This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The underlying dispute concerned unpaid invoices under a Gas Supply Agreement (‘ GSA ’) entered into by the Parties in 2016 for the purchase of Regasified Liquefied Natural Gas (‘ RLNG ’) from Sui Northern Gas Pipelines (‘ SNGPL ’). The LCIA arbitral award (the ‘ Award ’) which was challenged involved a withdrawal of PKR 3.3 8.5m) and PKR 9.23
b) proposes raising the monetary threshold for Expedited Procedure from SGD 6,000,000 to SGD 10,000,000, positioning SIAC as the institution with the most substantial threshold amount in place for Expedited Procedure. The procedure has seen substantial interest from users, with 56 applications filed since 2016. Draft Rule 14.1(b)
Such framing sets a higher threshold for establishing a violation of FET. Most of the BITs and MITs entered into by African states until 2016 contained an autonomous FET standard or FET standard linked with principles of international law. See Ghana-Turkey BIT (2016), Art. 4(1) and Nigeria-UAE BIT (2016), Art.
She also highlighted the high threshold in Denmark to set aside an award based on an arbitral tribunal’s action, especially if such action is covered by the national law, institutional rules and/or procedural orders. This 2022 Supreme Court judgment followed the leading Supreme Court judgment from 2016 (U.2016.1558/2H),
Such provision was declared unconstitutional in Judgment C-035 of 2016 because it authorized mining activities in projects with pre-acquired environmental licenses in páramo areas. In June 2015, Colombia enacted Law 1753 , ratifying the mining ban in páramos , but reviving a grandfathering provision alike Law 1382.
Such provision was declared unconstitutional in Judgment C-035 of 2016 because it authorized mining activities in projects with pre-acquired environmental licenses in páramo areas. In June 2015, Colombia enacted Law 1753 , ratifying the mining ban in páramos , but reviving a grandfathering provision alike Law 1382.
Additionally, while applications relating to the propriety of proceedings at the threshold may seem to involve the court’s powers, they do not, in certain contexts, contradict a jurisdictional challenge. For example, a striking-out application, as demonstrated in Maniach Pte Ltd v. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Legal Position in India General Scheme of India’s Insolvency Regime The law relating to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“ CIRP ”) in India is codified in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“ IBC ”), which distinguishes between financial creditors and operational creditors. 14) Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. Axis Bank Ltd.
Its main contentions were that the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption, and enforcement would be contrary to public policy. The Defendant argued that the rare and compelling threshold ought to apply in the case where a party was applying for a stay of its own setting aside application.
Ironically, the case leading to the Achmea judgment was referred to the CJEU by the German Federal Court of Justice (“BGH”) in 2016 precisely by way of a preliminary reference procedure under Article 267 TFEU, when it was seized with the setting aside proceedings against the arbitral award in Achmea B.V.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
98 
Let's personalize your content