Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing M/S.Goldstar Metal Solutions Pvt.Ltd. vs Shri Dattaram Gajanan Kavtankar on 13 March, 2013

Sterling And Wilson International Fze vs Skypower Solar India Private Limited & ... on 22 June, 2020

In Goldstar Metal Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shri Dattaram Ganianan Kavtankar and Ors., [(2013) SCC OnLine Bom 448], Bombay High Court rejected the submission of extending the Arbitration Agreement by applying the doctrine of „piercing the veil‟ of one alleged signatory, to bind a Group Company that was under common Management and control, emphasizing that both Companies were distinct entities and Arbitration Clause could not bind a sister Company.
Delhi High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 3 - J Singh - Full Document

Hsbc Pi Holdings (Mauritius) Limited vs Avitel Post Studioz Limited on 22 January, 2014

In so far as judgment of this court in case of Goldstar Metal Solutions (supra), MSM Satelite (supra), Ivory Properties Hotels (supra) relied upon by Mr. Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent in support of his submission that such allegations of fraud and forgery could not be referred to arbitration at all though arbitration agreement exists are concerned, a perusal of these judgments would indicate that there was no issue raised by any of the parties in those matters whether in the facts of those cases, it would be more convenient and proper to decide the allegations by a civil court or by an arbitrator.
Bombay High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 9 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Avitel Post Studioz Ltd & Ors vs Hsbc Pi Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd on 31 July, 2014

29] Mr. Kirpal, then laboured extensively upon his submission that in terms of section 48(2)(a) of the Act, any award that may be passed by the Arbitral Tribunal at Singapore would be incapable of being enforced in India, as according to him the subject matter of the present dispute was not at all capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of India. In this regard, Mr. Kirpal submitted that the HSBC has leveled serious allegations of fraud and even impersonation. Based upon the very same allegations, the HSBC even went to the extent of lodging a First Information Report (FIR) against the appellants invoking the 22 of 40 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2014 23:50:06 ::: 23 j-196.14 provisions of sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code (IPC). These provisions deal with offences of cheating by impersonation, forgery for the purposes of cheating, and criminal conspiracy. Mr. Kirpal submitted that it is well settled that issues of serious allegations of fraud and criminality are incapable of settlement by arbitration under the law of India. Therefore, in terms of section 48(2)(a), if any final award made by the Arbitral Tribunal at Singapore is incapable of being enforced in India, then surely, there arises no question of granting any interim measures by the Indian Courts, particularly as interim measures are meant to be only in aid of final relief. Mr. Kirpal placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Afcon Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 8 SCC 24, Booz Allen and Hamilton v. SBI Home Finance (2011) 5 SCC 532, N. Radhakrishnan (supra)and Goldstar metal Solutions v. Dattaro G. Kavtankar in Arb. Appeal No.12 of 2013 dt. 13 March 2013, which according to him lay down that under the arbitration laws of India, serious allegations of fraud or criminality are incapable of settlement by arbitration.
Bombay High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 12 - M S Sonak - Full Document
1