18 May 2021
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has approved the proposed acquisition of additional 25 per cent shareholding of Adani Krishnapatnam Port Limited by Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Limited.
The acquirer is a private multi-port operator. It is currently present at 11 ports in six maritime states of Gujarat, Goa, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Odisha. It already holds 75 per cent shareholding of the target. With the conclusion of the proposed combination, the acquirer will hold 100 per cent shareholding and sole control of the target.
The target is engaged as a developer and operator of an all-weather, deepwater multi-purpose port located at Krishnapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, under `Build-Operate-Share-Transfer’ concession from the government of Andhra Pradesh.
forum non conveniens applied.
Forum for administration clause
Kawaley J agreed that the nature or legal character of the dispute is relevant (applying the decision of
Crociani v Crociani
(7)) in deciding whether a jurisdiction clause in a trust deed applies:
The question of whether a forum for administration clause, irrespective of whether it is expressed to be exclusive or not, confers exclusive jurisdiction on the relevant court is an arid debate if the context in which the question arises is not taken into account.
The court found that, on the facts of the present case, the trustee would not be entitled to rely on the forum clause given that the claim in question was not brought by someone claiming under the trust, but rather as someone challenging its validity.
forum non conveniens applied.
Forum for administration clause
Kawaley J agreed that the nature or legal character of the dispute is relevant (applying the decision of
Crociani v Crociani
(7)) in deciding whether a jurisdiction clause in a trust deed applies:
The question of whether a forum for administration clause, irrespective of whether it is expressed to be exclusive or not, confers exclusive jurisdiction on the relevant court is an arid debate if the context in which the question arises is not taken into account.
The court found that, on the facts of the present case, the trustee would not be entitled to rely on the forum clause given that the claim in question was not brought by someone claiming under the trust, but rather as someone challenging its validity.
Summary
Geneva Trust Company v
IDF and MF or
Re Stingray Trust
Judgment) is the
latest in a line of decisions of the Cayman Islands courts
considering the meaning and scope of the Cayman firewall
provisions. The Grand Court has now provided important
clarification about the effect of Section 90 of the Trusts Act
2020
2 - that it does not operate to bestow
exclusive jurisdiction on the Cayman Islands courts (as previous
cases have suggested) and that common law principles of
forum
non conveniens still have relevance and application in the
context of disputes concerning Cayman Islands trusts.
The Court also provided further guidance on the application of
Summary
Geneva Trust
Company v IDF and MF or
Re Stingray
Trust
Judgment) is the
latest in a line of decisions of the Cayman Islands courts
considering the meaning and scope of the Cayman firewall
provisions. The Grand Court has now provided important
clarification about the effect of Section 90 of the Trusts Act
2020
2 - that it does not operate to
bestow exclusive jurisdiction on the Cayman Islands courts (as
previous cases have suggested) and that common law principles of
forum non conveniens still have relevance and application
in the context of disputes concerning Cayman Islands trusts.
The Court also provided further guidance on the application of