Ajt v Aju

JurisdictionSingapore
Judgment Date16 July 2010
Date16 July 2010
Docket NumberOriginating Summons No 230 of 2010
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex
6 cases
  • Super Sea Cable Networks Pte Ltd v Sacofa Sdn Bhd
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • January 1, 2023
  • Aju v Ajt
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • August 22, 2011
    ...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
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • August 22, 2011
    ...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
    • Singapore
    • International Commercial Court (Singapore)
    • November 12, 2020
    ...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
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2010, December 2010
    • December 1, 2010
    ...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......