Case Study Of Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. V. Saw Pipes

What was the court’s decision in the case? What reason did they give? What landmark case did they cite?

A landmark case in United States Law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States,

Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council was the main precedent Gonzales used to argue his case (Gonzales v. Oregon, 2006). In Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council the Supreme Court decided to leave the interpretation of vague statements to

Parties:- Tercon Contractors Ltd. (Appellant) and Her Majesty The Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia, by her Ministry of Transportation and Highway (Respondent)Attorney General of Ontario(Intervener).

The GCMCA’s action does not include as an enclosure nor does it reference the rebuttal submitted by the Complainant dated 25 April 2014. Therefore, it was indeterminate from the action itself whether the GCMCA consider the rebuttal in taking action. As a result, I contacted CDR Joshua Nauman, JAGC, USN, who was the Command Judge Advocate at CCSG 11 at the time the complaint was being evaluated. As evidenced by enclosure (1), it is his recollection that the Complainant’s rebuttal was considered by the GCMCA before taking action and the lack of reference to the rebuttal in the action was

After the tragic explosion in Bhopal, India, due to Union Carbide’s chemical plant, many citizens suffered tragedies such as death and severe injuries due to the toxic gas that was released upon the explosion. When citizens of Bhopal decided to sue against the Union Carbide Corporation, they combined all individual lawsuits against the plant together, as well as exercising their forum non conveniens, which handed the lawsuit to Indian courts. Moving the court case to India benefitted the company because Indian courts are friendlier to defendants. After all the legal tools Union Carbide used, they were able to use the Indian government to their advantage and enter into a settlement which was just $470 million in damages paid to the government (leaving victims with little to nothing) for a potentially billion dollar lawsuit if the lawsuit occurred in the United States. Union Carbide’s actions are unethical in the eyes of most citizens, even though the company was trying to avoid the downfall of their business.

Ten months later in April, 2011, the Supreme Court released an opinion directed at the issue of unconscionability law in AT&T Mobility, LLC. V. Concepcion. Although Concepcion involved a consumer claim, this decision struck down state unconscionability challenges under two separate factors. First, the Supreme Court reasoned that the Ninth Circuit and California Supreme Court implemented a process in Gentry and Discover which disfavored arbitration because it went above and beyond the state law rules of contract interpretation, therefore making the process unenforceable. Second, the Court determined the California Supreme Court, which determined class action waivers were unenforceable due to unconscionability, interfered with the purpose of the FAA to avoid judicial hostility towards arbitration and to promote arbitration in accordance with the parties’ agreements. In conclusion, the Supreme Court specifically explained the “point of affording parties discretion in designing arbitration processes is to allow for efficient, streamlined procedures tailored to the type of

"Just after midnight on December 3, 1984, methyl isocante gas began leaking from a Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India (Hull & Kou, 1996)". What legal questions did this case portray? With this paper we will shed some light on what happened in the aftermaths of this tragedy, and explain the happenings from an International Business law perspective.

Kirby v. Burke [1944] I.R. 207 Smith v. Howdens Ltd. [1953] N.I. 131, 137, per Lord MacDermott C.J. 10 Smith v. Scott [1973] Ch. 314 11 Commissioners for Railways v. McDermott [1967] A.C. 1054 12 Commissioners for Railways v. Quinlan [1964] A.C. 1054 13 Bagshaw, R. and McBride, N., ‘Tort Law’, (Pearson Education Limited, Essex, 2001) at 3 14 Ibid at 3 15 Anns. v. Merton London Borough Council [1978] A.C. 728

The Supreme Court held in State of Orissa v Damodar Das, that the cause did not have the effect of being an arbitration clause. The court said that the clause did not contain an agreement nor it envisaged any difference or dispute that might arise or had arisen in the execution of the words for reference to arbitration , where one party raised a dispute and it was desired by the other. It was held that it had to be treated as a dispute. The objection raised could be exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal .

The Supreme Court rejected both the contentions because Article 13(2) and Article 359, being parts of the same Constitution, stand on an equal footing and the two provisions have to be read harmoniously in order that the intention behind Article 359 is carried out and it is not destroyed altogether. Also the enforcement of a particular fundamental right is, for the sake of security of India, for which the subjective determination of the President is involved and he cannot be called to justify his action in the court of

At the pre-arbitration stage – the Courts would often take years in appointing arbitrators under Section 11 of the 1996 Act; the domestic arbitration process thereafter itself was a prolonged affair often conducted exactly like a litigation and taking many years to conclude; post conclusion of the arbitration, the losing party would often challenge the award and such a challenge would languish in courts for years to come. This last situation was further convoluted by Section 36 (as it stood prior to 2015 Amendment) which provided for automatic stay of the enforcement of the award upon mere admission of a challenge to the award. The Supreme Court categorically criticized such a stalemate vis-à-vis enforcement. It observed that “this automatic suspension of the execution of the award, the moment an application challenging the said award is filed under section 34 of the Act leaving no discretion in the court to put the parties on terms, in our opinion, defeats the very objective of the alternate dispute resolution system to which arbitration belongs. We do find that there is a recommendation made by the concerned Ministry to the Parliament to amend section 34 with a proposal to empower the civil court to pass suitable interim orders in such cases. In view of the urgency of such amendment, we sincerely hope that necessary steps would be taken by the authorities concerned at the earliest to bring about the required change in

But in the case of ADM Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla for which the chief justice apologized after 30 years and said if he were not agreed to the majority judgment the past and present of our country would be different so this case would be discussed further and why justice Khanna dissented in this case and why this case is always considered as a blot on Indian judiciary.

R v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ex Parte World Development Movement Ltd [1995] All ER 611 (HC)

Manohar Lal Sharma v Union of India marks a distinct point in Indian jurisprudence as the Supreme Court takes on and demolishes a number of theories under the traditionally untouchable domain of executive discretion. It reiterated that all executive functioning must derive legitimacy from statute and in exercise of such functioning, strict adherence to propriety and transparency are a must.