[2006] SGCA 41

“eous interpretations of the law and of the facts are not grounds on which the courts can set aside an award under subpara 37(1)(a)(v) AA 2005 (see PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA [2006] SGCA 41).” (see too, the decision of the Court of Appeal in Huawei Technologies (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Maxbury Comm”

“eous interpretations of the law and of the facts are not grounds on which the courts can set aside an award under subpara 37(1)(a)(v) AA 2005 (see PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA [2006] SGCA 41).” (see too, the decision of the Court of Appeal in Huawei Technologies (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Maxbury Comm”

“eous interpretations of the law and of the facts are not grounds on which the courts can set aside an award under subpara 37(1)(a)(v) AA 2005 (see PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA [2006] SGCA 41).” (see too, the decision of the Court of Appeal in Huawei Technologies (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Maxbury Comm”

“rly injurious to the public good or where it violates the most basic notion of morality and justice (see the Singapore Court of Appeal decision in PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA [2006] SGCA 41 and the Court of Appeal decision in MTM Millenium Holding Sdn Bhd v Pasukhas Construction Sdn Bhd & Anor”

“rly injurious to the public good or where it violates the most basic notion of morality and justice (see the Singapore Court of Appeal decision in PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA [2006] SGCA 41 and the Court of Appeal decision in MTM Millenium Holding Sdn Bhd v Pasukhas Construction Sdn Bhd & Anor”

“eous interpretations of the law and of the facts are not grounds on which the courts can set aside an award under subpara 37(1)(a)(v) AA 2005 (see PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA [2006] SGCA 41).". … S/N VZpppAL0epgi09yodGlQ **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this docu”

“eous interpretations of the law and of the facts are not grounds on which the courts can set aside an award under subpara 37(1)(a)(v) AA 2005 (see PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA [2006] SGCA 41).". … **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 2”

“3 Pancaran Prima Sdn Bhd v Iswarabena Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2020] 9 CLJ 466 Kelana Erat Sdn Bhd v Niche Properties Sdn Bhd [2012] 5 MLJ 809 PT Asuransi Jaya Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA [2006] SGCA 41 Taman Bandar Baru Masai Sdn Bhd v Dindings Corporation Sdn Bhd [2009] MLJU 0793; [2010] 5 CLJ 83 Tridant Eng”

“2005. ________________________ 58 [2003] 1 SCR 178; 2003 SCC 17. 65 [2005] 3 WLR 129. 75 [2006] SGCA 41. 77 Francis Klein Pvt Ltd v Union of India (1995) 2 Arb LR 298. 78 (2000) (2) Arb LR 684 (Bom). …..” [39] It is therefore apparent that the fact that the arbitrator is accused of having failed to co”

“relating to a substantive dispute on liability. As far as liability is concerned, it is final and binding. [35] The Singapore Court of Appeal in PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA [2006] SGCA 41 held that the nomenclature or label used by the Arbitral Tribunal to describe its decision is irrelevant. W”

“he public good or where it violates the most basic notion of morality and justice. Similarly, the same principle applied in the Singapore case of PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v. Dexia Bank SA [2006] SGCA 41. Whether the Tribunal (by majority) breach the principles of natural justice? [27] From a perusal of the”

“ding Sdn Bhd v Pasukhas Construction Sdn Bhd & Anor [2013] 1 LNS 1325, which cited with approval the decision of the Singapore Court of Appeal in PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v. Dexia Bank SA [2006] SGCA 41, which states as follow- 7 “In discussing the term "public policy", it was understood that it was not equ”