 12,000/- per month to the Applicant were produced before this Court. Therefore, the contention of the Respondent that allegations of fraud exist and the dispute is non- arbitrable cannot be accepted.
Telangana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - K L Goud - Full Document

Sri. Kalpesh V Mehta vs Sri. Mitesh C Shah on 29 November, 2021

18. I have gone through the order passed by learned Arbitrator, which mainly depends upon the Judgment rendered by the Apex Court, in N Radhakrishnan's case and the said Judgment held to be no more good law, in view of subsequent judgments in the cases of Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc., Vs. SBI Home Finance Ltd., Swiss Timing Ltd., Vs. Commonwealth Games 2010 Organising Committee, A Ayyasamy Vs. A. Paramasivam and others, Rashid Raza Vs. Sadaf Akhtar, Vidya Drolia and others Vs. Durga Trading Corporation, Avitel Post 52 Com.A.S.125/2016 Studioz Limited and Others Vs. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Limited and others, and lastly, N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Indo Unique Flame Limited and others. When the decision in the case of N Radhakrishnan and other cases are read, it is very clear that in order to oust the jurisdiction of the arbitral Tribunal, the fraud must be against the public domain and mere filing of criminal case, siphoning of funds or irregular maintaining of account, etc., cannot be termed as fraud or misappropriation committed by the partners. I find a considerable force in the argument canvased by learned counsel for the claimant with reference to the above said decisions and I find that it is an error apparent on record and learned arbitrator has failed to consider the decision of the Apex Court though cited before him by learned counsel for the plaintiff/claimant, particularly, in the case of Swiss Timings Ltd., and A Ayaswamy.
Bangalore District Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr. Selladurai K vs Pnb Housing Finance Limited on 24 August, 2021

In the case of Avitel Post Studioz Limited & Ors. Vs HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Limited and Ors.(supra), validity of arbitration proceedings in case of allegations of fraud and misrepresentation in Foreign Final Award were appreciated by Supreme Court for purpose of prima facie view to decide petition under Section 9 of The Act. Reliance of Ld. Counsel for Respondent on said precedent for present case is of no help for dismissal of present petition.
Delhi District Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mercator Ltd. vs Dredging Corporation Of India Ltd. on 30 April, 2024

18. I am fortified in this conclusion by the following extracts from the recent order of the Supreme Court in Avitel Post Studioz Limited & Ors. v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Limited:24 "27. Let us now turn to the present facts. The Award in this matter was passed in Singapore, a New York Convention Country and notified as a reciprocating territory by India. Chapter 1 Part II of the Indian Arbitration Act is applicable in the present case. The parties had expressly chosen Singapore as the seat of Arbitration. It is the seat court which has exclusive supervisory jurisdiction to determine claims for a remedy relating to the existence or scope of arbitrator's jurisdiction or the allegation of bias.25 A contrary approach would go against the scheme of the New York Convention which has been incorporated in India. The jurisdiction was therefore chosen based on the perceived neutrality by the parties aligning with the principle of party autonomy. Interestingly in the present case, no setting aside challenge based on bias was raised before the Singapore Courts by the appellants within the limitation period.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - P Jalan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next