sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
India / 16 September 2020 / India, Supreme Court / Government of India v. Vedanta Limited, Ravva Oil (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Videocon Industries Limited / Civil Appeal No. 3185 of 2020
Country India Court India, Supreme Court Date 16 September 2020 Parties Government of India v. Vedanta Limited, Ravva Oil (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Videocon Industries Limited Case number Civil Appeal No. 3185 of 2020 Applicable NYC Provisions III | IV | IV(1) | V | V(1) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source https://www.sci.gov.in (website of the Supreme Court of India)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6372&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Calcutta Date 12 August 2020 Parties Balasore Alloys Limited v. Medima LLC Case number G.A. No. 871 of 2020 / G.A. No. 872 of 2020 / C.S. No. 59 of 2020 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(3) Source https://www.calcuttahighcourt.gov.in/ (website of the Calcutta High Court)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6373&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Sahil Tagotra ; Ishita Mishra / Recent Developments in the Enforcement of New York Convention Awards in India / Kluwer Arbitration Blog (6 July 2020) - 06/07/2020
Author(s) Sahil Tagotra ; Ishita Mishra Source Kluwer Arbitration Blog (6 July 2020) Subject(s) A. Articles on the 1958 New York Convention Jurisdictions India Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6239&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
External ResourceExternal Resource
Country India Court India, High Court of Madras Date 03 June 2020 Parties Pueblo Holdings Limited v. Emirates Trading Agency LLC, Eta Mauritius Ltd. and others Case number E.P. No. 55 of 2019 Source http://www.indiankanoon.org (website of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6378&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, Supreme Court Date 02 June 2020 Parties M/S. Centrotrade Minerals and Metals Inc. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd. Case number Civil Appeal No. 2562 of 2006 and No. 2564 of 2006 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(b) Source https://www.sci.gov.in (website of the Supreme Court of India)
Languages English Summary Summary prepared by Ishita Mishra (Advocate, Supreme Court of India | Chambers of Mr. Gourab Banerji)
This case was the final instalment in the Centrotrade series (which had seen two previous rounds of litigations at the Supreme Court), and finally enforced in 2020, a foreign arbitral award that had been passed in 2001. This dispute between the parties had arisen with respect to the quantity of dry weight copper concentrate that had to be supplied by Hindustan Copper Ltd (the “Respondent”) to Centrotrade, the Appellant, pursuant to a contract for sale. Centrotrade is a U.S. Corporation which had entered into the above-mentioned contract for sale of 15,500 DMT of copper concentrate which was to be delivered by the Respondent at the Kandla Port in the State of Gujarat. Clause 14 of this contract for sale contained a two-tier arbitration clause, which provided for at the first stage, an arbitration in India and then at the second stage, offered the parties an option to ‘appeal’ against the award of the Indian arbitrator by conducting a second arbitration in London under ICC Rules.
In 1996, Centrotrade had invoked the arbitration clause against the Respondent. On 15 June 1999, a nil award had been passed by the Indian arbitrator (“First Award”). After the passing of this award, Centrotrade then utilised the provisions of clause 14 to initiate a second arbitration under ICC Rules in London. In these proceedings, an award was passed by Sir Jeremy Cooke QC on 29 September 2001 in favour of Centrotrade (“Second Award”). Centrotrade now sought to enforce this award in India and filed an application for enforcement of this award before the Calcutta High Court. The case was called before a single judge at the Calcutta High Court who enforced this award. However, the Respondent appealed this decision of the Single Judge, and on appeal, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court refused to enforce the Second Award. They observed that the Second Award was not a foreign award as both the arbitral awards (the First and the Second Awards) had been delivered by arbitrators who exercised concurrent jurisdiction and hence, the First Award and the Second Award were mutually destructive. The court held that neither award could be enforced under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Indian Arbitration Act”). Centrotrade, then appealed this judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court before the Supreme Court of India. A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India then further referred this appeal to a larger bench as two separate judgments had been delivered by a two-judge bench in Centrotrade Minerals & Metals Inc v HCL (2006) 11 SCC 245.
This appeal was then heard by a three-judge bench. This bench now focused on two main issues, (i) whether a two-tier arbitration clause was permissible under Indian law, and (ii) if yes, whether the Second Award would be recognised as a ‘foreign award’ enforceable under Section 48 of the Indian Arbitration Act. The first issue was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court in Centrotrade Minerals & Metals Inc v HCL (2017) 2 SCC 228. The second issue was referred to another bench of the Supreme Court on account of time constraints facing the 2017 bench.
The second issue related to the enforcement of the Second Award. The Court in ruling on the recognition and enforcement of the Second Award after noting that no challenge had been filed at the seat court against the Second Award, looked at (i) whether the arbitrator should have determined the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary question?, and (ii) whether the Respondent was unable to present its case and in particular at the meaning of the word ‘otherwise’ when interpreting ‘otherwise unable to present his case’ under Section 48(1)(b)? The Respondent argued that the arbitrator the ought to have determined the question of jurisdiction before going into the substantive issues. The Court observed that no such argument had been raised by the Respondent in the past proceedings and then went on to observe on fact that there was no evidence produced which unequivocally showed that the arbitrator sought to take up the plea as to jurisdiction as a preliminary objection. The Respondent then argued that the Second Award must be refused enforcement under Section 48(1)(b) as the Respondent had not been given the full opportunity to present its case by the arbitrator. In evaluating this submission of the Respondent, the court while inferring this provision, referred to the NYC and attributed a narrower meaning to the word “otherwise” as used in Section 48(1)(b) (“…the party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case”). The court did so, relying on its judgment in Vijay Karia v Prysmian Cavi 2020 SCC OnLine SC 177 which emphasised on the pro-enforcement bias that runs through the NYC and Part II of the Indian Arbitration Act. The court also noted that an arbitrator’s ‘misconduct’ (as defined under the older (Indian) Arbitration Act, 1940) was a broader ground for setting aside an award, than a party being unable to present its case before the arbitrator as provided for under Section 48(1)(b).
The court then went on to examine what would constitute a party being ‘unable to present its case’. The court took note of judgments from the United Kingdom (Minmetals Germany GmbH v. Ferco Steel Ltd. (1999) C.L.C. 647, Eastern European Engineering v. Vijay Consulting (2019) 1 LLR 1 (QBD), Cuckurova Holding A.S. v. Sonera Holding B.V. (2014) UKPC 15), United States (Jorf Lasfar Energy Co. v. AMCI Export Corp. 2008 WL 1228930, Consorcio Rive v. Briggs of Cancun 134 F. Supp 2d 789, the US District Court, E.D. Louisiana, Four Seasons Hotels v. Consorcio Barr S.A. 613 Supp 2d 1362 (S.D. Fla. 2009)), Hong Kong (Nanjing Cereals v. Luckmate Commodities XXI Y.B. Com. Arb. 542 (1996)) and Italy (De Maio Giuseppe v. Interskins Y.B. Comm. Arb. XXVII (2002) 492) which interpreted this phrase in the context of their domestic arbitration legislations and under Article V(1)(b) NYC and then analysed the facts of the present case. The court noted that the Sir Cooke had provided the Respondent with several opportunities to advance documents and legal submissions in its support. The court noted that, the Respondent had chosen to not participate in the arbitral proceedings in relation to the Second Award until August 2001 and in spite of this, had been granted several time extensions (as requested) and that even submissions made by the Respondent beyond agreed timelines had been taken into account by Sir Cooke before passing his award. The court held that there was no mistake in the conduct of the arbitral proceedings as undertaken by Sir Cooke. Additionally, the court also observed that an enforcing court under Section 48 did not have the power to remand matters back to an ICC arbitrator for him / her to pass a fresh award. Consequently, the Supreme Court enforced the Second Award and allowed Centrotrade’s appeal.
reverses : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6374&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Delhi Date 12 May 2020 Parties Spentex Industries Ltd v. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP Case number CS(OS) 568/2017 Source http://www.delhihighcourt.nic.in (website of the Delhi High Court)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6375&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Bombay Date 30 April 2020 Parties Banyan Tree Growth Capital L.L.C. v. Axiom Cordages Limited, Responsive Industries Limited and Wellknown Business Ventures LLP Case number Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 476 of 2019 and No. 475 of 2019 Source http://www.indiankanoon.org (website of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6377&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, Supreme Court Date 22 April 2020 Parties National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India v. Alimenta SA Case number Civil Appeal No. 667 of 2012 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source https://www.sci.gov.in (website of the Supreme Court of India)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6376&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Rajasthan Date 23 March 2020 Parties Hindustan Zinc Limited v. Glencore International A.G. (GIAG) and London Court of International Arbitration Case number Civil Special Appeal (Arbitration) No. 2/2019, 3/2019 Source http://www.indiankanoon.org (website of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5917&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Delhi Date 12 March 2020 Parties Union of India v. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co Pvt Ltd Case number ARB.P. 588/2019 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(a) Source http://www.delhihighcourt.nic.in (website of the Delhi High Court)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5916&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Allahabad Date 26 February 2020 Parties Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. M/S P.M. Electronics Ltd. Case number First Appeal from Order No. 1519 of 2017 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.indiankanoon.org (website of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5808&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Delhi Date 19 February 2020 Parties Cairn India Ltd. & Ors V. Government of India Case number O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 15/2016 & I.A. Nos. 20459/2014 & 3558/2015 Source http://www.delhihighcourt.nic.in (website of the Delhi High Court)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5810&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, Supreme Court Date 13 February 2020 Parties Vijay Karia & Ors. v. Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi S.r.l. & Ors. Case number Civil Appeals No. 1544 of 2020 and No. 1545 of 2020 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | III | IV | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(b) | VII | VII(1) Source https://www.sci.gov.in (website of the Supreme Court of India)
Languages English Summary Summary prepared by Ishita Mishra (Advocate, Supreme Court of India | Chambers of Mr. Gourab Banerji)
A sole arbitrator had passed four arbitral awards (Awards) in a London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) arbitration. The context of the dispute was a joint venture dispute between the Appellants and the Respondents. The Respondents had initiated arbitration proceedings against the Appellants for materially breaching various provisions of the joint venture agreement (JVA) and in particular, for loss of effective control over ‘Ravin’, the joint venture company. In response to these allegations, the Appellants filed a set of counter claims which alleged that the Respondents had violated their non-compete obligations by acquiring a competing business in India through their indirect acquisition of ACPL (which was Ravin’s competitor), breached confidentiality and interfered in the management of Ravin among others. The parties agreed that on account of the alleged material breaches, the party successful in this arbitration would be entitled to buy out the other at a 10% premium / discount under the JVA.
Through the first partial final award, the tribunal had interpreted certain provisions of the JVA and concluded that the Appellants had not succeeded in their primary submission that the conclusion of contracts of sales in India by the Respondent through a company other than Ravin was contrary to the JVA. In the second award, the tribunal dismissed the Appellant’s counter claims and observed that the Appellants had committed several breaches of the JVA. Counter claims of interference in management and mismanagement, breach of confidentiality and violation of non-compete obligations under the JVA were dismissed. The tribunal observed that the Appellant was always aware of Prysmian SA’s acquisition of the Draka group which would result in its acquisition of its subsidiary ACPL and yet had never objected to the same.
Prior to the passing of the third partial award, the Appellants challenged the appointment of the arbitrator on the ground of alleged lack of impartiality or independence. This challenge was dismissed by the LCIA Court as it had been made out of time as per the LCIA Rules. Through the final award, the shares to be transferred by the Appellants to the Respondents were valued. No challenge was made by the Appellants to this award under the (English) Arbitration Act, 1996 in the seat court (Courts of London, United Kingdom). An appeal was only filed by Shri Vijay Karia when an enforcement petition was filed under Section 48 of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act) at the Bombay High Court. Through his judgment, Justice A.K Menon held these 4 arbitral awards to be enforceable. The Bombay High Court enforced the arbitral awards as it found that none of the allegations raised by the Appellants met the conditions under Section 48 for a successful challenge such as that of an invalid arbitration agreement, violation of principles of natural justice, award going beyond the scope of arbitration, non-arbitrable subject matter and violation of the fundamental policy of India among others. The Appellants, unhappy with the Bombay High Court’s determination, impugned this judgment before the Supreme Court of India.
The Supreme Court when deciding on this appeal, first examined the scope of Section 48 of the 1996 Act. By citing precedent from the US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit in Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co. v. Societe Generale De L’Industrie Du Papier 508 F.2d 969 (1974) and US District Court, District of Colombia in Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee v. Hammermills Inc. (1992) WL 122712, US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in Karaha Codas Co., L.L.C v. Perusahaan Pertambagan Minyak 364 F.3d 274 (2004) among others observed that there was prevalence of a “pro-enforcement bias” under the NYC which was adopted by India within its legislature through Section 48 of the 1996 Act.
The Supreme Court further elaborated on the narrow review powers available to a ‘court’ under Section 48 of the 1996 Act. The Court approvingly cited provisions from its judgments in Renusagar Power Plant Co Ltd v. General Electric (1994 Supp (1) SCC 644) and Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Limited v. NHAI (2019 SCC OnLine SC 677) which observed that a foreign award being enforced under the NYC may not be examined by a review court on the basis of merits. The Court also referred to its judgment in Shri Lal Mahal v. Progetto Grando SPA (2014 2 SCC 433) and reiterated that Section 48(2)(b) of the 1996 Act contemplated a narrower review under the ground of “fundamental policy of Indian law”. The Court signaled towards the same being a part of the legislative intent by noting that Section 48 had been amended in 2015 to delete the ground of “contrary to the interest of India.”
The Supreme Court then considered the issue of whether a court could still enforce a foreign award even if some grounds under Section 48 of the 1996 Act were made out. This argument relied on the usage of the word “may” in Section 48 of the 1996 Act instead of ‘shall.’ The Court first discussed the legislative intent behind use of the word “may” in Article V NYC by endorsing the view that Articles V(1) and V(2) use permissive and not mandatory language. The Court then noted that the grounds under Section 48 could be classified into three groups i.e. “…grounds which affect the jurisdiction of the arbitration proceedings, grounds which affect the party interest alone; and grounds which go to the public policy of India…” and held that courts could not have any discretion if grounds affecting the public policy of India were made, but if grounds affecting party interest alone were made out, then the enforcing court will have the residual discretion when it came to enforcement of such awards. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the word “may” in Section 48 of the 1996 Act could be interpreted as ‘shall’ depending on the context.
The Supreme Court also reviewed the Appellants’ challenge to the awards on the basis of violation of the principles of natural justice under Section 48(1)(b) of the 1996 Act. The Appellants’ had alleged that the principle of audi alteram partem was not followed as the Appellants had been unable to present their case on account of wilful failure on part of the Respondents to produce documents and the tribunal having not drawn a negative inference from the same. While deciding on this aspect, the Court referred to its judgment in Sohan Lal Gupta v. Asha Devi Gupta (2003 7 SCC 492) and the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Glencore International AG v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited (2017 SCC Online Del 8932). In Glencore International (supra), the Delhi High Court had observed that Section 48(1)(b) of the 1996 Act was pari materia to Article V(1)(b) NYC and hence a clear case of falling foul of the minimal standards of due process / natural justice needed to be established under Section 48(1)(b) of the 1996 Act to warrant a refusal of enforcement. The Supreme Court held that the phrase “was otherwise unable to present his case” should be interpreted narrowly and would be breached only if a fair hearing was not given by the tribunal to the parties. Poor reasoning by a tribunal would not meet the threshold under Section 48(1)(b) of the 1996 Act. The Court held that a failure of a tribunal in examining a material issue would not be sufficient for a challenge under Section 48(1)(b) of the 1996 Act unless such a failure went to the root of the matter and shocked the conscience of a court. The Court reiterated that a pro-enforcement undercurrent must feature in a review even under Section 48(1)(b) of the 1996 Act and that if an award addresses basic issues raised by the parties and in substance, decides on the claims and counter claims, then “enforcement must follow”.
The final issue before the Supreme Court was whether these awards violated India’s foreign exchange laws, and in particular, the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA). The award directed a sale of shares at a discount to a foreign party (the Respondents). The Supreme Court held that the award did not violate India’s public policy. The Court traced the history of India’s foreign exchange laws from ‘policing to management’ and approved the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v. Unitech Limited (2017 239 DLT 649; in this case, the Delhi High Court had held that an application to resist enforcement of a foreign award on the basis of public policy grounds will only succeed if the objections are of such a nature that they offend the core values of India’s national policy “which it cannot be expected to compromise”, and that a mere inconsistency with a regulation like the FEMA, did not automatically meet this test). The Court noted that Section 47 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) which held transactions that violated the FERA as void did not find place within the FEMA and held that a rectifiable breach under the FEMA could not amount to a violation of the fundamental policy of Indian law.
After noting the legislative and judicial history of Section 48 of the 1996 Act, the Supreme Court observed that the pleas taken by the Appellants forayed into a review of the awards on the basis of merits, and that the same is not permitted under Section 48 of the 1996 Act read with the NYC. The Supreme Court noted that the Appellants in the present case appeared to be indulging in “…speculative litigation with the fond hope that by flinging mud on a foreign arbitral award, some of the mud so flung would stick.”. The Supreme Court after perusing the court records, rejected all of the grounds raised, dismissed the appeal of Shri Vijay Karia and imposed costs on the Appellants of Rs. 5,000,000 (Indian Rupees Five Million) for attempting to argue this matter as a first appeal despite being aware of the limited scope of review available under Section 48 of the 1996 Act.
affirms : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5809&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Delhi Date 22 January 2020 Parties Kalpataru Power Transmission Limited v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Case number ARB.P. 622/2019 Source http://www.delhihighcourt.nic.in (website of the Delhi High Court)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5811&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Author(s) Ishita Mishra Source Asian Dispute Review (October 2020) Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions India Worldcat Number Worldcat : 980991876 
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6605&opac_view=6
Country India Court India, Supreme Court Date 10 December 2019 Parties BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd. Case number Civil Appeals No. 9307 of 2019, No. 9308 of 2019 and No. 9309 of 2019 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) Source https://www.sci.gov.in (website of the Supreme Court of India)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5812&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, Supreme Court Date 27 November 2019 Parties Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited v. Northern Coal Field Limited Case number Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11476 of 2018 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(a) Source https://www.sci.gov.in (website of the Supreme Court of India)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5813&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Bombay Date 18 November 2019 Parties Nobel Resource Ltd. v. Dharni Sampda Private Ltd. Case number Notice No. 928 of 2017 in Execution Application No. 25 of 2017 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.indiankanoon.org (website of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5814&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Bombay Date 16 October 2019 Parties Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Prize Petroleum Company Ltd. v. M3nergy (M) Sdn. Bhd. Case number Com. Appeal No. 317 of 2019 in Com. Arbitration Petition No. 76 of 2018, Appeal No. 333 of 2019 in Arbitration Petition No. 548 of 2014 and Com. Appeal No. 348 of 2019 in Com. Arb. Petition No. 1101 of 2018 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(a) Source http://www.indiankanoon.org (website of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5815&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Delhi Date 23 September 2019 Parties Jes & Ben Groupo Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. HELL Energy Magyarország Kft. (Hell Energy Hungry Ltd.) & Anr. Case number CS(COMM) 257/2019 Source http://www.delhihighcourt.nic.in (website of the Delhi High Court)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5816&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Madhya Pradesh Date 18 September 2019 Parties Vimarsh Development Solutions Private Limited v. M.P. Consultancy Organisation (Ltd) MPCON Case number AC No. 28/2018 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(1) | II(3) Source http://www.indiankanoon.org (website of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5817&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, Supreme Court Date 15 February 2019 Parties Giriraj Garg v. Coal India Ltd. & Ors. Case number Civil Appeal No. 1695 of 2019 Source https://www.sci.gov.in (website of the Supreme Court of India)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5593&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Calcutta Date 13 February 2019 Parties Devi Resources Limited v. Ambo Exports Limited Case number APO No. 430 of 2017 in EC No. 233 of 2016 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(2) Source http://www.calcuttahighcourt.gov.in (website of the Calcutta High Court)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5609&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Delhi Date 15 January 2019 Parties RV Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Dixit & Ors Case number CS(COMM) 745/2017 Applicable NYC Provisions I Source http://www.delhihighcourt.nic.in (website of the Delhi High Court)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5605&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Bombay Date 07 January 2019 Parties Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi S.r.I. v. Vijay Karia & Ors. Case number Arbitration Petition No. 442 of 2017 Applicable NYC Provisions V Source http://www.indiankanoon.org (website of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts)
Languages English affirmed by : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5620&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Delhi Date 21 December 2018 Parties Bhai Manjit Singh (Huf) v. Bhai Manjit Singh & Anr. Case number CS(OS) 3994/2014 Applicable NYC Provisions I Source http://www.delhihighcourt.nic.in (website of the Delhi High Court)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5604&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Delhi Date 05 December 2018 Parties Virgoz Oils & Fats Pte Ltd. v. National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. Case number EFA (OS) 8/2017 & CMs 9198/2017, 9450/2017 and 13814/2018 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) Source http://www.delhihighcourt.nic.in (website of the Delhi High Court)
Languages English affirms : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5603&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Delhi Date 01 November 2018 Parties Drager Medical GmbH v. M/S Ion Bio Med-I Care Pvt Ltd Case number EX.P. 271/2014 Applicable NYC Provisions I Source http://www.delhihighcourt.nic.in (website of the Delhi High Court)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5601&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Delhi Date 01 November 2018 Parties Focus Energy Limited v. Reebok International Limited Case number O.M.P. 214/2010 & I.A. 16732/2011 | O.M.P. 716/2011 Source http://www.delhihighcourt.nic.in (website of the Delhi High Court)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5602&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country India Court India, High Court of Kerala Date 30 October 2018 Parties M/S. Peniel Cashew Company and Job G. Oommen v. M/S. AHCOM Sarl Case number OP(C). No. 1877 of 2018 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) Source http://www.indiankanoon.org (website of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5619&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
