SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Del) 893

MUKUL MUDGAL
SIAL BIOENERGIE – Appellant
Versus
SBEC SYSTEMS – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ASHUTOSH KHAITAN, Dhruv Wahi, P.V.KAPUR, RAJIVE SAWHNEY, RAKESH SAWHNEY, SANJAY BHARTARI, VERONICA MOHAN, VIPIN SANGHI

MUKUL MUDGAL, J.

( 1 ) A submission has been made on behalf of the judgment Debtor in support of these applications which seek to lead oral evidence in support of the objections (EA. No. 733/03) to the enforcement of the Award dated 19th May, 2003 under Sections 48 and 34 of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the `1996 act ), the phrase `furnish proof to the Court in Section 48 (1) would include oral evidence.

( 2 ) SECTION 48 of the 1996 Act reads as follows:-

"48. CONDITIONS for enforcement of foreign awards.- (1) enforcement of a foreign award may be refused, at the request of the party against whom it is invoked, only if that party furnishes to the court proof that__ (a) the parties to the agreement referred to in section 44 were, under the law applicable to them, under some incapacity, or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law of the country where the award was made; or (b) the party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; or (c) th











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top