France / 15 May 1970 / France, Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris / Compagnie de Saint-Gobain Pont-à-Mousson v. The Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited
| Country | France |
| Court | France, Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (Court of First Instance of Paris) |
| Date | 15 May 1970 |
| Parties | Compagnie de Saint-Gobain Pont-à-Mousson v. The Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | I | V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(e) | VI |
| Summary | A French company (Saint Gobain) entered into an agreement with an Indian company (Nangal Fertilizer and Chemicals Private Ltd, whose rights and obligations had been assumed by Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited - F.C.L.I.) for the construction of a plant in India. A dispute arose and an award was rendered on 19 September 1969 in New Delhi in favor of F.C.L.I. In an order issued on 3 December 1969, the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (First Instance Court of Paris) allowed enforcement of the award in France. In the meantime, Saint-Gobain initiated an action before the High Court of New Delhi to have the arbitral award declared without legal effect until it had been approved by the aforementioned Court. Saint-Gobain also challenged the enforcement order before the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, arguing that the award had not yet become binding on the parties and that due process had been violated and therefore the enforcement should be refused pursuant to Articles V(1)(b) and V(1)(e) NYC. In the alternative, Saint-Gobain requested an adjournment of the decision on the enforcement of the award pending the proceedings before the High Court of New Delhi in accordance with Article VI NYC. The President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris upheld the enforcement order and dismissed the action. He first reasoned that under Article V(1)(e) NYC, an award is considered as binding when the award had been rendered in a regular fashion and that all the formalities required for arbitral awards have been complied with. In the case at hand, he held that Saint-Gobain had failed to establish that the award was not binding in the country in which it was made. He then rejected Saint-Gobain's argument based on an alleged violation of due process in breach of Article V(1)(b) NYC, while recalling that, pursuant to Article V(1) NYC, the recognition and enforcement of the award may be refused at the request of the party against whom it is invoked, only if that party furnishes proof of such violation to the competent authority where the recognition and enforcement is sought. As to the request for adjournment of the decision on the enforcement of the award pending the proceedings in India, the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris considered that Article VI NYC leaves discretion to the enforcement judge to adjourn the decision on the enforcement of the award when proceedings to set aside or suspend the award have been made to a competent authority of the country in which the award was made. He concluded that Saint-Gobain failed to establish that the adjournment would be proper. |
| affirmed by : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Unavailable Adobe Acrobat PDF |
