Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.25 seconds)
Bulk And Metal Transport (Uk) vs Jason Bulk Shipping And Trading Private ... on 17 December, 2020 cites

Gemini Bay Transcription Pvt Ltd vs Integrated Sales Service Limited And ... on 10 April, 2017

In Gemini Transcription Pvt. Ltd. v. Integrated Cell Service Reported in 2022 1 SCC 753, where again the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the scope of enforcement of a Foreign Award. In the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that Section 48(1)(a) cannot be interpreted to mean that it confines itself only to parties of the agreement and held that it would be open in an appropriate case for a non-signatory to bring its case within Section 48(2) and that Section 47(1)(c) is only procedural in nature and does not go to the extent of requiring substantive evidence to prove that a non-signatory to an Arbitration Agreement can be bound by a Foreign Award.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. on 22 April, 2019

In Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Metrorail Corporation Ltd., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1619, where a Single Judge of the Delhi High held that the principle of lifting the corporate veil can be extended and equally applied to execution proceedings. The learned Counsel would also fairly invite my attention to the order of this Court in Arb. O.P.(Com.Div) No.195 of 2022 dated 16.10.2023, where in a similar case of this nature, this Court after discussing the various decisions on the point, held that the Court exercising power under Sections 47 to 49 under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has the limited power of either granting a seal of approval on the Arbitral Award or to refuse the enforcement of the Arbitral Award and on the facts of the said case held that a new party, i.e., a party who is not a party to the Arbitral Award cannot be made liable in an Enforcement Petition filed under Sections 47 to 49 of the Act. However, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner would attempt to distinguish the facts of the said case from the facts of the present case, by contending that in the case before the Court in Arb. (O.P. (Com.Div) No.195 of 2022, there was no sufficient material available to justify piercing the corporate veil and that it was an attempt to misuse the Company as a 9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No.16 of 2021 device to conceal the wrongdoing.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1