Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Delhi: Jurisdiction Based on Assets Location

The Delhi High Court held that petitions for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards were maintainable in its jurisdiction based on the location of the Judgment Debtor's assets. The court clarified that pending proceedings in another High Court did not bar enforcement in Delhi. The Judgment Debtor was directed to disclose all assets for further determination of territorial jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of petitions for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.
2. Territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.
3. Pending proceedings in the Rajasthan High Court and their impact on enforcement petitions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Petitions for Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards:
The petitions were filed for enforcement of final awards on costs and interest on costs passed by the Tribunal in LCIA arbitrations. The Decree Holder (DH) argued that the awards are foreign awards under the New York Convention and enforceable in India as decrees of the court. The Judgment Debtor (JD) contested the petitions, arguing that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court and that the assets of the JD were not located within its jurisdiction.

2. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court:
The primary contention was whether the Delhi High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the enforcement petitions. DH argued that the JD had an office and bank accounts within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. The JD countered that the property identified by the DH was leased and not owned by the JD, and thus not within its disposing power. The court examined relevant provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the CPC, concluding that the subject matter of the award, being money, could be enforced where the JD's assets are located. The court relied on precedents such as Tata International Ltd. v. Trisuns Chemical Industry Ltd., Wireless Developers Inc. v. India Games Ltd., and Brace Transport Corporation of Monrovia, Bermuda v. Orient Middle East Lines Ltd., Saudi Arabia & Ors., which established that enforcement could be sought in any court where the JD had assets.

3. Pending Proceedings in the Rajasthan High Court and Their Impact on Enforcement Petitions:
The JD argued that the petitions were not maintainable as applications under Section 34 read with Section 48 of the Act challenging the awards were pending in the Rajasthan High Court. The court noted that the Rajasthan High Court had dismissed these applications as non-maintainable, and an appeal was pending. The court held that the pendency of these proceedings could not prevent the enforcement of the awards in the Delhi High Court. This position was supported by the Supreme Court's ruling in Eitzen Bulk A/S v. Ashapura Minechem Limited and Another, which clarified that Section 42 of the Act, which pertains to the jurisdiction of courts in arbitration matters, does not apply to foreign awards.

Conclusion:
The court directed the JD to file an affidavit disclosing all its assets, both movable and immovable, within five weeks, and to provide documents relating to the leased property. The court will decide the issue of territorial jurisdiction based on the disclosures. The petitions were listed for further hearing on 13.07.2020.

---