Back
SUPREME COURT
A. M. Sapre, J
Venture Global Engineering LLC – Appellant
Versus
Tech Mahindra Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. leave granted in both slps; court's decision supports the conclusion of high court. (Para 1) |
| 2. background context includes arbitration details and relevant agreement. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. details regarding proceedings initiated in multiple jurisdictions. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court deliberates on previous judgments regarding procedural validity. (Para 12 , 14 , 15 , 19) |
| 5. appeals outcome against prior court decisions related to enforcement of the award. (Para 18 , 26 , 27 , 30) |
| 6. legal principles governing arbitration and setting aside of awards. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 7. substantial reference to fraudulent acts impacting arbitration outcomes. (Para 36 , 41 , 46 , 149 , 150) |
| 8. court identifies public policy violations justifying the setting aside of the award. (Para 156 , 175) |
1. Leave granted in both the SLPs.
I had the advantage of reading the opinion of my learned brother Justice Sapre. While I agree with the conclusion recorded by him that the High Court erred in its conclusion on the question whether the proceedings initiated by VENTURE in OP No. 390 of 2008 are barred by the principle of "issue estoppel", I am unable to persuade myself to agree with
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
