https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459124 Enforcement of a foreign award could not be refused under Section 48(1)(d) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where the agreed dispute resolution mechanism was severable: the institutional reference to SIAC was unworkable, but the core agreement to arbitrate under ICC Rules remained intact and the tribunal was constituted accordingly. The foreign tribunal's jurisdictional view was not treated as conclusive, yet independent review also showed no ground to resist enforcement. A further objection based on the claimant company's name having been struck off failed because mere non-disclosure of that fact did not establish fraud, and restoration of the name under Section 560(7) of the Companies Act, 1956 deemed the company to have continued in existence, curing the incapacity objection. en-us Mon, 03 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Dec 2024 19:08:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459124 Enforcement of a foreign award could not be refused under Section 48(1)(d) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where the agreed dispute resolution mechanism was severable: the institutional reference to SIAC was unworkable, but the core agreement to arbitrate under ICC Rules remained intact and the tribunal was constituted accordingly. The foreign tribunal's jurisdictional view was not treated as conclusive, yet independent review also showed no ground to resist enforcement. A further objection based on the claimant company's name having been struck off failed because mere non-disclosure of that fact did not establish fraud, and restoration of the name under Section 560(7) of the Companies Act, 1956 deemed the company to have continued in existence, curing the incapacity objection. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 03 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459124