ISA vs SIPP: which could make you a millionaire first? Image source: Getty Images “This Stock Could Be Like Buying Amazon in 1997” Click here to claim your copy now — and we’ll tell you the name of this Top US Share… free of charge! 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. Our 6 ‘Best Buys Now’ Shares Enter Your Email Address ISAs and SIPPs are both great products to help save for the future. However, while these products do have some similarities, they are very different. For example, investors can only contribute a maximum of £20,000 into an ISA every year. Meanwhile, SIPP contributions are effectively capped at £40,000 a year as any contributions above that level attract tax penalties. 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…SIPP contributions also attract tax relief at your marginal tax rate. That’s 20% for basic rate taxpayers. So, for every £80 contributed, the government will add an extra £20 to take the total to £100. These additional contributions may decrease the time it takes to make a million.That said, while you can put more money away every year using a SIPP, the product has some drawbacks, which means it might not be suitable for all investors. ISA benefits The biggest drawback of using a SIPP is the fact that money cannot be withdrawn until the owner is 55 years of age. What’s more, you can only take out a 25% tax-free lump sum. Any money withdrawn after that is taxed at your marginal tax rate. On the other hand, money put into an ISA does not warrant any special tax treatment. You can take the money out whenever you want, and don’t have to worry about incurring any additional tax liabilities. So-called flexible ISAs also allow you to take out and put in as much money as you want every year as long as you do not breach the £20,000 limit. As such, if you want total control over your money, an ISA may be the best product to use to make a million. However, the tax benefits that come with a SIPP suggest that it will make you a millionaire first. Investing for wealth The best way to invest your money in one of these tax-efficient wrappers could be to use a FTSE 100 tracker fund. Over the past three-and-a-half decades, the FTSE 100 has produced an average annual return in the region of 7%. At this rate of return and paying in the maximum amount, it would take just 15 years to build a £1m nest egg using a SIPP, according to my calculations. To reiterate, that’s assuming an average annual contribution of £40,000, although that wouldn’t be possible for many savers. With contributions limited to just £20,000 a year, it would take 22 years to reach the same target in an ISA from a standing start. It may be possible to reach this target even faster using individual shares. Now could be the perfect time to buy a diverse portfolio of undervalued FTSE 100 stocks after the recent stock market crash. Many blue-chip companies are trading at depressed levels, which reflects the uncertainty hanging over the global economy.Clearly, these companies are unlikely to generate substantial returns in the near term, but over the long run, the market should recover from its recent setback.As investor sentiment improves, that could mean significant returns for investors buying today with a long-term outlook. If these stocks are owned in an ISA or SIPP, there will be no capital gains tax to pay when it is time to sell. 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. Rupert Hargreaves | Saturday, 6th June, 2020 Simply click below to discover how you can take advantage of this. See all posts by Rupert Hargreaves 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. Rupert Hargreaves owns no share mentioned. The Motley Fool UK has no position in any of the shares mentioned. 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.
MO House / FRPO Houses MO House / FRPOSave this projectSaveMO House / FRPO Year: CopyHouses•Spain Spain Projects “COPY” ShareFacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappMailOrhttps://www.archdaily.com/323963/mo-house-frpo Clipboard ArchDaily “COPY” Architects: FRPO Area Area of this architecture project CopyAbout this officeFRPOOfficeFollowProductWood#TagsProjectsBuilt ProjectsSelected ProjectsResidential ArchitectureHousesWoodSpainPublished on January 25, 2013Cite: “MO House / FRPO” [Casa MO / FRPO] 25 Jan 2013. ArchDaily. Accessed 11 Jun 2021.
2013 CopyAbout this officeNatalie Dionne ArchitectureOfficeFollowProductWood#TagsProjectsBuilt ProjectsSelected ProjectsResidential ArchitectureHousesSuttonHousesCanadaPublished on December 17, 2013Cite: “T House / Natalie Dionne Architecture” 17 Dec 2013. ArchDaily. Accessed 11 Jun 2021.
Patterns for Change is the result of eight months’ development with more than 200 charities, practitioners and funders, and the website offers a number of activities and resources designed to help charities and nonprofits build stronger, more resilient and more flexible organisations. Advertisement Melanie May | 21 April 2021 | News These are: Patterns for Change also encourages people to share their experiences and contribute their own examples and real life practices through the website. Nonprofit network launches set of behaviours to support organisational development A network of nonprofits have come together to launch a set of seven behaviours to support organisational development in the sector. 816 total views, 1 views today AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis About Melanie May Melanie May is a journalist and copywriter specialising in writing both for and about the charity and marketing services sectors since 2001. She can be reached via www.thepurplepim.com. Tagged with: professional development The set of seven behaviours are designed for regular practice. They aim to put the people working in nonprofits at the centre of change to better lead how organisation development is shaped for them, their teams and in their network. Elly de Decker, Director of England funding at The National Lottery Community Fund, said: These will be shared and showcased at a free virtual launch event taking place at 1-3pm on Tuesday 27 April. Speakers include experts and practitioners including Mama Ujuaje, Cat Ainsworth, Tessa Cooper, Jon Barnes, Emily Bazalgette, Sabrina Ellis and Sophia Parker. The network includes Shift, NPC, IVAR and NCVO with the project funded in partnership by Lloyds Bank Foundation for England and Wales and The National Lottery Community Fund. “Patterns for Change has consulted and collaborated with nonprofits, practitioners and funders to help better understand how the nonprofit sector can become more agile, stronger and resilient, through good organisational development practices – something so important in today’s society. We know sharing this learning widely is key to helping the nonprofit sector develop and in turn, to better support the communities they serve.” Know your whySet directions togetherListen and share bravelyBuild on what’s strongKnow by tryingUnderstand your limitsConnect generously
BP refinery workers on strike in Ohio, May 8.WW photo: Martha GrevattUPDATE: On May 11 USW Local 7-1 announced that the membership had ratified a new contract and BP and the union had agreed on terms for the strikers to return to work. The Whiting, Indiana strike is officially over but the strikes in Texas and Ohio continue.Oregon, Ohio — In the first national oil strike since 1980, the United Steelworkers took on the most profitable industry in the capitalist world on Feb. 1. The union selectively struck 15 refineries of Shell, Marathon, BP and other transnational conglomerates. Most of the thousands of strikers are now back at work, having won national and local plant agreements that address some of the union’s concerns — overtime, job security, health care and the core issue that drove workers to walk the picket lines: unsafe conditions that endanger workers and residents of the surrounding communities.However, management is still playing hardball with the union and workers are still on strike in Whiting, Ind.; Texas City, Texas; and Oregon, Ohio.In Whiting, Local 7-1 has negotiated a tentative local contract with BP but is fighting over the terms of the return-to-work agreement. Plant management wants to cancel the long-term disability insurance policies for strikers who did not personally pay the premiums while they were on strike. Also, the local objects to the company disciplining members who allegedly committed infractions while on the picket line.The number of unresolved local issues between Marathon and Local 13-1 in Texas City has dropped from 28 to 15, but the parties remain far apart. They disagree on safety measures and forced overtime — life-and-death issues in a refinery — and job security. This refinery was the scene of a tragic explosion 10 years ago that killed 15 workers and injured more than 170. The union won stronger safety language from BP, which owned the refinery at the time, but current owner Marathon wants to gut those protections.A massive explosion took place in 1947 in the port of Texas City, inhabited by 30,000 residents. When ammonium nitrate on board the docked ship Grandcampa ignited, the blast’s impact shattered windows 40 miles away in Houston. The shocks registered on a seismograph in Denver. Flying red-hot shrapnel landed inside the refineries, causing more fires and explosions. Some 581 people lost their lives and 3,500 were injured.This unforgettable disaster symbolizes corporate disregard for people’s safety. With that infamous catastrophe in mind and the 10th anniversary of the BP explosion marked this year, “There is not a lot of love between the workers and the industry,” a 13-1 member who works nearby for Shell, told this writer. “This is a strong local and a strong community.”BP ‘trying to bust the union’This writer spoke with Local 346-1 members who are on strike at the BP Husky refinery in Oregon, near Toledo, Ohio. A group gathered at the union hall to discuss the negotiations that had just taken place with a federal mediator present. The sticking point is “management rights” language. Plant bosses want to eliminate or combine jobs at their discretion — gutting contract language that says those changes have to be negotiated with the union.The local even agreed to company demands to eliminate certain positions. “But the company still said no,” a striker stated. “All I can figure is they’re trying to break the union.”With more work being done by fewer workers who are forced to work longer hours, fatalities and injuries occur. With a shrinking workforce having to constantly monitor more aspects of the refining process, mental stress increases. That stress has the same intensity experienced by air traffic controllers that led to their strike in 1981.Only 15 out of 320 USW members have crossed the line. Striker Mike told this writer, “Those are the ones I really give a hard time to.” Workers on the picket line are solidly behind the union.FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare thisFacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare this
2011-2020: A study of journalist murders in Latin America confirms the importance of strengthening protection policies The Colombian government’s 15-year-old programme for protecting journalists is clearly flawed and needs an overhaul, according two new reports that have been published as part of the Periodismo en Riesgo (Journalism in Danger) campaign.One of the reports was produced by the Bogotá-based Press Freedom Foundation (FLIP), the other by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and the Colombia Federation of Journalists (FECOLPER).The protection programme’s many problems include inadequate funding, corruption, bad decision-making, difficulties with evaluating risks and choosing appropriate responses, and unjustified delays.Despite a significant fall in the number of journalists murdered, the programme is disappointing, FLIP’s report says. It has become increasingly complex but also more and more ineffective and falls far short of meeting the needs of journalists on the ground.In the course of its 15 years of existence, the programme has focused on protecting and escorting journalists, without addressing the need for judicial investigations and prosecutions, or risk prevention and eradication.Threats and attacks against news providers have not declined and, of the 388 threats against journalists since 2000 that the justice ministry had registered by mid-August 2014, only one has resulted in the arrest of those responsible.FECOLPER president Adriana Hurtado said the National Protection Unit (UNP) must not use funding and administrative difficulties or problems with individual officials as an excuse for failing in its duty to guarantee the safety of the journalists it is supposed to protect.Journalists receiving protection say they have often had to pay for the maintenance of the vehicles assigned to protect them without every being reimbursed by the state.It is unacceptable for the UNP to blame the programme’s flaws on problems of coordination between different departments or on misconduct by former and current officials. It is not the job of journalists to ensure that a government-run programme functions properly. According to the law and Colombia’s constitution, it is up to the UNP to ensure that the entire protection programme works as it should.“The protection programme is obviously defective and must be reformed,” said Emmanuel Colombié, the head of the Reporters Without Borders Americas desk. “This kind of programme is essential in a country such as Colombia, one of the deadliest in the western hemisphere for journalists. We urge the authorities to begin restructuring it at once.”A successful overhaul of the programme would provide a significant boost to media freedom in Colombia. Here are some of the recommendations that FECOLPER, RSF and FLIP propose:- Reformulate the concepts and methods used for evaluating risk levels and deciding which protective measures to apply.- Reorganize the chain of command in order to ensure a swift and appropriate response to the dangers to which journalists are constantly exposed.- Properly train the UNP personnel responsible for security, by making them more aware of issues related to freedom of information.- Ensure that the justice ministry participates in the protection programme. Protection will never be complete if threats against journalists continue to go unpunished.- Redesign the programme so that it is not just reactive in nature. Anticipating risks and creating a secure climate are the best way protect journalists.The report by RSF and FECOLPER, entitled Colombia: actividad periodística en riesgo, includes interviews with 104 journalists who have received UNP protection. It provides facts and figures about the various aspects of the programme and how they work. It also provides insights into the lives of journalists in the field and the risks they run.Read the report hereThe FLIP report, entitled 15 años de protección a periodistas en Colombia: esquivando la violencia sin justicia, analyses the regulatory, financial and operational changes in the programme during the past 15 years and provides key data about its funding, its results and the mistakes that have been made.Read the report hereFECOLPER, RSF and FLIP urge the authorities to take appropriate measures to address the programme’s flaws of the past 15 years while at the same time combatting the origins of the problem of violence.As many of the country’s journalists said on 9 February, celebrated as Day of the Journalist in Colombia, the best gift they could receive would be physical safety and an end to impunity.Colombia is ranked 128th out of 180 countries in the 2015 Reporters Without Borders press freedom index.See video here Related documents informe_fecolper_rsf-2.pdfPDF – 899.67 KB May 13, 2021 Find out more RSF_en August 27, 2015 – Updated on January 13, 2017 Colombia. Programme for protecting journalists needs overhaul to go further Organisation Help by sharing this information RSF begins research into mechanisms for protecting journalists in Latin America News ColombiaAmericas News Reports April 27, 2021 Find out more RSF, IFEX-ALC and Media Defence, support FLIP and journalist Diana Díaz against state harassment in Colombia October 21, 2020 Find out more News Receive email alerts ColombiaAmericas Follow the news on Colombia
First Heatwave Expected Next Week 85 recommended0 commentsShareShareTweetSharePin it Top of the News More Cool Stuff Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * HerbeautyWeird Types Of Massage Not Everyone Dares To TryHerbeautyHerbeautyHerbeautyHere’s What Experts Say Women Want In A ManHerbeautyHerbeautyHerbeautyWant To Seriously Cut On Sugar? You Need To Know A Few TricksHerbeautyHerbeautyHerbeautyIs It Bad To Give Your Boyfriend An Ultimatum?HerbeautyHerbeautyHerbeauty6 Strong Female TV Characters Who Deserve To Have A SpinoffHerbeautyHerbeautyHerbeautyInstall These Measures To Keep Your Household Safe From Covid19HerbeautyHerbeauty Pasadena’s ‘626 Day’ Aims to Celebrate City, Boost Local Economy faithfernandez More » ShareTweetShare on Google+Pin on PinterestSend with WhatsApp,Virtual Schools PasadenaHomes Solve Community/Gov/Pub SafetyPASADENA EVENTS & ACTIVITIES CALENDARClick here for Movie Showtimes Make a comment Home of the Week: Unique Pasadena Home Located on Madeline Drive, Pasadena Community News Recreation Pasadena Hiking Pacers Organizes Beginner-Friendly Hike to Trail Canyon Falls This week From STAFF REPORTS Published on Wednesday, January 9, 2013 | 11:42 am Pasadena Will Allow Vaccinated People to Go Without Masks in Most Settings Starting on Tuesday EVENTS & ENTERTAINMENT | FOOD & DRINK | THE ARTS | REAL ESTATE | HOME & GARDEN | WELLNESS | SOCIAL SCENE | GETAWAYS | PARENTS & KIDS Business News Subscribe Community News Get our daily Pasadena newspaper in your email box. Free.Get all the latest Pasadena news, more than 10 fresh stories daily, 7 days a week at 7 a.m. Name (required) Mail (required) (not be published) Website The Pasadena Hiking Pacers is inviting all hiking enthusiasts in the city and nearby areas to participate in its beginner-friendly hike this week to Trail Canyon Falls in the Big Tujunga. This weekâ€™s hike is a follow up to the successful first hike last week to Eaton Canyon Falls.The group is encouraging hikers to bring their friends and family in hiking the Trail Canyon Falls on Sunday, January 13 starting at 7 a.m. The meeting place is at 34.30564, -118.2552719608 N. Trail Canyon Rd.Pasadena Hiking described the hike as a three-mile roundtrip with 700′ elevation gain/loss (unofficial long hike option: Tom Lucas Camp, seven miles rt).Since the hike is beginner-friendly, Pasadena Hiking set the hiking difficulty at Level 1, meaning the distance is six miles or less and the terrain is mostly level ground or only slight inclined.â€œThere is very limited parking at this trailhead so we do encourage you to please carpool as much as possible,â€ the Pasadena Hiking said in a statement. It added, â€œIf you would like to carpool, please meet at 3915 Lowell Avenue, Glendale, CA (it is a park & ride parking lot) at 6:30 AM. Post on our Facebook page for this event: www.facebook.com/pasadenahikingpacers and let other hikers know that you are planning to be at the carpool location.â€Hikers are also advised that an Adventure Pass is required for each parked vehicle in the area. The National Forest Adventure Pass is a requirement by the U.S. Forest Service for vehicles parked within certain recreation sites and areas in the forest.The pass can be purchased either a day pass for $5.00 or an annual pass for $30.00. For more information on the Adventure Pass and where to purchase one, please visit the U.S Forest Service website at http://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/r5/passes-permits/recreation/?cid=stelprdb5208699&width=full.For those participating in this Sundayâ€™s hike, Pasadena Hiking issued this disclaimer, â€œHike at your own risk! Leash your dogs, beware of snakes, poison oak, ticks, sunburns, and stay with the group at all times. Responsible and well prepared hikers always bring at least 3 liters of water, food, first-aid kit, and wear appropriate hiking/trail shoes. If you are not sure which way to go on the trail, wait and ask one of the leaders. Each hiker is fully responsible for his/herself while hiking in the great outdoors, including the responsibility for paying any bills related to rescue efforts or medical care. This is a free club operated by volunteers, no one is liable for any other person.â€We are a free hiking group that meets in Pasadena as well as surrounding areas in Los Angeles County. Come join us every Sunday mornings at 7:00 AM! We strive to have a supportive, fun, and safe hiking environment. We cater for all age groups and skill levels. Before you start hiking, please consult a physician to determine if you’re physically able to hike.For more information, you can contact Dr. Kevin Cressey, Chiropractor 131 N. El Molino Ave., Suite 180 Pasadena.
Gardai continue to investigate Kilmacrennan fire Mauritius accussed claims police brutality By News Highland – January 12, 2011 Facebook Main Evening News, Sport and Obituaries Tuesday May 25th WhatsApp Three men will appear in court in Mauritius this day next week charged in connection with the murder of Michaela McAreavey.Two of them – a 29-year-old room attendant and a 41 year old floor supervisor at the Legends Hotel where she was staying – have been charged with her murder.A third man – a 33-year-old room attendant – has been charged with conspiracy to murder.The 27-year-old daughter of Tyrone GAA manager Mickey Harte was on honeymoon with her husband John McAreavey – who she had married less than two weeks ago – when it’s believed she was strangled after she disturbed an intruder in her bedroom.Journalist with News Now in Mauritius, Mayessen Naggapachetty was in court earlier.He says one of the men claims he was the victim of police brutality and his solicitors are calling for an inquiry……….[podcast]http://www.highlandradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/maurt1pm.mp3[/podcast] 75 positive cases of Covid confirmed in North Man arrested on suspicion of drugs and criminal property offences in Derry Twitter Twitter Facebook Pinterest Newsx Adverts 365 additional cases of Covid-19 in Republic Previous articleGardai praised for Dungloe lake rescueNext articleBrogan confirms he will not contest election as an independent News Highland Google+ WhatsApp Google+ Further drop in people receiving PUP in Donegal Pinterest RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR
ColumnsThe Supreme Court’s Decision In BGS SGS SOMA: A Discordant Harmony? Ashish Dholakia25 April 2020 6:56 AMShare This – xThe Supreme Court’s recent decision in BGS SGS Soma JV laid down the law on the question of determination of the seat of arbitration, in both international commercial arbitrations as well as in domestic arbitrations. After exhaustive review of the English and Indian case law on the subject spanning more than 30 years, the court did a commendable job in finding a harmonious tune. But…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?LoginThe Supreme Court’s recent decision in BGS SGS Soma JV laid down the law on the question of determination of the seat of arbitration, in both international commercial arbitrations as well as in domestic arbitrations. After exhaustive review of the English and Indian case law on the subject spanning more than 30 years, the court did a commendable job in finding a harmonious tune. But it had seven jarring notes, which meant that the decision wasn’t pitch-perfect. This paper discusses them. NOTE 1: HOLDING THAT THE DECISION OF A BENCH OF CO-EQUAL STRENGTH IN HARDY EXPLORATION IS NOT GOOD LAW In BGS, the Supreme Court held as follows: “We, therefore, declare that the judgment in Hardy Exploration and Production (India) Inc. (supra), being contrary to the Five Judge Bench in BALCO (supra), cannot be considered to be good law.” The decisions in both BGS SGS Soma and Hardy Exploration were delivered by Benches of 3 judges each. Several 5 Judge Constitution Benches have, however, held that judgment of a Bench is binding on another Bench of co-equal strength and if the latter disagrees with the judgment of the former, then it must refer the matter to be considered by a Bench of larger strength. It cannot by itself set aside, overrule or declare its previous decision by a Bench of co-equal strength to be not good law or per incuriam. The court in BGS may have correctly formed the opinion that the decision in Hardy Exploration was contrary to that in BALCO, but it could not have held that the Hardy Exploration decision was “not good law”. That finding may itself be not good law. NOTE 2: RELYING ON THE ERRONEOUS DECISION IN VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES In unearthing applicable principles to determine the seat of arbitration, the court in BGS relied on its previous decision in Videocon Industries. In the latter case, the parties had agreed that “unless otherwise agreed”, the venue of the arbitration would be in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. As per the contract, English law governed the arbitration agreement, the governing law of the contract was Indian law and the arbitration was to be conducted under the UNCITRAL Rules. In the course of the arbitration, due to the SARS epidemic, the parties agreed that the juridical seat would be changed to London, which was recorded in a consent order passed by the arbitral tribunal. The Indian Supreme Court held that Indian courts had no jurisdiction in the matter. It further held that the seat was in Kuala Lumpur and had not changed to London merely by a consent order as that had not been signed in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the contract. In BGS, the Court placed reliance on this reasoning. But, with great respect, how did the Indian Supreme Court acquire jurisdiction to determine whether the seat was in London or Kuala Lumpur? Once it was clear that the seat was not in India, and the court found that the Indian courts had no jurisdiction, the matter ought to have ended there. Indeed, that is precisely what was held by the Malaysian Federal Court, which held that Indian courts had no jurisdiction to decide this question and that the seat in fact had shifted from Kuala Lumpur to London. It is not clear why the BGS court relied on the aforesaid part of the judgment in Videocon Industries, when it had no relevance to the issue arising before the court. NOTE 3: HOLDING THAT SECTION 42 OF THE ACT HAS NO APPLICATION, UNLESS SEAT HAS NOT BEEN CHOSEN/DETERMINED AND ONE OF THE PARTIES PREVIOUSLY APPROACHED THE COURT EXERCISING JURISDICTION OVER A PLACE WHERE THE CAUSE OF ACTION HAD ARISEN Section 42 of the Arbitration Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on a court before which any application in relation to an arbitration agreement has been first made and enjoins parties to make all subsequent applications only before that court and no other court. The BGS court held that section 42 does not have application when parties have designated the seat, as such designation would confer exclusive jurisdiction on the court exercising jurisdiction over such seat. The court further held that section 42 would apply in a situation where parties have not designated a seat and before the arbitral tribunal has determined the seat, a court having jurisdiction over part of the cause of action is approached for some relief, such as that under section 9 of the Act. However, firstly there appears to be no basis to make the aforesaid distinction, as the language of section 42 plainly does not support the same. On the contrary, section 42 starts with a non-obstante clause, which overrides any discordant provision or law militating against its sweep. Secondly, what happens where parties have not designated a seat, and an application, say under section 9, is made in a court but subsequently the arbitral tribunal designates the seat at a place other than the place over which the section 9 court exercises jurisdiction? Would, in such case, the court of the seat decided by the tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction or the section 9 court have it so? How would section 42 apply in such a situation? These are questions that remain unanswered. NOTE 4: PURPORTING TO LAY DOWN THE LAW TO DETERMINE SEAT IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION WHEN THE FACT SITUATION BEFORE THE COURT CONCERNED A PURELY DOMESTIC ARBITRATION CASE The court in BGS was dealing with a case purely of domestic arbitration. Both parties were Indian, the contract was to be performed in India and the arbitration was intended to be (and was in fact) held in India. The case had no foreign element. Yet the court in BGS extensively discussed English and Indian case law concerning international commercial arbitrations where all parties were not from the same country. More than 35 paragraphs were devoted to discussing the law applicable to determination of seat in international commercial arbitrations. At the end, the court held that the following principles apply in determining seat in international commercial arbitrations: Absent any significant contrary indicia, if the parties have designated the venue as the place for “arbitration proceedings”, then this would make it clear that the venue is really the seat of the arbitration. Further, if the parties have stated that arbitration “shall be” held at the venue, then that would mean that the parties intended to anchor their arbitration at such venue, thereby making it the seat. Additionally, if the parties have provided that a supranational body of rules is to govern the arbitration, then that too would mean that the venue is the seat. One cannot but admire the court’s attempt to cull out these principles after an exhaustive review of the English and Indian case law on the subject. But would it amount to a binding ratio decidendi? A Constitution Bench has reflected on the true nature of ratio decidendi in Krishena Kumar as follows: “The doctrine of precedent, that is being bound by a previous decision, is limited to the decision itself and as to what is necessarily involved in it. It does not mean that this Court is bound by the various reasons given in support of it, especially when they contain ‘propositions wider than the case itself required’.” (emphasis supplied) Similarly, a three-judge bench in Pawan Kumar Dubey has held as follows: “It is the rule deducible from the application of law to the facts and circumstances of a case which constitutes its ratio decidendi and not some conclusion based upon facts which may appear to be similar. One additional or different fact can make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases even when the same principles are applied in each case to similar facts.” (emphasis supplied) Thus, the decision in BGS laying down the principle to be applied in determining the seat in international commercial arbitrations cannot be regarded as its ratio decidendi as that was not the fact situation with which the court was confronted and hence not binding. It is obiter dictum, though in fairness it must be said, that does carry considerable weight. NOTE 5: HOLDING THAT IN DOMESTIC ARBITRATIONS, CHOICE OF VENUE COUPLED WITH APPLICABILITY OF THE ACT MAKE THE CHOSEN VENUE, THE SEAT As pointed out herein above, the court in BGS devoted a significant part of its attention to finding the principles applicable to determine the seat in international commercial arbitrations, when parties have only mentioned the venue in their contract. But it then held as follows: “In an international context, if a supranational body of rules is to govern the arbitration, this would further be an indicia that ‘the venue’, so stated, would be the seat of the arbitral proceedings. In a national context, this would be replaced by the Arbitration Act, 1996 as applying to the ‘stated venue’, which then becomes the ‘seat’ for the purposes of arbitration.” It is not understood how coupling the choice of a supranational body of rules with a stated venue to determine seat in the context of international commercial arbitrations can be likened to coupling the Act with the stated venue to determine seat in purely domestic arbitrations. The two situations are radically different. In one, the supranational body of rules is a matter of choice. In the other the application of the Act is a matter of statutory diktat. It applies regardless of which Indian city is the seat of the arbitration. As such, when determining which of two or more Indian cities is the seat of the arbitration, the fact that the Act applies is common to all of them, and hence irrelevant to deciding that question. In one, the supranational body of rules determines the procedural aspects of conducting an institutional arbitration and powers and duties of arbitrators. That is why parties choose them. In the other, the Act is far wider in scope, inter alia, containing powers of courts in arbitration cases and hence not a matter of choice of parties. Further, even conceptually, a supranational body of rules cannot be inconsistent with the arbitration enactment of the seat. On the other hand, the Act has no limitation on its application in domestic arbitrations. The Supreme Court appears to have lost sight of this vital distinction between the two situations. NOTE 6: HOLDING THAT DELHI WAS THE SEAT OF THE ARBITRATION MERELY ON THE BASIS THAT ARBITRATION HEARINGS HAD TAKEN PLACE IN DELHI In BGS, the agreement provided that “arbitration proceedings shall be held at New Delhi/Faridabad”. The Court held that since, in fact, all arbitration hearings had taken place in Delhi and the award had been pronounced in Delhi, therefore the parties had chosen Delhi as the “seat” of the arbitration. However, it is noteworthy that the principle which was upheld in BGS was only this: Absent any significant contrary indicia, if the parties have provided in the contract that a particular place “shall be” the venue of the “arbitration proceedings”, then that would imply that the venue is really the seat of the arbitration. In BGS, the expressions “shall be” and “arbitration proceedings” were used for both Faridabad and New Delhi. Consequently, it could not be said that the contract indicated choice of one over the other. There was no principle of law discussed in the judgment that merely because factually arbitration hearings are held in a particular place and the award is pronounced at that place, that leads to the conclusion that the parties have chosen such place as the seat. Indeed, the court discussed in extenso, judgments which held that parties could well agree to hold arbitration hearings at a particular place merely for convenience and not because they intended to regard such place as the seat. The location where arbitrations hearings are ultimately held is immaterial to determine which place the parties intended to be the seat when they entered into their contract. Further, no part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi. On the other hand, the contract had been signed in Faridabad and as such a part of the cause of action had arisen in Faridabad. In answering the issue pertaining to section 42 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, the court in BGS recognized that cause of action would be a factor in cases where parties have not designated the seat of arbitration. In this author’s view, applying the principle espoused in BGS, if any relevant contrary indicia had to be looked at to decide where the seat could be, then arguably this was it. And that would have meant that the seat was in Faridabad and not in Delhi. With seemingly contradictory rationale when deciding issue pertaining to application of section 42 and deciding the question of seat, the judgment confuses more and clarifies less. NOTE 7: APPROVING BOTH THE DECISION OF THE ENGLISH COURT IN ENERCON GMBH AND THE DECISION OF THE INDIAN SUPREME COURT IN ENERCON INDIA, WHICH WERE ON THE SAME FACTS, BUT WHICH CONTRADICTED EACH OTHER In Enercon GmbH, the parties had chosen Indian law as the law governing the underlying contract and London as the venue of arbitration, but had also provided that the (Indian) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would apply to the arbitration proceedings. The English Commercial Court (QBD) held that the juridical seat was in London. However, the Indian Supreme Court, in Enercon India, on the same facts and pertaining to the same contract, found that the seat was in Delhi. The Supreme Court judgment, though delivered later in point of time, did not discuss the decision of the English Commercial Court on this aspect at all, perhaps because the English Commercial Court had stated that its opinion was obiter. Disconcertingly, in BGS, the Supreme Court relied on both its previous decision in Enercon India and the obiter opinion of the Queen’s Bench in Enercon GmbH despite the two of them being contradictory to each other. In BGS, the court also relied on the English decision in Process and Industrial Developments, which in turn had relied upon the decision of the Queen’s Bench in Enercon GmbH. It is difficult to reconcile the two Enercon decisions and in BGS this appears to have gone unnoticed altogether. Conclusion The court’s painstaking and comprehensive review of the statute and case law to clarify basic principles to determine the seat of arbitration is unquestionably laudable. It is rare to find a world class blend of intellectual capacity and relentless hard work that has been demonstrated by this court. But in its anxiety to create a pleasing harmony, the court may have overlooked the dissonant notes discussed above. It is true, as pointed out by Judge Learned Hand in Helvering, “…a melody is more than the notes…”But if only the court had played those right, this would really have been a classical masterpiece!!! The author is an Advocate at Supreme Court and Delhi High Court. Views are personal.  BGS SGS Soma JV v NHPC Ltd. 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1585  Union of India v Hardy Exploration and Production (India) Inc. 2019 (13) SCC 472  Bharat Aluminium Co. v Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. 2012(9) SCC 552  Illustratively, Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and another vs. State of Maharashtra and another 2005 (2) SCC 673; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680  This precise question was raised in Mankastu Impex Private Limited v Airvisual Ltd. 2020 SCC OnLine SC 301, but not answered  Videocon Industries Limited v Union of India 2011 (6) SCC 161  Government of India v Petrocon India Limited 2016 SCCOnLine MYFC 35  Section 42 reads as follows – “42. Jurisdiction.- Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Part or any other law for the time being in force, where with respect to an arbitration agreement any application under this Part has been made in any Court, that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and the arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and no other Court.”  Krishena Kumar v. Union of India [(1990) 4 SCC 207  Reginal Manager v Pawan Kumar Dubey 1976 (3) SCC 334  Director of Settlements, A.P. v M.R. Apparao 2002 (4) SCC 638  Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (referred to as ‘Act’ in this paper)  Bharat Aluminium Co. v Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. 2012(9) SCC 552; Enercon (India) Limited v Enercon GmbH 2014 (5) SCC 1; Naviera Amazonica Peruana S.A. v Compania Nacional De Seguros Del Peru 1988 (1) Lloyds Rep 116  Enercon GmbH v Enercon (India) Limited 2012 EWHC 689 (Comm)  Enercon (India) Limited v Enercon GmbH 2014 (5) SCC 1  Enercon (India) Limited v Enercon GmbH 2014 (5) SCC 1  Enercon GmbH v Enercon (India) Limited 2012 EWHC 689 (Comm)  Process and Industrial Developments v Nigeria 2019 EWHC 2241  Enercon GmbH v Enercon (India) Limited 2012 EWHC 689 (Comm)  Helvering v. Gregory, 69 F 2d 809 (2nd Cir 1934) quoted with approval by a Constitution Bench in State (NCT of Delhi) v Union of India 2018 (8) SCC 501 Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Story
News UpdatesSchools To Charge 70% School Fees; Pay 70% Salary To Teachers: Directs Punjab & Haryana HC [Read Order] Akshita Saxena24 May 2020 10:09 PMShare This – xIn a big relief to private unaided schools in the state, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has allowed them to collect 70% school fees from the students. The schools have also been asked to pay 70% salaries of the teachers. This interim direction has come in a writ petition filed by Independent Schools’ Association, Chandigarh, against a Memo dated May 14, whereby on one hand…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 a big relief to private unaided schools in the state, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has allowed them to collect 70% school fees from the students. The schools have also been asked to pay 70% salaries of the teachers. This interim direction has come in a writ petition filed by Independent Schools’ Association, Chandigarh, against a Memo dated May 14, whereby on one hand the schools had been precluded from collecting building charges, transportation charges, and charges for meals etc., while on the other hand they had been directed not to reduce the salary of the teachers. The Petitioner-Association had contended that the Memo lay “contradictory conditions”, keeping in view that on one side parents are to be given concession of not depositing the full fees and on the other side, schools are being directed not to reduce the salary of the teachers. Based on these submissions, the bench of Justice Ritu Bahri granted interim relief to the Petitioner and ordered, “Keeping in view the present circumstances, interim direction is being given that the admission fee which is paid one time by the parents, shall be paid in two equal installments in six months and the 70% of the total school fee will be charged from the parents of the students and 70% salary will be paid to the teachers during the pendency of this writ petition.” Inter alia, the Petitioner had informed the court that the Punjab School Education Board maintains a “Reserve Fund” whereby all the private un-aided schools deposit money; and at present it amounts to Rs. 77 Crores. Nevertheless, it was submitted, Govt. of Punjab had not come to help them for running school with minimum staff or for sanitization. In view thereof the bench has directed the State Counsel to get instructions as to “how the respondents can help the private schools with regard to amount deposited in the ‘Reserved Fund’ for sanitizing the school buildings.” Further, the court has asked the State Government to file a detailed reply with respect to the issues raised in the petition. The matter will be taken up on June 6. In other states like Uttarakhand, the High Court had restrained all private unaided schools in the state from demanding tution fee from parents, in view of the lockdown situation. The High Court clarified that only those students, who are able to access the online course being offered by the private educational institutions, would be required to pay the tuition fee. Children, who do not have access to the online course, cannot be asked to pay the tuition fee. In Rajasthan, the High Court disposed of a PIL seeking waiver of school fees, after the Government apprised the court that on April 9, 2020, the Government had issued an order for deferring the due payment of private schools fee, as on March 15, 2020, for three months. Meanwhile the Delhi High Court has held that charging of tuition fee is justified as schools are organising online classes, providing study materials, and paying staff salaries. Case Details: Case Title: Independent Schools’ Association Chandigarh (Regd.) & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. Case No.: CWP No. 7409/2020 Quorum: Justice Ritu Bahri Appearance: Advocate Aashish Chopra (for Petitioner); Deputy Advocate General Anu Pal (for State) Click Here To Download Order Read Order Next Story