Georgia / 06 July 2012 / Georgia, საქართველოს უზენაესი სასამართლო (Supreme Court of Georgia) / JSC “P” v. “L” LLC / a-492-sh-11-2012
| Country | Georgia |
| Court | Georgia, საქართველოს უზენაესი სასამართლო (Supreme Court of Georgia) |
| Date | 06 July 2012 |
| Parties | JSC “P” v. “L” LLC |
| Case number | a-492-sh-11-2012 |
| Source |
http://prg.supremecourt.ge (website of the Supreme Court of Georgia) |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | On 14 September 2011, the United Mediation Court of Riga rendered an arbitral award ordering “L” LLC (“L”) to pay certain amounts to JSC “P” (“P”). P sought recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award in Georgia before the Supreme Court of Georgia. L challenged enforcement of the award on the grounds that it had not been informed of the arbitration proceedings and that the arbitral award went beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement. L also argued that a mortgage contract mentioned in the award was not related to the subject matter of the dispute and thus resulted in a breach of Articles 45(1)(a)(a.c.) (which is identical to Article V(1)(b) NYC) and 45(1)(a)(a.d.) (which is similar to Article V(1)(c) NYC) of the Arbitration Law of Georgia. The Supreme Court of Georgia granted recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award. With regard to the objection under Article 45(1)(a)(a.c.) of the Arbitration Law of Georgia, it stated that the case file and the award showed that L had been informed of the arbitral proceedings, that it had submitted its response in the proceedings, and that its directors had been duly served summons. As for the second ground under Article 45(1)(a)(a.d.) of the Arbitration Law, it held that the award did not concern the mortgage contract. In reaching this conclusion, it examined the dispositive part of the award, noting that it did not contain any rulings regarding the mortgage contract. The Supreme Court then, on its own motion, proceeded to consider whether the award was contrary to public policy under Article 45(1)(b)(b.b.) of the Arbitration Law (which is identical to Article V(2)(b) NYC). In examining whether the arbitral award contradicted the rules provided in Articles 276(2) and Article 301(11) of the Civil Code of Georgia (“the Civil Code”), it concluded that since the award did not uphold or relate to the sale of collateral in order to satisfy a claim and as L had not claimed that the recovered amount was insufficient to satisfy the claim, Articles 276(2) and 301(11) of the Civil Code were not applicable and the award was not contrary to public policy. |
Attachment (2)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
Unofficial Translation Adobe Acrobat PDF |
