Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 46 (2.97 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 37 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 [Entire Act]
Bhatia International vs Bulk Trading S. A. & Anr on 13 March, 2002
44. This Court further finds that the judgment of Bhatia
International (supra), which is the principal argument made on
behalf of the appellants, cannot be relied upon, as the same has
been clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the subsequent
judgment rendered in Union of India Vs. Reliance Industries
Limited & Ors, wherein it has been held that, "It is interesting to
note that even though the law governing the arbitration
agreement was not specified, yet this Court held, having regard to
various circumstances, that the seat of arbitration would be
London and therefore, by necessary implication, the ratio
of Bhatia International [Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A.,
(2002) 4 SCC 105] would not apply".
The Arbitration Act, 1940
Roger Shashoua vs Mukesh Sharma on 4 July, 2017
(2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 810] in para 110. We are inclined
to think, as we are obliged to, that
the Shashoua [Roger Shashoua v. Mukesh Sharma,
2009 EWHC 957 (Comm)] principle has been accepted
in BALCO [BALCO v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical
Services Inc., (2012) 9 SCC 552 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ)
810] as well as Enercon (India) Ltd. [Enercon (India)
Ltd. v. Enercon GmbH, (2014) 5 SCC 1 : (2014) 3 SCC
(Civ) 59] on proper ratiocination and, therefore, the
submission advanced on this score by Mr
(Downloaded on 23/03/2020 at 08:24:34 PM)
(34 of 46) [SAC-3/2019]
Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent, is repelled.