In which of the following cases it was held by the Supreme Court that Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would have no application to International commercial arbitrations held outside India and therefore such awards would only be subject to the jurisdiction of Indian courts when the same are sought to be enforced in India in accordance with Part II of the said Act?
A. Bharat Aluminium Company etc. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Service Inc. etc. (Balco), 2012 (9) SCC 552
B. Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading SA and Anr., 2002 (4) SCC 105
C. Sachin Gupta and Anr. v. K. S. Forge Metal Pvt. Ltd., (2013) 10 SCC 540
D. Kanpur Jal Sansthan and Anr. v. Bapu Construction, 2014 (1) SCALE 207
Answer: Option A
Which of the Sections provide for the number of conciliations:
A. Section 63
B. Section 64
C. Section 65
D. Section 66
A. M.M.T.C. Ltd. v. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd.
B. Sunderam Finance Ltd. v. N.E.P.C. Ltd.
C. Olympus Super structures Pvt. Ltd. v. Meera Vijay
D. Orma Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Nissari Pvt. Ltd.
A. Is void and non-actionable
B. Is to be construed as being of reference of disputes to a sole arbitrator
C. Is to be construed as being of reference of disputes to three arbitrators
D. Is to be construed as being of reference of disputes to five arbitrators with the fifth arbitrator being nominated by the two arbitrators of each party
While considering the grant of interim measures, the Court may see whether:
A. The applicant has made prima facie case
B. The balance of convenience is in his favour
C. He would suffer irreparable injury if such measures are not granted
D. All of the above
Join The Discussion