Can Arbitration Award Be Challenged in High Court

There are no specific rules for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards against sovereign States. Although Article 86 of the CPC (which regulates the issue of immunity of foreign states) provides for the prior consent of the central government before an action is brought against a foreign state in court, such enforcement proceedings are not excluded. With respect to the enforcement of an arbitral award, Indian courts have interpreted the word “claim” narrowly and have held that the adoption of a “judgment and decision on an arbitral award” does not begin with a legal action or motion in the manner of a legal action (Nawab Usmanali Khan v. Sagarmal, AIR 1965 SC 1798). Accordingly, enforcement proceedings relating to an arbitral award cannot be regarded as an action within the meaning of Paragraph 86 of the ZPO. In Ethiopian Airlines v. Ganesh Narain Saboo (2011) 8 SCC 539, the Supreme Court of India has held that sovereign immunity from a foreign state cannot apply to commercial transactions and that the party must be held responsible for its contractual and commercial activities and obligations. A new type of challenge on the grounds that a party has been denied the opportunity to present its case may result from the increasing prevalence of remote hearings. Courts should be cautious if they want to avoid challenging your arbitral awards when it comes to imposing remote negotiations when at least one party objects, especially if neither the relevant arbitration agreement nor the relevant institutional rules allow for remote hearings. In this context, the Supreme Court ruled in an order of 23.

July 2020, that the decision to hold a remote hearing in a viac rules arbitration despite the objection of one of the parties does not constitute a ground for appeal. [24] The Court`s decision was a decision to which it was entitled (within its broad discretion with respect to the conduct of the proceedings) and did not violate the obligation to treat the parties fairly. While this remains to be seen, it seems likely that other national jurisdictions will take a similar view. This is especially true when the ongoing effects of the pandemic mean that appealing against a remote hearing could significantly prevent or delay arbitration, so a decision to order a remote hearing would be easier to justify despite a party`s objection. (6) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (26 of 1996) apply to any arbitration under this Act. The Supreme Court has ruled that a challenge to an arbitral award should either contain an obvious error at the beginning of the award or prove that the arbitrator himself or the proceedings were unsuccessful. There are no useful precedents for the seizure of the assets of an alter ego of a foreign state in Indian jurisdiction. However, in certain circumstances, the courts have authorized the seizure of the assets of an alter ego of a company against which an arbitral award has been rendered. In Cheran Properties v. Kasturi and Sons Ltd (2018) 16 SCC 413, the Supreme Court ruled that an arbitral award against a non-signatory may be enforced in situations such as a principal-agent relationship, apparent authority, penetration of the corporate veil, joint venture relationships, succession and forfeiture, based on the force of applicable law.

Similarly, non-signatories may be bound by the doctrine of the “corporate group”, the basis for binding a non-signatory to the procedure being the implicit intention to bind non-signatories as well. India shall enforce an arbitral award under the Convention only if it has been made in the territory of another State Party. Section 44 of the Act lists the names of 48 countries to which the Convention will apply, namely States that have made reciprocal arrangements for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards rendered in India. This data shall be publicly available. There have also been cases where Indian courts have ruled on the question of the enforceability of an arbitral award, regardless of the status of the invalidity proceedings filed at the headquarters. In order to obtain interim measures against intangible assets, the provisions of Ordinance XXI, Rules 46, 47, 48 and 48-A of the CPC, which provide for the procedure for the seizure of intangible personal property, may be applied. These provisions include the seizure of debts, shares of movable property, wages or allowances of civil servants or employees of the railways or employees of the municipality, as well as the salaries or indemnities of employees in the private sector. Such seizures may be made by the court empowered to enforce by issuing restraining orders against the persons holding the property. As a result of this decision, through the Amending Act 2019, the legislator added section 87 of the Arbitration Act to nullify the effect of the Supreme Court`s decision in Kochi Cricket. The validity of this inserted provision was challenged and in the Supreme Court`s decision in Hindustan Construction Co Ltd v.

Union of India (decision of 27. In November 2019, in Writ Petition (Civil) 1074 of 2019 and Related Matters, the inserted section 87 of the Arbitration Act was removed as unconstitutional because it was fraught with obvious arbitrariness. The Arbitration Act does not provide for a deadline for seeking recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award. However, the Indian Supreme Court in Government of India v Vedanta Limited and Ors Civil Appeal No. 3185 of 2020 (derived from SLP (Civil) No. 7172 of 2020), which is based on section 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act 1963, clarified that an application for enforcement and recognition of a foreign arbitral award must be filed within three years of the creation of the right of application. Do your national arbitration legislation, case law or the rules of national arbitration institutions provide for the enforcement of orders by emergency arbitrators? The Supreme Court also found that in several similar cases, the NHAI had allowed people in similar situations to receive compensation at a much higher rate than they had been awarded. The Supreme Court relied on Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vithal Rao32 to rule that the State cannot make classifications based on the public purpose for which the land is acquired and, therefore, cannot grant different compensation.

The Supreme Court also relied on the fact that most arbitral awards were rendered 7 to 10 years ago and that it would not be fair to refer these cases to the same arbitrator or another arbitrator appointed unilaterally by the central government. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has refused to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution and has rejected the invocation of facts.33 Article 33 further provides that a party may request the arbitral tribunal, upon notification to the other party and within 30 days of receipt of the award, to make an additional award in respect of the claims invoked in the arbitration; which, however, are not included in the price. unless the parties have agreed otherwise. The arbitral tribunal is required to make the supplementary award within 60 days of receipt of the request if it considers that the request is justified. Under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, an arbitral award may be challenged by an application to the tribunal for setting aside the arbitral award on the following grounds established on the basis of the minutes of the arbitral tribunal: What is the position of national courts on the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards set aside by arbitral tribunals? This case arises from certain communications issued under the NHA and arbitral awards made under the NHA. The district`s special revenue officer, which was the competent authority under the NHA, had set a very low compensation for landowners. As the landowners were not satisfied with the compensation, the central government appointed the district receiver as arbitrator. Under Paragraph 3G(7) of the NHA, the competent authority and the arbitrator are required to take into account, when determining the amount of compensation, in particular the market value of the land at the time of publication of the notice. However, in all the cases ultimately contested, the competent authority and the arbitrator had determined compensation on the basis of the “indicative value” of the land in question (which was used for stamp duty purposes) and not on the basis of similar deeds of sale of immovable property.

As a result, abysmal amounts were awarded as compensation by the competent authority, which were later confirmed by the arbitrator. As a result, these arbitral awards were challenged under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. In accordance with section 10 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appeal Division of the High Courts Act 2015, any application or appeal arising out of international commercial arbitration will be heard and decided by the Commercial Division of the High Court (if a Commercial Division has been established in that High Court). Initially, the possibility of court interference in arbitral awards was limited, according to the decision. Once the court of enforcement is satisfied that an arbitral award is recognizable or enforceable, the award shall be deemed to be a decision of that court in accordance with the provisions of article 36 (domestic arbitral award) or article 49 (foreign arbitral award) of the Arbitration Act. It may then be enforced in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to the execution of a decree. .

Close Menu