TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Upholds Jurisdiction, Enforces Arbitral Award, and Sets Timeline for Challenge</h1> <h3>Rishima Sa Investments LLC (Mauritius) Versus Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited & Anr.</h3> Rishima Sa Investments LLC (Mauritius) Versus Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited & Anr. - TMI Issues:1. Territorial jurisdiction of the court to entertain the petition.2. Concealment of vital facts in the petition.3. Enforceability of the Arbitral Award under Section 49 of the Act.4. Application for setting aside the Award under Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law.5. Enforcement of a Foreign Award under Section 48 of the Act.6. Violation of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, and Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.Analysis:1. The respondents raised a preliminary objection on the territorial jurisdiction of the court based on the location of the agreements and the registered office. The petitioner argued that the court has jurisdiction as per previous judgments. The court agreed with the petitioner, citing relevant case laws supporting its jurisdiction.2. The respondents contended that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 9 of the Act before another court, which was not disclosed. The court noted this objection but did not find merit in it based on the arguments presented and relevant legal provisions.3. The respondents argued that the Arbitral Award was not enforceable as they had a period to challenge it under the UNCITRAL Model Law. The court disagreed, citing provisions and case laws to support its decision that the Award could be enforced.4. The court discussed the timeline for challenging the Award under Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law and clarified the provisions regarding the enforceability of the Award.5. The respondents raised objections regarding the enforceability of the Foreign Award under Section 48 of the Act. The court explained the grounds for refusal of enforcement and emphasized the need for the respondents to establish valid grounds for non-enforceability.6. The respondents objected to the Award, alleging violations of specific laws. The court directed the respondents to file an affidavit of assets and imposed restrictions on creating third-party interests. The court set a future date for further proceedings.This detailed analysis covers the various issues raised in the judgment, including jurisdiction, enforceability of the Award, and objections regarding violations of laws. The court's reasoning and references to legal provisions and case laws provide a comprehensive understanding of the judgment.
TaxTMI 