Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.32 seconds)
Medongo Health Private Limited vs Dr. Rahul Ghule And Anr & Anr on 28 October, 2025 cites

Bgs Sgs Soma Jv vs Nhpc Ltd. on 10 December, 2019

13. Furthermore, the objection of territorial jurisdiction raised by the Respondents on the basis of the MoU is untenable. Once the parties have agreed that the seat of arbitration shall be at Delhi, this Court alone would have jurisdiction to entertain a petition for appointment of an arbitrator, as held by the Apex Court in Indus Mobile Distribution Pvt. Ltd. v. Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd., (2017) 7 SCC 678, and as reaffirmed by the Apex Court in BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd., (2020) 4 SCC 234 & Inox Renewables Ltd. v. Jayesh Electricals Ltd., (2023) 3 SCC 733.
Supreme Court of India Cites 102 - Cited by 230 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Bharat Aluminium Co vs Kaiser Aluminium Technical ... on 6 September, 2012

7. Learned Counsel for the Respondents also submits that this Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present Petition because as per Clause 7 of the MoU dated 07.03.2024 only the Courts in Bangalore have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. He states that the MoU dated 07.03.2024 specifically provides that the seat of arbitration shall be Bangalore and that the Courts at Bangalore shall have the exclusive jurisdiction over all the disputes between the parties. Learned Counsel for the Respondents relies on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Bharat Aluminum Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc., (2012) 9 SCC 552, to contend that the seat of Arbitration determines the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court for all matters relating to ARB.P. 821/2025 Page 5 of 13 This is a digitally signed order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 128 - Cited by 398 - Full Document

Indus Mobile Distribution Pvt. Ltd vs Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd. And Ors on 19 April, 2017

13. Furthermore, the objection of territorial jurisdiction raised by the Respondents on the basis of the MoU is untenable. Once the parties have agreed that the seat of arbitration shall be at Delhi, this Court alone would have jurisdiction to entertain a petition for appointment of an arbitrator, as held by the Apex Court in Indus Mobile Distribution Pvt. Ltd. v. Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd., (2017) 7 SCC 678, and as reaffirmed by the Apex Court in BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd., (2020) 4 SCC 234 & Inox Renewables Ltd. v. Jayesh Electricals Ltd., (2023) 3 SCC 733.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 291 - R F Nariman - Full Document

M/S. Inox Renewables Ltd. vs Jayesh Electricals Ltd. on 13 April, 2021

13. Furthermore, the objection of territorial jurisdiction raised by the Respondents on the basis of the MoU is untenable. Once the parties have agreed that the seat of arbitration shall be at Delhi, this Court alone would have jurisdiction to entertain a petition for appointment of an arbitrator, as held by the Apex Court in Indus Mobile Distribution Pvt. Ltd. v. Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd., (2017) 7 SCC 678, and as reaffirmed by the Apex Court in BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd., (2020) 4 SCC 234 & Inox Renewables Ltd. v. Jayesh Electricals Ltd., (2023) 3 SCC 733.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 15 - Cited by 24 - R F Nariman - Full Document
1   2 Next