Skip to main content

Indian courts can restrain foreign arbitration: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has said that Indian courts have the jurisdiction to restrain foreign arbitration cases from going ahead, but permitted a dispute over the Board of Control for Cricket in India's media rights between World Sport Group (Mauritius) and MSM Satellite (Singapore) to be decided by the Singapore-based International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).

A single judge of the Bombay High Court had on September 17, 2010 referred the row to the ICC for arbitration, but a division bench had stalled the process on an appeal. A two-judge top court bench, led by Justice AK Patnaik, restored the singlejudge order on January 24, 2014. The issue relates to the Indian Premier League's media rights. World Sport had first sought ICC arbitration.

The top court rejected the contention that because an agreement provided "that any party may seek equitable relief in a court of competent jurisdiction in Singapore, or such other court that may have jurisdiction over the parties, the Bombay HC had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and restrain the arbitration proceedings."

It further said: "Under Section 9 of the CPC (Civil Procedure Code), courts in India have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred."

BCCI and MSM signed a fouryear media rights agreement in January 2008. After the first IPL season in 2008, BCCI terminated the agreement with MSM for the Indian subcontinent and began negotiations with WSG India.

Article referred: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/indian-courts-can-restrain-foreign-arbitration-supreme-court/articleshow/29431967.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more