355

Whether address of the signatory in agreement changes the venue and the seat of the Arbitration proceedings? – Schlumberger Asia Service Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. – Delhi High Court

/ 15 minutes of reading

Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that:

(i) The controversy about the “seat” and “venue” has been arising frequently since, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not specifically use either word vis., “seat” or “venue” but uses the word “place”. The term ‘Seat’ is of utmost importance as it connotes the situs of arbitration. The term ‘Venue‟ though often confused with the term ‘Seat’, is a place chosen as convenient location by the parties to carry out the arbitration proceedings, but it should not be confused with ‘Seat’. The term ‘Seat’ carries more weight than ‘Venue’ or ‘place’.
(ii) Where the “exclusive jurisdiction” is a generic clause and does not specifically refer to arbitration proceedings, it is the ‘seat’ or ‘place’ of arbitration that Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996.

Whether address of the signatory in agreement changes the venue and the seat of the Arbitration proceedings? – Schlumberger Asia Service Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Upendra Singh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Consortium Partner of the Successful Resolution Applicant, EDCL-UPSC Consortium Vs. The Monitoring Committee of Tantia Constructions & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

/ 4 minutes of reading

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here

Upendra Singh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Consortium Partner of the Successful Resolution Applicant, EDCL-UPSC Consortium Vs. The Monitoring Committee of Tantia Constructions & Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Operational Debt cannot be converted into Financial Debt merely on basis of MoU if company was not eligible to advance loan in terms of sec 186(2) of companies act 2013 – Jambudwip Exports and Imports Ltd. Vs. U P Bone Mills Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-II

/ 2 minutes of reading

From the various facts, the Bench conclude that the amount advanced by the Applicant Company to the Corporate Debtor for purchase of certain goods was neither disbursed as loan per se nor the conversion of the said advance into an Inter-Corporate Loan through the instrument of an MoU is in accordance with the law. Further, it is observed that by executing the MOU dated 10.05.2019, the parties have cleverly attempted to convert an Operational Debt into a Financial Debt.

Operational Debt cannot be converted into Financial Debt merely on basis of MoU if company was not eligible to advance loan in terms of sec 186(2) of companies act 2013 – Jambudwip Exports and Imports Ltd. Vs. U P Bone Mills Pvt. Ltd. – NCLT New Delhi Bench Court-II Read Post »

Scroll to Top