VIJAY KARIA vs PRYSMIAN CAVI E SISTEMI SRL

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(SC) 151

ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
VIJAY KARIA – Appellant
Versus
PRYSMIAN CAVI E SISTEMI SRL – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Nakul Dewan, Moazzam Khan, Bhavana Sunder, Amit Bhandari, Pradhuman Gohil, Taruna Singh Gohil, Ranu Purohit, Ritin Rai, Alipak Banerjee, Brijesh Ujjainwal, Vikash Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Kapil Sibal, K.V. Viswanathan, Marezban P. Bharucha, Shreya Gupta, Akanksha Banerjee, King Dungerwal, Apoorv Singhal, Anusha Nagarajan, Raghav Tankha, Kunal Vajani, Venkatraman, Mukunda Rao, Eklavya Dwivedi, Advocates

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, there is no specific discussion or ruling related to patent law, patent rights, or patent disputes. The document primarily pertains to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, the procedural aspects of arbitration, and the grounds for resisting enforcement under applicable arbitration statutes. It addresses issues such as jurisdiction, natural justice, public policy, and the interpretation of arbitration clauses, but does not delve into patent law or patent-related matters.

Therefore, the document does not provide any guidance or legal principles directly related to patent rights or patent disputes. If your query concerns the enforceability of patent rights, patent infringement, or patent registration, additional specific legal provisions or case law focusing on patent law would need to be examined.

In summary: - The document does not contain any specific information or rulings on patent law. - Enforcement or validity of patents is not discussed. - The legal principles outlined are centered on arbitration law and the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, not patent rights.

If you require advice or analysis on patent law specifically, please provide relevant patent statutes, regulations, or case details for a focused response.

JUDGMENT

R.F. Nariman, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeals are filed against the judgment of a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dated 07.01.2019, by which four final awards made by a sole arbitrator in London under the London Court of International Arbitration Rules (2014) (hereinafter referred to as the “LCIA Rules”) were held to be enforceable against the Appellants in India.

3. The brief facts of this case are as follows. The Appellants, i.e. Appellant No.1 Shri Vijay Karia, and Appellants No.2 to 39 (who are represented by Appellant No.1) are individual, non-corporate shareholders of Ravin Cables Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Ravin”). On 19.01.2010, the Appellants and Ravin entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (hereinafter referred to as “JVA”) with Respondent No.1, i.e. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL – a company registered under the laws of Italy. By this JVA, Respondent No.1 acquired a majority shareholding (51%) of Ravin’s share capital. The material clauses of the JVA are set out hereinbelow:

“8. Purpose and Objectives

8.1 Purpose of the Company and Scope

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2020 Supreme(SC) 151

ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, V.RAMASUBRAMANIANVIJAY KARIA – AppellantVersusPRYSMIAN CAVI E SISTEMI SRL – Respondent

Cases Referred (18)

ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
VIJAY KARIA – Appellant
Versus
PRYSMIAN CAVI E SISTEMI SRL – Respondent