Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.25 seconds)The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
U.P. State Sugar Corporation vs M/S. Sumac International Ltd on 4 December, 1996
18. The decisions cited on behalf of the respondent no. 2, Yes Bank proceed
on the basis that an unconditional bank guarantee results in an absolute
obligation on the part of a bank to pay and is not dependent upon any dispute
between the parties at whose instance the bank guarantee is given and the
beneficiary to whom the payment is to be made. This is the uniform view taken
by all courts subject to the exceptions which would call for interference by a
court. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. vs Tarapore & Co.: (1996) 5 SCC
34; U.P. State Sugar Corporation vs. Sumac International Ltd.: (1997) 1 SCC 568;
Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. vs. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd.:
Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd vs Prem Heavy Engineeing Work on 7 May, 1997
18. The decisions cited on behalf of the respondent no. 2, Yes Bank proceed
on the basis that an unconditional bank guarantee results in an absolute
obligation on the part of a bank to pay and is not dependent upon any dispute
between the parties at whose instance the bank guarantee is given and the
beneficiary to whom the payment is to be made. This is the uniform view taken
by all courts subject to the exceptions which would call for interference by a
court. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. vs Tarapore & Co.: (1996) 5 SCC
34; U.P. State Sugar Corporation vs. Sumac International Ltd.: (1997) 1 SCC 568;
Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. vs. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd.:
Reliance Industries Limited & Anr vs Union Of India on 23 May, 2014
19. The second group of decisions relate to the jurisdiction aspect. Hardy Oil
& Gas Ltd. vs Hindustan Oil Exploration Company Ltd.: 2005 SCC Online Guj
250; Reliance Industries Ltd. vs Union of India: (2014) 7 SCC 603; Enercon
(India) Limited vs Enercon GMBH: (2014) 5 SCC 1; Mankastu Impex Private Ltd.
vs Airvisual Limited: (2020) 5 SCC 399; Commercial Division Bowlopedia
12
Restaurants India Ltd. vs Devyani International Ltd.: 2021 SCC Online Cal 103,
each of the decisions relied on provide for a seat, place or venue where the
arbitration shall be conducted which form the substantive basis of the
decision. Hardy Oil designated London as the place of Arbitration, in Reliance
Industries and Enercon the venue was London, the place of arbitration in
Mankastu Impex was Hong Kong and in Bowlopedia Restaurants the seat of
arbitration was New Delhi. In Bowlopedia Restaurants, the court recognized the
importance of the parties choosing the seat of arbitration particularly in an
International Commercial Arbitration which would have a bearing on the law
applicable to the arbitration proceedings. Since the Arbitration Agreement in
the present case does not indicate a place or a seat, the decisions cited cannot
be of any assistance to the respondent No. 2.
Enercon (India) Ltd And Ors vs Enercon Gmbh And Anr on 14 February, 2014
19. The second group of decisions relate to the jurisdiction aspect. Hardy Oil
& Gas Ltd. vs Hindustan Oil Exploration Company Ltd.: 2005 SCC Online Guj
250; Reliance Industries Ltd. vs Union of India: (2014) 7 SCC 603; Enercon
(India) Limited vs Enercon GMBH: (2014) 5 SCC 1; Mankastu Impex Private Ltd.
vs Airvisual Limited: (2020) 5 SCC 399; Commercial Division Bowlopedia
12
Restaurants India Ltd. vs Devyani International Ltd.: 2021 SCC Online Cal 103,
each of the decisions relied on provide for a seat, place or venue where the
arbitration shall be conducted which form the substantive basis of the
decision. Hardy Oil designated London as the place of Arbitration, in Reliance
Industries and Enercon the venue was London, the place of arbitration in
Mankastu Impex was Hong Kong and in Bowlopedia Restaurants the seat of
arbitration was New Delhi. In Bowlopedia Restaurants, the court recognized the
importance of the parties choosing the seat of arbitration particularly in an
International Commercial Arbitration which would have a bearing on the law
applicable to the arbitration proceedings. Since the Arbitration Agreement in
the present case does not indicate a place or a seat, the decisions cited cannot
be of any assistance to the respondent No. 2.
Bharat Aluminium Co vs Kaiser Aluminium Technical ... on 6 September, 2012
8. The objection to this court entertaining the present application on the
lack of territorial jurisdiction may be answered on the basis of the clauses
contained in the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) which governs the
contract entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 on 13th
April, 2015. Under Clause 9.1 of the GCC- "Governing Law" -contract shall be
governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the Purchaser's
Country, unless otherwise specified in the Special Conditions of Contract
(SCC). Clause 10.2- "Settlement of Disputes" -provides for arbitration where the
parties have failed to resolve their disputes by mutual consultation and
provides that the arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in accordance
with the rules and procedure specified in the SCC. The SCC provides that the
rules of procedure for arbitration proceedings pursuant to Clause 10.2 of the
GCC shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the UNCITRAL
Arbitration Rules, 2010. Clause 9.1 of the GCC which provides that the
6
contract shall be governed by the laws of the Purchaser's Country, which is
Bangladesh in this case, would not stand in the way of this court assuming
jurisdiction of the matter since the governing law of the contract only decides
the substantive provisions of law which would govern the arbitration between
the parties. This would be evident from the decision in Bharat Aluminium Co. vs
Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc.: (2012) 9 SCC 552 where the Supreme
Court made a distinction between the place/seat of the arbitration and the
location of the subject matter of the suit.
Bowlopedia Restaurants India Limited vs Devyani International Limited on 21 January, 2021
19. The second group of decisions relate to the jurisdiction aspect. Hardy Oil
& Gas Ltd. vs Hindustan Oil Exploration Company Ltd.: 2005 SCC Online Guj
250; Reliance Industries Ltd. vs Union of India: (2014) 7 SCC 603; Enercon
(India) Limited vs Enercon GMBH: (2014) 5 SCC 1; Mankastu Impex Private Ltd.
vs Airvisual Limited: (2020) 5 SCC 399; Commercial Division Bowlopedia
12
Restaurants India Ltd. vs Devyani International Ltd.: 2021 SCC Online Cal 103,
each of the decisions relied on provide for a seat, place or venue where the
arbitration shall be conducted which form the substantive basis of the
decision. Hardy Oil designated London as the place of Arbitration, in Reliance
Industries and Enercon the venue was London, the place of arbitration in
Mankastu Impex was Hong Kong and in Bowlopedia Restaurants the seat of
arbitration was New Delhi. In Bowlopedia Restaurants, the court recognized the
importance of the parties choosing the seat of arbitration particularly in an
International Commercial Arbitration which would have a bearing on the law
applicable to the arbitration proceedings. Since the Arbitration Agreement in
the present case does not indicate a place or a seat, the decisions cited cannot
be of any assistance to the respondent No. 2.