Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.60 seconds)
Documents citing Sbpl Infrastructure Ltd & Anr vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 24 September, 2018

India Media Services Private Limited vs Sbpl Infrastructure Limited on 24 September, 2025

104. The Learned Arbitrator examined the contents of the Nomination Agreement and observed that the consideration amount reflected the intention to convey rights rather than merely nominate the Respondent since agreeing to a simple nomination for such a huge amount would be preposterous. Unlike the decision in the case of SBPL Infrastructure Limited & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. 30, which did not address the real intention of the parties, the Arbitrator analysed the agreement in detail and concluded that it was not limited to nomination but intended conveyance in favour of the Respondent upon payment of the balance ₹14 crores to the Petitioner to be as guarantor. The terms were clear, explicit, and supported by the initial payment of ₹1 crore as earnest money.
Calcutta High Court Cites 96 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

India Media Services Private Limited vs Sbpl Infrastructure Limited on 24 September, 2025

104. The Learned Arbitrator examined the contents of the Nomination Agreement and observed that the consideration amount reflected the intention to convey rights rather than merely nominate the Respondent since agreeing to a simple nomination for such a huge amount would be preposterous. Unlike the decision in the case of SBPL Infrastructure Limited & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. 30, which did not address the real intention of the parties, the Arbitrator analysed the agreement in detail and concluded that it was not limited to nomination but intended conveyance in favour of the Respondent upon payment of the balance ₹14 crores to the Petitioner to be as guarantor. The terms were clear, explicit, and supported by the initial payment of ₹1 crore as earnest money.
Calcutta High Court Cites 96 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

India Media Services Private Limited vs Sbpl Infrastructure Limited on 24 September, 2025

104. The Learned Arbitrator examined the contents of the Nomination Agreement and observed that the consideration amount reflected the intention to convey rights rather than merely nominate the Respondent since agreeing to a simple nomination for such a huge amount would be preposterous. Unlike the decision in the case of SBPL Infrastructure Limited & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. 30, which did not address the real intention of the parties, the Arbitrator analysed the agreement in detail and concluded that it was not limited to nomination but intended conveyance in favour of the Respondent upon payment of the balance ₹14 crores to the Petitioner to be as guarantor. The terms were clear, explicit, and supported by the initial payment of ₹1 crore as earnest money.
Calcutta High Court Cites 96 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

India Media Services Private Limited vs Sbpl Infrastructure Limited on 24 September, 2025

104. The Learned Arbitrator examined the contents of the Nomination Agreement and observed that the consideration amount reflected the intention to convey rights rather than merely nominate the Respondent since agreeing to a simple nomination for such a huge amount would be preposterous. Unlike the decision in the case of SBPL Infrastructure Limited & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. 30, which did not address the real intention of the parties, the Arbitrator analysed the agreement in detail and concluded that it was not limited to nomination but intended conveyance in favour of the Respondent upon payment of the balance ₹14 crores to the Petitioner to be as guarantor. The terms were clear, explicit, and supported by the initial payment of ₹1 crore as earnest money.
Calcutta High Court Cites 96 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

India Media Services Private Limited vs Sbpl Infrastructure Limited on 24 September, 2025

104. The Learned Arbitrator examined the contents of the Nomination Agreement and observed that the consideration amount reflected the intention to convey rights rather than merely nominate the Respondent since agreeing to a simple nomination for such a huge amount would be preposterous. Unlike the decision in the case of SBPL Infrastructure Limited & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. 30, which did not address the real intention of the parties, the Arbitrator analysed the agreement in detail and concluded that it was not limited to nomination but intended conveyance in favour of the Respondent upon payment of the balance ₹14 crores to the Petitioner to be as guarantor. The terms were clear, explicit, and supported by the initial payment of ₹1 crore as earnest money.
Calcutta High Court Cites 96 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1