Rakesh Malhotra v. Rajinder Kumar Malhotra

Citation: MANU/MH/1309/2014 Facts Supremax Group, world’s second largest manufacturer of razor blades and allied products, was run by Rajindra Kumar Malhotra (“Rajindra”) and his family members. All the assets, business and plants belonging to Indian companies were later transferred to a newly incorporated company, which was under the control of Rakesh Malhotra (“Appellant”), Rajindra’s elder…

|

M/s Swastik Gases Pvt. Ltd Vs. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd.

SUPREME COURT ON APPLICATION OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSES M/S Swastik Gases Pvt.Ltd vs Indian Oil Corp.Ltd[1] (2013) 9 SCC 32 Facts Respondents, Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) and IBP Ltd, (collectively “the Company“), was engaged in the business of storage, distribution of petroleum products and other related products. Appellant, M/s. Swastik Gases Private Limited, dealt in…

Mitsubishi Motors Corp. vs. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.

Mitsubishi Motors Corp. vs. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. FACTS IN BRIEF: A Japanese corporation and Chrysler International entered into a Joint Venture (called Mitsubishi Motors) for the distribution of cars through the Respondent’s dealers outside the continental US. Owing to a fall in the market for cars, the Respondent sought permission to transship the cars to…

M/S Dozco India P.Ltd. vs M/S Doosan Infracore Co.Ltd.

M/S Dozco India P.Ltd. vs M/S Doosan Infracore Co.Ltd. (2010) BACKGROUND Part I of the Act deals with domestic arbitration and section 2(2) provides that Part I shall apply where the place of arbitration is India. In Bhatia International v Bulk Trading SA (2002) 4 SCC 105, the Indian Supreme Court had held that Part I…

Denel (Proprietary Limited) vs. Bharat Electronics Ltd. & Anr.

Denel (Proprietary Limited) vs. Bharat Electronics Ltd. & Anr. FACTS IN BRIEF: The respondent (Bharat) (a Government of India Enterprise) had placed certain purchase orders with the claimant (Denel) (a company wholly owned by the government of South Africa), for the delivery of electrical equipment which was duly delivered. Bharat accepted the goods but refused…

M/S. Centrotrade Minerals vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd.

M/S. Centrotrade Minerals vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd., (2006) FACTS The case involved a contract to supply of copper concentrate to HCL by Centrotade. The Dispute resolution of the contract provided– Arbitration in India as per the rules of the Indian Council of Arbitration; if either party is dissatisfied, then a second arbitration in London as per…

Bhatia International vs. Bulk Trading S.A. & Anr.

Bhatia International vs Bulk Trading S. A. & Anr. (2002) Contract contained an arbitration clause which provided that arbitration was to be as per the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). ISSUE: Whether Indian Courts have power to grant interim relief U/S 9 of the A&C Act 1996? CONTENTIONS Appellant Part I of the…

Citation Infowares Ltd. vs Equinox Corporation

Citation Infowares Ltd. vs Equinox Corporation Ltd. (2009) FACTS M/s Citation Infowares (Indian company) (CI)entered into an agreement in India with the Equinox Corporation (US company). The final dispute resolution clause in the agreement provided as follows: “10.1. Governing law – This agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of…

M/S Sms Tea Estates P.Ltd. vs M/S Chandmari Tea Co.P.Ltd.

M/S Sms Tea Estates P.Ltd. vs M/S Chandmari Tea Co.P.Ltd. (2011) FACTS In pursuance of a lease deed the Respondent (Chandmari Tea Company) (R) leased tea estates to the Appellant (SMS Tea Estates) (A). The lease deed provided for disputes to be resolved by arbitration. Before execution of the lease deed, R offered to sell the…

National Agricultural Coop. Marketing Federation India Ltd. vs. Gains Trading Ltd.

2007 (5) SCC 692 FACTS The Petitioner (P) and Respondent (R) entered into an agreement with R agreeing to purchase from the P certain amount of of iron-ore fines at a definite price. Clause 17 of the agreement provided that if no settlement can be reached by negotiation and mutual agreement, the matter in dispute…

Gas Authority Of India Ltd. vs Spie Capag, S.A. And Others

Gas Authority Of India Ltd. vs Spie Capag, S.A. And Others AIR 1994 Delhi 75 FACTS Petitioner (GAIL) had entered into two agreements, for the execution of a Gas Pipe Line Project with Respondent Consortium (herein after, R), consisting of Spie Capag and others. The entire project was to be executed in accordance with the…