Econet Wireless Zimbabwe Limited (ECO.zw) listed on the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange under the Technology sector has released it’s 2013 annual report.For more information about Econet Wireless Zimbabwe Limited (ECO.zw) reports, abridged reports, interim earnings results and earnings presentations, visit the Econet Wireless Zimbabwe Limited (ECO.zw) company page on AfricanFinancials.Document: Econet Wireless Zimbabwe Limited (ECO.zw) 2013 annual report.Company ProfileEconet Wireless Zimbabwe is a diversified telecommunications group; it is the largest enterprise of its kind in Zimbabwe and the largest company on the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange in terms of market capitalisation. Econet Wireless Zimbabwe provides products and solutions for mobile and fixed wireless telephony, public payphones, internet access and payment solutions. In 2009, Econet Wireless Zimbabwe became the first operator in Zimbabwe to launch data services with 3G capability. This was followed by an extensive project to expand its geographic coverage; building a fibre-optic network, providing financial transaction switching and point-of-sale and value-added retail support services. The company is a subsidiary of a privately-owned group controlled by its founder, Strive Masiyiwa. The group’s subsidiaries include Econet Global, Econet Wireless Africa, Econet Wireless International, Econet Enterprises, Liquid Telecom Group and Econet Media.
International Energy Insurance Company (INTENE.ng) listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange under the Insurance sector has released it’s 2014 annual report.For more information about International Energy Insurance Company (INTENE.ng) reports, abridged reports, interim earnings results and earnings presentations, visit the International Energy Insurance Company (INTENE.ng) company page on AfricanFinancials.Document: International Energy Insurance Company (INTENE.ng) 2014 annual report.Company ProfileInternational Energy Insurance Company Plc is an insurance company in Nigeria offering products and services to the energy sector. The company covers oil and gas, engineering, motor vehicle, bond and finance guarantees, money risks, fire and allied perils, burglary and house breaking, personal accident, goods in transport and life insurance. International Energy Insurance Company Plc was established to focus entirely on the energy sector. The company’s security is backed by a consortium of local and foreign re-insurers coupled with its technical partners Marsh Limited and AON Corporation in London, United Kingdom. AON is currently rated the leading Global Reinsurance Brokers. The company’s head office is in Abuja, Nigeria. International Energy Insurance Company Plc is listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange
See all posts by Alan Oscroft “This Stock Could Be Like Buying Amazon in 1997” Image source: Getty Images. Alan Oscroft | Wednesday, 11th March, 2020 | More on: IAG LLOY RDSB I would like to receive emails from you about product information and offers from The Fool and its business partners. Each of these emails will provide a link to unsubscribe from future emails. More information about how The Fool collects, stores, and handles personal data is available in its Privacy Statement. I’m sure you’ll agree that’s quite the statement from Motley Fool Co-Founder Tom Gardner.But since our US analyst team first recommended shares in this unique tech stock back in 2016, the value has soared.What’s more, we firmly believe there’s still plenty of upside in its future. In fact, even throughout the current coronavirus crisis, its performance has been beating Wall St expectations.And right now, we’re giving you a chance to discover exactly what has got our analysts all fired up about this niche industry phenomenon, in our FREE special report, A Top US Share From The Motley Fool. Click here to claim your copy now — and we’ll tell you the name of this Top US Share… free of charge! Alan Oscroft owns shares of Lloyds Banking Group. The Motley Fool UK has recommended Lloyds Banking Group. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The FTSE 100 stands spot on 6,000 points as I write, down 20% since the coronavirus threat appeared. But how do we find the crashing shares to buy during the FTSE 100 slump?We could look for defensive stocks and buy for safety. But there’s an alternative. I say let’s examine those that have been harmed, and will be harmed, and think about buying those instead.5G is here – and shares of this ‘sleeping giant’ could be a great way for you to potentially profit!According to one leading industry firm, the 5G boom could create a global industry worth US$12.3 TRILLION out of thin air…And if you click here we’ll show you something that could be key to unlocking 5G’s full potential…My rationale is that they’re likely to be oversold, as so often happens when a market panic is in full swing.Crashing oil sharesThe virus threat, coupled with a failure by OPEC countries to restrict supplies and keep prices up, has led to an oil price slump. From around $65 per barrel at the start of the year, oil has slumped to just $39. And oil stocks have collapsed along with the price.I think some companies are too risky to consider, as there’s a real chance they could go bust. But surely not Royal Dutch Shell (LSE: RDSB). At 1,340p, Shell shares have fallen 30% during the coronavirus panic. And they’re down 40% since the start of the year as oil price weakness was already taking its toll.The price fall has pushed Shell’s forecast dividend yield up to 10.8%, and that’s the kind of income that could make a big difference to your pension prospects. Of course, if oil stays this low for a prolonged period, the dividend might be cut.But if there’s one lesson I took from the last oil price slump, it’s that it was a great time to buy Shell shares for the long term.Airline troublesThe travel business, which was already under pressure, has taken a big hit. Folks are staying at home, holidays are being postponed, and flights are being cancelled. And the crisis has pushed the International Consolidated Airlines (LSE: IAG) share price down more than 35%.Normally I wouldn’t touch airline shares, as they’re faced with so many business factors that are beyond their control. The most obvious is the price of fuel, and these businesses are at the mercy of wherever the oil chart goes. Ironically, coronavirus fears have helped ease that burden a little, though it’s perhaps of small comfort to shareholders.But this time next year, will the coronavirus pandemic be over? Will British Airways and Iberia flights be back to normal levels? Will IAG be back to its usual profitability and still paying out desirable dividends? I say yes.Banking collapseThe virus has hit Lloyds Banking Group (LSE: LLOY) shares too. But why? Well, everything seems to impact on Lloyds shares these days. It doesn’t matter what it is, if it’s negative, someone will use it as a reason to sell Lloyds.Being a little more serious, should the contagion cause a UK recession, or even a worldwide recession, Lloyds could genuinely be hit. The profits that have been growing in recent years are already looking slightly risky, and the chances of Lloyds’ progressive dividend having to be cut have surely risen.But look at the share price. It’s down 25% in the panic, and down 30% since the start of the year. And the forecast dividend yield is up to 8%. It’s possible that the long-term Lloyds bears are right. But if they’re wrong, Lloyds could be a great buy now. Our 6 ‘Best Buys Now’ Shares Simply click below to discover how you can take advantage of this. Enter Your Email Address Renowned stock-picker Mark Rogers and his analyst team at The Motley Fool UK have named 6 shares that they believe UK investors should consider buying NOW.So if you’re looking for more stock ideas to try and best position your portfolio today, then it might be a good day for you. Because we’re offering a full 33% off your first year of membership to our flagship share-tipping service, backed by our ‘no quibbles’ 30-day subscription fee refund guarantee. 3 crashing shares I’d buy as the FTSE 100 slump continues
“COPY” ShareFacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappMailOrhttps://www.archdaily.com/782832/el-meandro-marion-regitko Clipboard Houses ShareFacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappMailOrhttps://www.archdaily.com/782832/el-meandro-marion-regitko Clipboard Manufacturers: panoramah!® Products translation missing: en-US.post.svg.material_description CopyAbout this officeMarion RegitkoOfficeFollowProductsSteelStoneConcrete#TagsProjectsBuilt ProjectsSelected ProjectsResidential ArchitectureHousesMijasSpainPublished on March 01, 2016Cite: “El Meandro / Marion Regitko” 01 Mar 2016. ArchDaily. Accessed 11 Jun 2021.
Howard Lake | 10 June 2001 | News AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis 13 total views, 1 views today AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis World Run Day is a New York-based initiative for a global fundraising event due to take place on 11 November 2001. World Run Day is a New York-based initiative for a global fundraising event due to take place on 11 November 2001. Participants are encouraged to “run any distance you desire and donate to any charity on the face of the earth.”Find out more from World Run Day. Advertisement World Run Day About Howard Lake Howard Lake is a digital fundraising entrepreneur. Publisher of UK Fundraising, the world’s first web resource for professional fundraisers, since 1994. Trainer and consultant in digital fundraising. Founder of Fundraising Camp and co-founder of GoodJobs.org.uk. Researching massive growth in giving.
Howard Lake | 15 October 2003 | News Tagged with: Finance Giving/Philanthropy UK finance directors believe charity finances are open to abuse AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis One anonymous director also remarked there was little scope to enforce guidelines and monitor organisations: “My experience of the Charity Commission is that it is fairly toothless,” he said.Richard Post, managing director, Reed Accountancy said: “If over half of UK finance directors believe UK charities are open to financial abuse, there is a need to examine efficiency and security within these organisations.“This is especially concerning as our previous surveys have shown our respondents to be very sympathetic towards charities. Our previous surveys on financial abuse have shown no organisation is immune to theserisks.”The survey involved 110 directors. They were asked: “Are charity sector financesat risk of abuse due to poor financial controls?”The results were:Yes definitely: 18%Yes probably: 34%Neutral: 28%No probably: 10%No definitely: 10% More than half of UK finance directors believe charity sector finances are open to abuse, according to this week’s Reed Accountancy/Accountancy Age Big Question survey.The concern is based on the experience of many. For example, John Davies, finance director of Southampton-based solicitors Moore & Blatch issued a stark warning: “As a trustee of a registered charity I would say there is always a risk of abuse,” he said.Mike Paull, finance director of Surrey-based technology company Actel, explained the two main areas of risk: “Most small charities have ‘one-man-band’ treasurers who perform the whole function themselves and no one checking their work. The risk in this situation is either they do not have the competence to do the job to the required level, or they have complete control and therefore the ability and temptation to siphon off funds,” he said. Advertisement 29 total views, 1 views today AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis About Howard Lake Howard Lake is a digital fundraising entrepreneur. Publisher of UK Fundraising, the world’s first web resource for professional fundraisers, since 1994. Trainer and consultant in digital fundraising. Founder of Fundraising Camp and co-founder of GoodJobs.org.uk. Researching massive growth in giving.
News March 12, 2021 Find out more SyriaMiddle East – North Africa Protecting journalists Armed conflictsImprisonedHostagesFreedom of expressionCitizen-journalists Toll of ten years of civil war on journalists in Syria Hay’at Tahrir al Sham, a radical islamist militant group, released the Syrian citizen-journalist Hossam Mahmoud last week after six months in captivity, but still holds his colleague Amjad al Maleh. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) hopes he will be released soon. RSF_en March 8, 2021 Find out more Organisation Hay’at Tahrir al Sham (also known as HTS) freed Hossam Mahmoud as part of an amnesty on 6 June, after holding him for six months. But HTS continues to hold Amjad al Maleh, who was captured at the same time as Mahmoud, on 10 December 2017, as they were reporting near the northern city of Idlib. HTS has released other citizen-journalists in recent months. On 24 May, it freed Ahmed al Akhras, who had been arrested on 28 April. And it freed Ali Al Dalati on 28 February after holding him for two months. Shortly before Mahmoud’s release, RSF contacted the local authorities in the Idlib region where HTS operates. They said they were holding neither of these two citizen-journalists and insisted that they did not arrest journalists and were even ready to protect them. Clearly concerned about their international image, the authorities posted a registration form online on 29 April for use by foreign journalists interested in covering the region. “We call for the immediate release of Amjad al Maleh after the release of other citizen-journalists in recent months,” RSF said. “The conditions in which these hostages are held and the mistreatment to which some are subjected constitute acts of torture punishable under international law.” Sources have told RSF that citizen-journalists held by HTS are sometimes subjected to very violent interrogations and beaten with the aim of making them give up being reporters. HTS often accuses those who are not its supporters of doing “media work without permission” or of collaborating with the “ungodly West” if the western media have used their photos. Despite internal divisions, HTS wants to win the battle for local public opinion and to control the media’s reporting. Like all civilians, journalists are exposed to be possibility of being kidnapped or murdered by any of the armed groups present in Syria. The Syrian and Turkish forces that recently took control of the Afrin region have arrested and intimidated several reporters and photographers. Seven journalists and media workers have been killed by the Syrian regular army and its allies since the start of the year. Ranked 177th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2018 World Press Freedom Index, Syria continued to be the world’s most dangerous country for journalists last year. News Follow the news on Syria to go further Receive email alerts Help by sharing this information Damascus TV presenter arrested under cyber-crime law February 3, 2021 Find out more Wave of Kurdish arrests of Syrian journalists SyriaMiddle East – North Africa Protecting journalists Armed conflictsImprisonedHostagesFreedom of expressionCitizen-journalists News News June 13, 2018 Syrian reporter freed after six months as armed group’s hostage
Help by sharing this information News Organisation Follow the news on China News July 17, 2007 – Updated on January 20, 2016 Court sentences cyber-dissident Zhu Yufu to two years in prison to go further More information on his first conviction. April 27, 2021 Find out more News News June 2, 2021 Find out more Zhu Yufu, a cyber-dissident and pro-democracy activist who was released last year after spending seven years in prison, was yesterday sentenced to another two years in prison for pushing a police officer at the time of his arrest on 19 April. His son, Zhu Ang, who was arrested at the same time, was given a one-year suspended sentence.Reporters Without Borders described the sentence as immoral and accused China of breaking its promises and of stepping up human violations in the approach to the Beijing Olympic Games. Normally pushing a police officer at the time of arrest would result in a fine or a short period in detention.When Zhu was released from prison in 2006, he told The Epoch Times he wanted to resume his activism and tell the world about the mistreatment he underwent in prison. He knew he could be re-arrested, but he said he would continue to denounce the “diabolical” nature of the Chinese Communist Party.The Reporters Without Borders release on Zhu’s arrest in April. Receive email alerts China: Political commentator sentenced to eight months in prison March 12, 2021 Find out more ChinaAsia – Pacific Democracies need “reciprocity mechanism” to combat propaganda by authoritarian regimes China’s Cyber Censorship Figures ChinaAsia – Pacific RSF_en
ColumnsQuippo Construction Equipment Ltd v Janardan Nirmal Pvt Ltd : A Critical Analysis Abhinay Sharma & Lakshmi Subramaniam Iyer23 May 2020 10:23 PMShare This – xIn the celebrated judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Mohandas Issardas And Ors. vs A.N. Sattanathan And Ors, authored by Justice M.C. Chagla, it was observed that a judgment of a Court has to be read in the context of questions which arose for consideration in the case in which the judgment was delivered. A distinction was drawn between ratio decidendi and…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginIn the celebrated judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Mohandas Issardas And Ors. vs A.N. Sattanathan And Ors, authored by Justice M.C. Chagla, it was observed that a judgment of a Court has to be read in the context of questions which arose for consideration in the case in which the judgment was delivered. A distinction was drawn between ratio decidendi and obiter dictum of a judgment. Justice Chagla observed that an obiter dictum is an observation by Court on a legal question suggested in a case before it but not arising in such manner as to require a decision. Although an obiter does not carry precedential value as the observation was unnecessary for the decision pronounced, yet it is of considerable weight. Thus, the finding of the court on an issue which necessarily arises in the case and which is required to be determined for the final disposal of a matter is the ratio of the judgment. The obiter relates to the finding of the court of an issue, which although arises in the matter, but is not required to be decided for the final disposal of the case. It is in the above context, that the authors have analysed the recent judgment of Division Bench of the Supreme Court in Quippo Construction EquipmentLimited v. Janardan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 2378 of 2020,decided on 29.04.2020) (“Quippo Construction”). Factual Background The Civil Appeal emanates from the judgment passed by Calcutta High Court in an Appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( “the Act”) arising out of an order passed by the District Court, Alipore, dealing with a challenge to arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act. The dispute arose out of four contracts entered into between two parties in relation to providing construction equipments for infrastructure activities. Each of these contracts contained an arbitration clause. Three out of the four arbitration clauses designated New Delhi as the venue, whereas one agreement mentioned Kolkata as the place of arbitration. In pursuance of the four agreements, construction equipments were provided by the Appellant to the Respondent. As per the terms of the agreements, the Respondent had to make payment within 7 days of the submission of monthly bill. Since, the Respondent defaulted in making the payment within the time period stipulated in the contracts, the Appellant invoked arbitration. A sole arbitrator was appointed in terms of the Arbitration clauses and the proceedings were conducted in New Delhi. The Respondent denied the existence of any agreement between the parties, decided not to participate in the arbitral proceedings and instead filed a suit before Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sealdah, praying that the agreements be declared null and void. The Appellant filed an application under Section 5 and 8 of the Act submitting that the dispute be referred to arbitration. The Trial Court allowed the application of the Appellant, against which the Respondent filed an Appeal. During the pendency of the Appeal, since no order injuncting the arbitral proceedings was passed, the arbitral tribunal passed an ex-parte award wherein claims preferred by the Appellant were accepted. The aforesaid appeal filed by the Respondent was eventually dismissed. The Respondent being aggrieved by the ex-parte arbitral award, challenged the same by filing a Section 34 petition before the Calcutta High Court (wrongly) and later before the District Court, Alipore. Apart from stating the non-existence of any agreement, the Respondent contended that the venue of the arbitration in terms of the arbitration clause had to be Kolkata. The said contentions were rejected. The District Court held that there existed an arbitration clause, that the arbitrator was appointed at New Delhi, the award was passed at New Delhi and hence, court at New Delhi will have jurisdiction to hear the challenge to the arbitral award. Against this order, the Respondent filed an Appeal under Section 37 of the Act before the Calcutta High Court. The High Court set aside the order passed by the District Court and restored the Section 34 Petition before the District Court. The High Court held that it is evident from the cause title itself that the respondent was amenable to the jurisdiction of the Alipore court. Issues that arose for consideration Against this order, a Special Leave Petition (Civil Appeal No. 2378 of 2020) was filed by the Appellant before the Supreme Court. Two issues arose before the Court- whether a party which has failed to participate in the arbitral proceedings and raise objections before it, is deemed to have waived his right to raise the objection and is precluded from raising them in subsequent proceedings and whether the judgment of the District Court, Allipore holding that Section 34 Petition is not maintainable before it in view of the fact that the arbitration took place in Delhi, is correct? The finding of the Court arrived at on these issues will be the ratio decidendi of the judgment and the same shall have a precedential value as has been held in Mohandas Issardas (Supra) and a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court and High Court following it. Analysis of the Findings The Supreme Court has answered both the issues in affirmative. Issue No. 1 With respect to the first issue, the Court held that the Respondent, by not participating in the arbitration proceedings and by not raising his objections inter- alia with respect to the place of the arbitration, appointment of arbitrator and the arbitrator rendering a common award despite their being four contracts each containing a separate arbitration clause, is deemed to have waived his right to raise objection and is precluded from raising them in subsequent proceedings. In the authors’ opinion, the aforesaid finding of the Court might not be entirely correct in view of the law laid down in Lion Engg. Consultants v. State of M.P.(“Lion”) wherein the Supreme Court held that the legal pleas which are purely legal in nature, even if not raised before the Arbitral Tribunal, can be raised at the stage of Section 34 petition The matter arose out of a dispute in execution of a works contract in which an award was passed and the same was challenged under Section 34 of the Act. The objector sought to amend the objections raised in the Application under Section 34, after a period of three years. One of the objection which the objector sought to include was the legal plea that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 stands excluded by the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. The amendment sought to the petition was rejected by the trial court, however, on a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court allowed the said amendments. SLP was filed before the Supreme Court. Before Supreme Court, it was inter alia submitted that the objection having not been raised under Section 16(2) of the Act before the arbitrator, could not be raised under Section 34 of the Act. This is exactly what the plea was in Quippo Construction(Supra). However, it may be noted that even the judgment in Lion (Supra) does not take note of another earlier coordinate bench Judgment in Narayan Prasad Lohia vs. Nikunj Kumar Lohia and others as reported in (2002) 3 SCC 572 (“Lohia”). The judgment in Lohia(Supra) has been extensively quoted and relied upon by the Supreme Court in Quippo Construction. In Lohia, a Section 34 Petition was filed on the ground that the arbitral award was passed a Tribunal comprising two Arbitrators, which is contrary to Section 10 of the Arbitration Act which clearly states that the number of arbitrators cannot be even. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that composition of a Tribunal can be challenged under Section 16 of the Act. A conjoint reading of Section 10 and 16 shows that an objection to the composition of an Arbitral tribunal is a matter which is derogable. It is derogable because a party is free not to object the constitution of Tribunal within the time prescribed in Section 16. In case, the party chooses not to object the constitution of Tribunal, the same would amount to waiver under Section 4 of the Act and such a plea cannot be raised in future proceedings. The gist of the judgement in Lohia (Supra) is that the objection with respect to composition of Tribunal cannot be raised at the stage of filing of Section 34 petition, if the same was not raised at the stage of Section 16. Whereas the Supreme Court in Lion(Supra) holds that the pleas which are purely legal in nature can be raised even at the stage of Section 34 petition. Since there were two judgments of equal bench strength, the Supreme Court in Quippo Construction (Supra) ought to have atleast sought to distinguish as to how the judgment in Lion (Supra) was inapplicable to the present facts, especially in view of the fact that the objection which the Respondent had raised in his Section 34 petition was not confined to composition of Tribunal alone. In the authors’ view, such an exercise would have entailed the Supreme Court to decide whether issue relating to seat is a pure legal plea or not. The authors contend that the objections such as the place of the arbitration, arbitrator passing a common award despite their being four separate contracts each containing an arbitration clause, being purely legal pleas, could have been raised at the stage of Section 34 proceedings. Non-participation of the Respondent in the arbitral proceedings will not preclude him from raising such a plea at later stage. Issue No. 2 The second issue deals with jurisdiction of Court before which Section 34 petition was maintainable. The Supreme Court agreed with the reasoning given by the District Court, Allipore that the Section 34 petition filed before it was not maintainable as the arbitration took place in Delhi and that only Courts in Delhi can exercise jurisdiction over it. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Calcutta High Court and upheld that of the District Court. However, while holding so, the Court has made an observation that the case at hand “is a domestic and institutional arbitration where CIAA was empowered to and did nominate the Arbitrator. It is not as if there were completely different mechanisms for appointment of Arbitrator in each of the agreements. The only distinction is that according to one of the agreements the venue was to be at Kolkata. The specification of “place of arbitration” may have special significance in an International Commercial Arbitration, where the “place of arbitration” may determine which curial law would apply. However, in the present case, the applicable substantive as well as curial law would be the same.” Although the conclusion arrived at by the Supreme Court i.e. the District Court in Delhi will have jurisdiction since the arbitration took place in Delhi, is correct, the observation made by the Court that the “place of arbitration” does not hold significance in domestic arbitration since the applicable substantive and curial law would be the same, is worrisome. This observation goes against the well-established concept of “juridical seat” which has been accepted by the Courts in India. The concept of “juridical seat” received imprimatur of the Supreme Court in the Constitution Bench judgment of Bharat Aluminium and Co. vs. Kaiser Aluminium and Co. (“Balco”). In the said judgment, the Court held that arbitration is anchored to the seat and that seat is the centre of gravity. That the court within whose jurisdiction the arbitration takes place will have supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings. It was held that the term “subject matter of arbitration” used in the definition of Court in Section 2(1)(e) cannot be confused with the term “subject matter of the suit”. The subject matter of arbitration is arbitration itself and hence, the term Court would mean the Court of the seat of arbitration. The Court while holding so also took note of Section 20 of the Act which is a statutory provision in support of party autonomy and enables party to choose a place of arbitration. It will not be out of place to mention that one paragraph in Balco (Supra)(discussed in the later part of this paper) created some confusion. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a catena of judgments, one such being the judgment in Indus Mobile Distribution Pvt. Ltd v. Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd. (“Indus Mobile”). The Supreme Court held that the place chosen by the parties in the arbitration agreement to hold arbitral proceedings, may not in the classical sense have jurisdiction i.e. no part of the cause of action may have arisen at such a place, however, in arbitration law, the moment such a place is chosen, it becomes the juridical seat, which is akin to exclusive jurisdiction clause. It is pertinent to note that Indus Mobile (Supra) was also a case of domestic arbitration. The aforesaid position has been upheld by the Supreme Court in BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd., (“BGS SGS Soma”) Apart from the fact the BGS SGS Soma (Supra) is a recent judgment which upholds the relevance of juridical seat in determining the exclusive jurisdiction of court, the judgment is crucial as it puts to rest the controversy surrounding the decision in Balco (Supra). The Constitution Bench in para 96 of the Balco (Supra) judgment had observed that two courts will exercise jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings viz. (i) the court which would have jurisdiction where the cause of action is located and (ii) supervisory Court (within whose local limits the arbitration takes place). An isolated reading of Para 96 of the judgment reveals that courts have concurrent jurisdiction and parties can either choose the court where the cause of action has arisen or the court exercising supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings. This observation in Para 96 runs contrary to the law which Balco(Supra) seeks to lay down i.e. the Courts at seat alone will have jurisdiction to hear the challenge to arbitral award. The confusion surrounding jurisdiction of court prevailed till very recently (till the decision in SGS BGS Soma(Supra)) and many courts in India exercised their jurisdiction despite them not being the courts within whose jurisdiction the arbitration had taken place. The above ambiguity which crept in, in Balco (Supra) owing to Para 96 of the judgment, only proves the impact which any observation made by Supreme Court in its judgment have over the decision making process of High Court and lower courts. In the humble opinion of the authors, the Supreme Court ought to have taken cue from the confusion that arose due to one stray observation in Balco (Supra), and ought to have avoided making observation at para 22 of Quippo Constructions (Supra) that seat does not make any difference in a case of domestic arbitration. Since, under law governing arbitration, the jurisdiction of a Court flows from the seat of arbitration in contrast to Code of Civil Procedure, where the jurisdiction is subject matter centric, an observation of Supreme Court, howsoever innocuous, that seat does not have relevance in case of domestic arbitration, dilutes the decision in SGS BGS Soma (Supra) that once a seat is chosen by the parties, the same would amount to conferring exclusive jurisdiction to the Court within whose local limit the seat of arbitration is located.  Authors- Abhinay Sharma is an Advocate on Record, Supreme Court of India and Lakshmi Subramaniam Iyer is an advocate practicing at the Supreme Court of India  AIR 1955 Bom 113, (1954) 56 BOMLR 1156, ILR 1955 Bom 319  (2018) 16 SCC 758  (2012) 9 SCC 552  (2017) 7 SCC 678  2019 SCCOnline SCC 1585 Next Story
“We take pride in innovation and constantly challenge ourselves to be better. Even if we think we’re the best, we welcome the possibility of what we can learn from our contest participants, especially by going global. However, that doesn’t mean that the best amateur racing photographer isn’t right here at home.”Email contest submissions and questions to [email protected] Please include raw image with the photo (minimum of 300 dpi). Submissions must be labeled with title of photo and photographer’s name, address, phone number, email address and shirt size (specify male or female).Coady has you covered! Our photo footprint spans: 29 tracks in 16 states43% of U.S. market by racing days23% of U.S. graded stakesOfficial photographer for 110 graded stakes in 2016Shooters at a track: 5 minimum up to 25 for Kentucky Derby and Breeders’ Cup Shots taken: 5,000 at a track on a typical racing day – 800,000 in the month lead- ups to the Kentucky Derby and Breeders’ Cup.All in the family: Kurtis and his twin Kevin and older brother Shawn began shoot- ing as children at Arizona’s Turf Paradise and now-defunct Trinity Meadows in Texas. Kevin is a pilot, making for spectacular aerial shots.Founded in 1962 by Jack Coady Sr., Coady Photography has become the gold standard among track photographers, representing 29 racetracks across the country and this year becoming the official photographer for Churchill Downs and the Kentucky Derby. Known for its innovation, Coady Photography delivers unparalleled media service for its clients, including coadywire.com providing stock photography, stakes races, events and head shots of owners, trainers and jock- eys from around the country, as well as coadyphotography.com offering for purchase multiple shots from more than 300,000 races. For more information about Coady Photography, call (844) 893-8110 or email [email protected] FacebookTwitterCopy LinkEmail Coady goes globalCoady Photography, America’s premier pro- fessionals for shooting racetrack pictures, is searching the globe to find the best amateur horse-racing photographer.The inaugural Coady International Amateur Horse Racing Photography Contest will be judged by an all-star panel of photojournalist experts. The free competition is open to amateur photographers at least 18 years old, with up to three submis- sions per entrant. All must be original and altered only by the photographer, taken within the last five years and depicting horse racing, including backside and scenic shots. Pictures will be judged on technical ability and creativity. Photos taken by smart phones/tablets or using filters are ineligible.The best 50 photos, as chosen by Coady staff, will be displayed on Coady Pho- tography’s Facebook page, with those finalists receiving a t-shirt. The top three from the Final 50 will be judged by Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer Dan Dry; two-time Eclipse Award winner Barbara Livingston; 2015 Eclipse honoree Scott Serio; Blood-Horse’s visuals director Anne Eberhardt Keogh; Churchill Downs’ vice president/racing communications John Asher, a five-time radio Eclipse win- ner; and Breeders’ Cup media-relations chief Jim Gluckson.Entries will be accepted Aug. 1-31, with the winners announced Oct. 20. First place is $1,500, with $500 for second and $250 for third. There also will be a $50 award to the “Fan’s Choice”winner, determined by “likes” on Facebook.com/CoadyPho- tography.“We wanted a special way to celebrate Coady Photogra- phy’s 55th year,” said Kurtis Coady, the third-generationphotographer who heads the family-owned company. “We decid- ed to showcase talents of photographers around the world and to give them the chance to have their work judged by some of the top shooters and multi-media specialists in the country.