Case Law
Available documents (141)
sorted by (Date of decision descending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
France / 13 January 2021 / France, Cour de cassation (French Court of Cassation) / Société Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation (EGPC) v. Société National Gas Company (NATGAS) / 19-22.932
Country France Court France, Cour de cassation (French Court of Cassation) Date 13 January 2021 Parties Société Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation (EGPC) v. Société National Gas Company (NATGAS) Case number 19-22.932 Applicable NYC Provisions VII | VII(1) Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour de cassation
Languages French affirms : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6775&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
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=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Uzbekistan Court Uzbekistan, Экономический суд города Ташкента (Tashkent Commercial Court) Date 07 August 2019 Parties Kazakhstan Electricity Grid Operating Company (AO «KEGOC») v. АО «Узбекэнерго» Case number 4-10-1916/195 Applicable NYC Provisions III | VII | VII(1) Source https://public.sud.uz (website of the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan)
Languages Uzbek Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5900&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Pakistan Court Pakistan, High Court of Lahore Date 01 August 2019 Parties Orient Power Company (Private) Limited v. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited Case number I.C.A. No. 210640/2018 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | II(3) | III | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(c) | V(2) | V(2)(b) | VII Source https://www.lhc.gov.pk (website of the Lahore High Court)
Languages English Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6019&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Uzbekistan Court Uzbekistan, Верховный суд Республики Узбекистан (Supreme Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan) Date 28 June 2019 Parties Kazakhstan Electricity Grid Operating Company (AO «KEGOC») v. АО «Узбекэнерго» Case number 4-10-1816/123 Applicable NYC Provisions III | V | V(1) | V(2) | VII | VII(1) Source https://public.sud.uz (website of the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan)
Languages Uzbek affirms : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5905&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Uzbekistan Court Uzbekistan, Верховный суд Республики Узбекистан (Supreme Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan) Date 28 June 2019 Parties Kazakhstan Electricity Grid Operating Company (AO «KEGOC») v. АО «Узбекэнерго» Case number 4-10-1816/243 Applicable NYC Provisions III | V | V(1) | V(2) | VII | VII(1) Source https://public.sud.uz (website of the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan)
Languages Uzbek affirms : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5908&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour d'appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) Date 21 May 2019 Parties Société Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation v. Société National Gas Company (NATGAS) Case number 17/19850 Applicable NYC Provisions VII | VII(1) Source Registry of the Court
Languages French affirmed by : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5503&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Uzbekistan Court Uzbekistan, Экономический суд города Ташкента (Tashkent Commercial Court) Date 25 December 2018 Parties Kazakhstan Electricity Grid Operating Company (AO «KEGOC») v. АО «Узбекэнерго» Case number 4-10-1816/123 Applicable NYC Provisions III | VII | VII(1) Source https://public.sud.uz (website of the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan)
Languages Uzbek affirmed by : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5906&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Uzbekistan Court Uzbekistan, Экономический суд города Ташкента (Tashkent Commercial Court) Date 25 December 2018 Parties Kazakhstan Electricity Grid Operating Company (AO «KEGOC») v. АО «Узбекэнерго» Case number 4-10-1816/243 Applicable NYC Provisions III | VII | VII(1) Source https://public.sud.uz (website of the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan)
Languages Uzbek affirmed by : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5907&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Cyprus Court Cyprus, Επαρχιακό Δικαστήριο Λεμεσού (District Court of Limassol) Date 04 April 2018 Parties CVP Limited v. Beddington Holding Limited Case number Foreign Application No. 15/2017 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | III | IV | V | V(1) | V(2) | VII Source http://www.cylaw.org (CyLaw website)
Languages Greek, Modern (1453-) see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6636&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Peru Court Peru, Segunda Sala Civil con Subespecialidad Comercial de la Corte Superior de Justicia de Lima (Second Civil Chamber specialized in Commercial Matters of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima) Date 05 March 2018 Parties D.P. Trade S.A. v. Metalyck S.A.C. Case number Expediente No. 00352-2017-0-1817-SP-CO-02 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(1) | III | IV | V | V(1) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) | VII | VII(1) Source https://cej.pj.gob.pe/cej (website of the Consulta de Expedientes Judiciales of the Peruvian Judiciary)
Languages Spanish Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5641&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Peru Court Peru, Segunda Sala Civil con Subespecialidad Comercial de la Corte Superior de Justicia de Lima (Second Civil Chamber specialized in Commercial Matters of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima) Date 06 November 2017 Parties Pluspetrol Norte S.A. v. Perupetro S.A. Case number Expediente No. 00336-2017-0-1817-SP-CO-02 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(1) | II | III | IV | V | V(1) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) | VII | VII(1) Source Registry of the Court
Languages Spanish Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5640&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Peru Court Peru, Segunda Sala Civil con Subespecialidad Comercial de la Corte Superior de Justicia de Lima (Second Civil Chamber specialized in Commercial Matters of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima) Date 03 July 2017 Parties D.P. Trade S.A. v. Vemaser Perù S.A.C. Case number Expediente No. 00310-2016-0-1817-SP-CO-02 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(1) | III | IV | IV(1) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(2) | V(2)(b) | VII | VII(1) Source Registry of the Court
Languages Spanish Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5642&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Tribunal des conflits (Jurisdictional Conflicts Tribunal) Date 24 April 2017 Case number 4075 Applicable NYC Provisions III | V | VII Source Registry of the Court
Languages French Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5236&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Belgium Court Belgium, Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Court of First Instance of Brussels) Date 09 December 2016 Parties Fédération de Russie v. Société Yukos Universal Limited Case number 2015/5891/A Applicable NYC Provisions III | IV | V | VII | VII(1) Source Registry of the Court
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3655&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Peru Court Peru, Segunda Sala Civil con Subespecialidad Comercial de la Corte Superior de Justicia de Lima (Second Civil Chamber specialized in Commercial Matters of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima) Date 19 October 2016 Parties Energía Eólica S.A. v. Montealto Peru and Vestas Perú Case number Expediente No. 00045-2016-0-1817-SP-CO-02 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(1) | II | III | IV | V | V(1) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(b) | VII | VII(1) Source Registry of the Court
Languages Spanish Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5639&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Portugal Court Portugal, Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Lisbon Court of Appeal) Date 02 June 2016 Case number 103/13.1YRLSB-2 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(1) | II(2) | II(3) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) | VII | VII(1) | XVI | XVI(1) Source http://www.dgsi.pt (official website of the Instituto de Gestão Financeira e Equipamentos da Justiça I.P.)
Languages Portuguese Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6075&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Switzerland Court Switzerland, Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal) Date 04 February 2016 Parties A. SA v. B. Ltd Case number 5A_441/2015 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | VII | VII(1) Source http://www.bger.ch (website of Swiss Federal Tribunal)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3698&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Peru Court Peru, Segunda Sala Civil con Subespecialidad Comercial de la Corte Superior de Justicia de Lima (Second Civil Chamber specialized in Commercial Matters of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima) Date 20 January 2016 Parties Plains Cotton Cooperative Association v. Corporación Textil S.A. Case number Expediente No. 00345-2014-0-1817-SP-CO-02 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) | VII | VII(1) Source https://cej.pj.gob.pe/cej (website of the Consulta de Expedientes Judiciales of the Peruvian Judiciary)
Languages Spanish Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5638&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Mexico Court Mexico, El Pleno en Materia Civil del Primer Circuito (Plenary Assembly in Civil Matters of the First circuit) Date 10 November 2015 Case number Contradicción de Tesis 8/2015 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) | VII | VII(1) Source https://www.scjn.gob.mx (website of the Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación)
Also attached Tesis de jurisprudencia No. 2010812 (https://sjf.scjn.gob.mx, website of the Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4495&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country United States Court United States, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois Date 23 September 2015 Parties National Aluminum Co., Ltd. v. Peak Chemical Corporation, Inc. Case number 14-cv-01314 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | V | VII Source online: PACER
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3805&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country France Court France, Cour de cassation (French Court of Cassation) Date 08 July 2015 Parties Société Ryanair Limited and Société Airport Marketing Services Limited v. Syndicat Mixte des Aéroports de Charente (SMAC) and Procureur général près la Cour d’appel de Paris Case number 13-25.846 Applicable NYC Provisions III | V | VII Source Original decision obtained from the registry of the Cour d'appel de Paris
see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1715&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Slovenia Court Slovenia, Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia) Date 07 April 2015 Case number VSRS Sklep Cpg 7/2014 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(e) | VII | VII(2) Source http://www.sodnapraksa.si (Public information of Slovenia, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4426&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
