TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Upholds Foreign Arbitration Award Enforcement, Clarifies Applicability of Indian Law</h1> <h3>Eitzen Bulk A/S, Ashapura Minechem Ltd. Versus Ashapura Minechem Ltd. & Another, Eitzen Bulk A/S, Armada (Singapore) Pte Ltd.</h3> Eitzen Bulk A/S, Ashapura Minechem Ltd. Versus Ashapura Minechem Ltd. & Another, Eitzen Bulk A/S, Armada (Singapore) Pte Ltd. - 2016 AIR 2438, 2016 (2) ... Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of Indian courts under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for a foreign award.2. Applicability of Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to foreign awards.3. Enforcement of foreign arbitration awards in India.4. Exclusion of Part I of the Arbitration Act by agreement.5. Conflict between judgments of Gujarat High Court and Bombay High Court regarding jurisdiction and enforcement.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of Indian courts under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for a foreign award:The core issue was whether Indian courts have jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act to entertain objections against a foreign award. The Gujarat High Court held that a court in India has jurisdiction under Section 34 to decide objections raised in respect of a foreign award because Part I of the Arbitration Act is not excluded from operation in respect of a foreign award. Conversely, the Bombay High Court held that Part I is excluded from operation in the case of a foreign award and directed the enforcement of the award.2. Applicability of Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to foreign awards:The Supreme Court examined whether Part I of the Arbitration Act applies to foreign awards where the arbitration is held outside India and governed by foreign law. The Court referred to Clause 28 of the Contract, which stipulated that any dispute arising under the contract is to be settled by arbitration in London, with English Law to apply. The Court concluded that the parties intended to exclude the applicability of Part I of the Arbitration Act by choosing London as the seat of arbitration and English Law to govern the arbitration.3. Enforcement of foreign arbitration awards in India:The Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s decision to enforce the foreign award under Part II of the Arbitration Act. The Court noted that the award was enforceable as a judgment in various jurisdictions including the Netherlands, USA, Belgium, and the UK. The enforcement proceedings in Bombay were initiated under Sections 47 to 49 of the Arbitration Act, which pertain to the enforcement of foreign awards.4. Exclusion of Part I of the Arbitration Act by agreement:The Court emphasized that the exclusion of Part I of the Arbitration Act can be either express or implied. In this case, the arbitration clause explicitly provided that English Law would apply, indicating the parties’ intention to exclude Part I. The Court referred to previous judgments, including Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A. and Union of India v. Reliance Industries Limited, to support the view that the choice of a foreign seat and foreign law implies the exclusion of Part I.5. Conflict between judgments of Gujarat High Court and Bombay High Court regarding jurisdiction and enforcement:The Supreme Court resolved the conflict between the Gujarat High Court and the Bombay High Court. The Gujarat High Court held that objections under Section 34 were tenable in India, while the Bombay High Court held that Part I was excluded and enforced the award. The Supreme Court sided with the Bombay High Court, stating that the choice of London as the seat and English Law as the governing law excluded the applicability of Part I, thereby negating the jurisdiction of Indian courts under Section 34.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by Eitzen Bulk A/S, upheld the enforcement of the foreign award by the Bombay High Court, and dismissed the appeals filed by Ashapura Minechem Ltd. The Court clarified that where parties choose a foreign seat and foreign law, Part I of the Arbitration Act does not apply, and Indian courts do not have jurisdiction to entertain objections under Section 34 against foreign awards.
TaxTMI 