Ajt v Aju
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judgment Date | 16 July 2010 |
Date | 16 July 2010 |
Docket Number | Originating Summons No 230 of 2010 |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Start Your 7-day Trial
6 cases
- Super Sea Cable Networks Pte Ltd v Sacofa Sdn Bhd
-
Aju v Ajt
...the Appellant had procured the issue of the non-prosecution ordervis-à-vis the Forgery Charges by bribery: at [73] and [74]. AJU v AJT [2010] 4 SLR 649 (refd) Aloe Vera of America, Inc v Asianic Food (S) Pte Ltd [2006] 3 SLR (R) 174; [2006] 3 SLR 174 (refd) Bhowanipur Banking Corp Ltd v Sre......
-
AJU v AJT
...Arbitration Centre (“the SIAC”), on the ground that the Interim Award was contrary to the public policy of Singapore (see AJT v AJU [2010] 4 SLR 649 (“the HC Judgment”)). The Interim Award was made in relation to a dispute between the Appellant and the respondent, [AJT] (“the Respondent”), ......
-
Gokul Patnaik v Nine Rivers Capital Ltd
...or illegal pursuant to the laws of another friendly country. Mr Patnaik refers to a number of authorities. First, he refers to AJT v AJU [2010] 4 SLR 649 (“AJT v AJU”) which was relied on by Nine Rivers. He says that the concluding agreement in that case was not illegal at the time it was e......
Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
-
Arbitration
...with the making of the award are provided for in s 24 of the IAA (above, para 4.6). Award - Contrary to public policy 4.43 In AJT v AJU [2010] 4 SLR 649, AJT was a company incorporated under the laws of the British Virgin Islands and AJU was a public company incorporated under the laws of T......