Source: http://www.swamilawyer.com/2016/10/raffles-design-international-india.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 08:11:15+00:00

Document:
Ms Jamal Joy and Mr Samaksh Goyal.
For the Respondents : Mr Suhail Dutt, Senior Advocate with Mr M.A.
Niyazi, Mr Achint Singh Gyani and Ms Prabjot Kaur Chhabra.
salaries to any other employees hired by the Society.
have impliedly agreed to exclude the applicability of Section 9 of the Act.
to 23.10.2015. The petitioners contend otherwise.
whether the petition filed by the petitioners is maintainable.
into a Master Joint Venture Agreement(Master JVA) dated 16.05.2008.
increased its stake in ERHEL to 58.18%.
operations of JRRES in this period as working capital."
the premises of the Society or the Noida College.
secured an enforcement order dated 04.02.2016 against respondent no 2.
of SIAC Rules praying for setting aside of the Emergency Award.
before the Amendment Act came into force, that is, 23.10.2015.
held in Bhatia International (supra).
603; and Harmony Innovation Shipping Ltd. v. Gupta Coal India Ltd.
interim order) was not available.
way indicate that Part I has been impliedly excluded by the parties.
frustrating the rights of the petitioners.
applicability of the Amendment Act to those proceedings.
expressly indicated under Section 26 of the Act.
stretch can be considered as arbitral proceedings.
of Section 26 of the Act only bars its applicability to arbitral proceedings.
import of the first limb of Section 26.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996).
conjunction with the words ―the provisions‖ of the old Act.
under Sections 8, 9, 14, 34 and 37 of the Act.
must be understood that they were not used to convey the same meaning.
commenced before 23.10.2015 to which Part-I does not apply.
the Amendment Act would be applicable from the date it came into force.
must be addressed for the sake of completeness.
unless indicated otherwise either expressly or by necessary implication.
and Anr. v. State of Vindhya Pradesh: AIR 1953 SC 394.
manner so as to avoid its retroactive effect, if any.
the nature of arbitration law and effect of the Amendment Act as a whole.
that led to enactment of such provisions.
be effectively enforced. The Supreme Court in Sundaram Finance Ltd v.
to the orders of the arbitral tribunal.
Power Company Ltd v. General Electric Company: AIR 1994 SC 860.
being contrary to public policy of India.
execution of the award on filing of a petition under Section 34 of the Act.
regarded as a substantive vested right of the judgment-debtor.
agreed to accept the decision of an arbitral tribunal as final and binding.
proceedings initiated prior to 23.10.2015.
50. In Secretary of State for Social Security and Another v.
the doctrine of fairness was accepted by the Supreme Court in Vijay v.
competence of the legislature in this behalf."
if it is fair to do so and if it furthers the intention of the legislature.
speedy resolution of disputes and provide an efficacious ADR mechanism.
(Amendment) Bill, 2003 was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 22.12.2003.
Paper inviting suggestions from public and other stakeholders.
Commission of India to undertake a study of the proposed amendments.
claimed by the parties in respect to the pre-amended Act.
may follow would be enforced according to the Amended Act.
same shall not be opened to that extent.
apply to all pending arbitrations.
of disputes to arbitration is made.
Act is available in relation to the arbitral proceedings in question.
accordance with the laws of Singapore.
be appointed by the Chairman of SIAC.
arbitration shall be in English.
shall survive the termination of this Agreement."
arbitral proceedings, lex arbitri, is also the law as applicable in Singapore.
application in cases where the seat of arbitration is outside India.
1996 is limited to all arbitrations which take place in India.
commercial arbitration with a seat outside India.
provisions of Part II of Act.
word "seat" in its place.
recognized under Part II of this Act.
where the seat of the arbitration is outside India.]"
line of the proviso as proposed by the Law commission were omitted.
provisions of Sections 9, 27, 37(1)(a) and 37(3) would stand excluded.
under Section 34 of the Act was maintainable in respect of a foreign award.
without regard to the conflicts of law rules of such jurisdiction.
the London Court of Arbitration.
in India at any time."
accordance with the laws of England and Wales."
referred to in the NTPC case support such a proposition.
11 thereof would be maintainable."
in force of the International Chamber of Commerce."
in accordance with the laws of India.
Article 34 shall be governed by the laws of England."
contained in Article 34 shall be governed by laws of England.
entertain the petition filed by the respondents."
proceedings and any pending claim or dispute."
would be construed and considered in accordance with law in Singapore.
arbitration, implicitly excludes the applicability of Section 9 of the Act?
shall apply where the place of arbitration is in India.
such place is not specified in the arbitration agreement.‖.
petition as it would not qualify as a "judgment" or "decree"
seeking to enforce the interim relief obtained by it.
issued, subject to the provisions of article 17 I.
a review of the substance of the interim measure.
Section 9 of the Act, has to be considered in the above backdrop.
with the arbitral proceedings .
Model Law and permit the parties to approach the Court for interim relief.
courts to grant interim orders in aid to proceedings held outside the State.
excluded the applicability of Section 9 of the Act.
Law contains express provisions for enforcement of interim measures.
of arbitral proceedings held outside India.
enforcing the same would be for the petitioner to file a suit.
and grant interim relief in cases where it is warranted.
view of the Arbitral Tribunal.
maintainable and accordingly, it is to be considered on its merits.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.