OVERVIEW
Cases nearly always turn on their own facts. Particular findings
of fact (in particular in arbitration, where there is of course no
appeal on the facts), can lead to interesting issues of law, but
also leave other questions, which might arise on slightly different
facts, unanswered.
The very recent Court of Appeal decision in
The TAI PRIZE is a good illustration [2021]
EWCA Civ 87.
It recapitulates well established principles in relation to the
representations that are made, or are not made, by the cargo
descriptions in bills of lading, but leaves open possible new
arguments for the future.
The key findings (or non-findings) of fact made by the
Introduction:
Sanjiv Prakash v. Seema Kukreja &
Ors.
1, the Delhi High Court has
reiterated that novation of an agreement would necessarily result
in destruction of the arbitration clause contained therein. In this
regard, it was observed that an arbitration agreement being a
creation of an agreement may be destroyed by agreement.
Facts of the case:
Respondent No. 3 had incorporated a company in 1971, under the
name of Asian Films Laboratories Private Limited, which was
subsequently renamed as ANI Media Private Limited in 1997
( Company ). The shareholders of the
said Company were Respondent No. 3 s son
( Petitioner ) and his daughter and wife
( Respondent No. 1 and
Introduction:
Recognising that an arbitration agreement between parties is an
agreement independent of the substantive contract, the Delhi High
Court in
Dholi Spintex Pvt. Ltd. v. Louis Dreyfus Company India
Pvt. Ltd.
1 has held that two Indian
parties can choose a foreign law as the law governing the
arbitration between them. The Court has also reiterated the legal
position on limited interference by Courts in international
arbitrations.
Factual Background:
Plaintiff ) had entered into a contract
with Louis Dreyfus Company India Pvt. Ltd. (the
Defendant ) for supply of 600 metric
tonnes of American imported raw cotton on May 30, 2019
(
Contract ). The Contract was entered
In a recent order passed in the matter of
Union of India v.
M/s Associated Construction Co.
1, the Hon ble
Supreme Court highlighted the uncertainty surrounding the period of
limitation applicable on appeals filed under Section 37 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (
Arbitration
Act).
In the instant case, an arbitral award was challenged by the
Union of India (
Petitioner) under Section 34 of
the Arbitration Act. The High Court dismissed the objections of the
Petitioner in the application filed under Section 34 of the
Arbitration Act. The Petitioner then filed an appeal under Section
13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (
Commercial Courts
Act) read with Section 37 of the Arbitration Act before
with the authors To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com. Do you want to compare other jurisdictions?. Click here
1 Legal and judicial framework
1.1 Which legislative and regulatory provisions govern the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in your jurisdiction?
Judgments from foreign countries are recognisable and enforceable in the Cayman Islands pursuant to the common law and, in a limited number of cases, pursuant to the Foreign Judgments Reciprocal Enforcement Law (1996 Revision).
Foreign arbitration awards may be enforced under the Foreign Arbitral Awards Enforcement Law (1997 Revision) (for further details please see