India / 05 July 2000 / India, High Court of Delhi / Marriott International Inc et al v. Ansal Hotels Ltd et al / F.A.O. (OS) No. 335 of 1999
Country | India |
Court | India, High Court of Delhi |
Date | 05 July 2000 |
Parties | Marriott International Inc et al v. Ansal Hotels Ltd et al |
Case number | F.A.O. (OS) No. 335 of 1999 |
Source |
http://www.indiankanoon.org (website of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts) |
Languages | English |
Summary | Marriott International Inc. (“Marriott”) entered into a contract with Ansal Hotels Ltd (“Ansal”) for the management of a hotel as part of the Marriott chain of hotels, which provided for arbitration in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Ansal terminated the contract, leading Marriott to initiate arbitral proceedings against Ansal in Kuala Lumpur, while also seeking an interim directions from the Single Judge in Delhi, India, pursuant to Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (the “1996 Act”). Ansal resisted the interim directions sought by Marriott on the ground that Section 9 of the 1996 Act, and all of Part I of the Act does not apply to arbitrations with their seat outside India. The Single Judge decided the issue in favour of Ansal, a decision which Marriott appealed to the High Court of Delhi. The High Court of Delhi dismissed the appeal, holding that Part I of the Act does not apply when the seat of the arbitration is outside India. In reaching this conclusion, the High Court also remarked that Part II of the Act concerns the enforcement of foreign awards made under the NYC or the Geneva Convention. The Court observed that “foreign award” means an arbitral award on a difference considered commercial under Indian law, made in pursuance of an agreement in writing to which the Geneva Convention or the NYC applies and rendered in the territory of a state other than the state where recognition and enforcement is sought. In concluding that the award was a “foreign award”, the Court also considered as indicative the fact that one of the parties to the arbitration agreement was not a national of India. |
Attachment (1)
Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |