Business Standard

Monday, December 23, 2024 | 05:25 PM ISTEN Hindi

Notification Icon
userprofile IconSearch

Page 7 - Arbitration

Bombay HC recalls arbitration order

If one of the companies in an arbitration case is incorporated outside India, the chief justice of a high court has no power to appoint an arbitrator even if the parties agree to arbitration and name arbitrators. This power belongs only to the Chief Justice of India or his designate as it is an "international commercial arbitration" under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The high court can initiate arbitration only in disputes between domestic parties. Moreover, before naming an arbitrator, the high court chief justice or his designate is bound to verify whether he has jurisdiction in the matter. This clarification to the Arbitration Act came last week in the case, Roptonal Ltd vs Aneez Bazmee. The Bombay High Court, after pointing out the error in law made by it earlier, recalled its 2014 judgment and allowed the petition of the company which is incorporated in Cyprus. None of the parties brought this principle to the notice of the chief justice's designate, nor did they object t

Image
Updated On : 27 Jun 2016 | 5:19 PM IST

Double-edged sword for London's arbitration crown

Brussels Regulation and Rome Convention I and II will not apply to the UK

Double-edged sword for London's arbitration crown
Updated On : 26 Jun 2016 | 11:33 PM IST

SC lifts corporate veil on share deals

The Supreme Court lifted the corporate veil and upheld the cancellation of plot for an information technology campus because a Singapore company, the allottee, transferred the plot to a Dubai company without approval. In this case, Estate Officer, UT Chandigarh vs Esys Information Technologies Ltd, the plot was allotted for running an institution. However, the Singapore firm transferred its shares to a Dubai firm, Esys Global Holdings. There was another disputed transfer of shares to a Chennai firm. The estate officer asked the allottee company about the share transactions and nature of the business. He did not get a satisfactory answer. Therefore, he threatened to take back the land. The company moved the high court. It stayed the take-over. On appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the high court order. It stated that the company had concealed facts about the share transfers and not come to the court with "clean hands". There was a sale, not mere transfer of shares. The judgement emphas

Image
Updated On : 26 Jun 2016 | 11:25 PM IST

Time limit in arbitration will help speedy disposal: ex-justice Mudgal

New bill stipulates arbitral tribunal is required to render an award within 12 months from date of appointment of arbitrators

Time limit in arbitration will help speedy disposal: ex-justice Mudgal
Updated On : 17 Apr 2016 | 10:34 AM IST