Sec.9 of Artbitration and conciliation Act - Jurisdiciton - Applys only to arbitration that takes place in India and has no application to arbitration which takes place out side of India =2015 S.C. msklawreports




Section 9 of the Act is limited  to
      the applications to arbitration that takes place in India and  has  no
      applicability to arbitration which takes place outside India  in  view
      of the pronouncement in  Bharat  Aluminium  Co.  v.  Kaiser  Aluminium
      Technical Services Inc.[1] inasmuch as clause 5 of the contract  which
      is the arbitration clause clearly spells out that the contract  is  to
      be governed and construed according to English law and if the  dispute
      of the claim does not exceed USD 50,000,  the  arbitration  should  be
      conducted in accordance with small  claims  procedure  of  the  London
      Maritime Arbitration Association.=
Apex court held that 
Therefore, we think it would be  appropriate  to  interpret
      the clause that it is a proper clause or substantial clause and not  a
      curial or a procedural one by which the arbitration proceedings are to
      be conducted and hence, we are disposed to  think  that  the  seat  of
      arbitration will be at London.
even
      applying the principles laid down in Bhatia International (supra)  and
      scanning the anatomy of the arbitration clause, we have arrived at the
      conclusion that the courts in India  will  not  have  jurisdiction  as
      there is implied exclusion. High court for different reason rightly set aside the order of District Judge -2015 S.C. msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.20 of C.P.C - Territorial Jurisdiction - suit for recovery of money based on Contract - As per the admitted plaint averments, the office of the defendants is located in Pargi, the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi, the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.- Plaint returned with objection - as an after thought added the acceptance of contract was received at Malkajgiri - Trail court returned the plaint to file in proper court - Revision - Their Lordships held that if filing of suit is based on making of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where the offer is accepted and if the suit is based on termination of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where such termination order is received. Admittedly, the suit is based on making of a contract and not on termination of the contract.- dismissed the revision - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS