United States / 09 June 1981 / U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio / Fertilizer Corp. of India (India) v. IDI Mgmt. Inc. (US) / C-1-79-570
| Country | United States |
| Court | United States, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio |
| Date | 09 June 1981 |
| Parties | Fertilizer Corp. of India (India) v. IDI Mgmt. Inc. (US) |
| Case number | C-1-79-570 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | VI | V | IV | V(2)(b) | V(1)(e) | V(1)(c) | IV(1)(b) |
| Source | 517 F. Supp. 948 |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | Fertilizer Corporation of India (FCI), a wholly-owned entity of the Government of India, and IDI Management (“IDI”), the successor in interest to Chemical & Industrial Corp. (“C & I”), an Ohio Corporation, entered into a contract for construction of a nitrophosphate plant in India. The contract provided for arbitration under the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC Rules”). An award was rendered in favor of FCI, who petitioned an Indian Court for confirmation of the award. IDI applied to another Indian Court to have the award set aside. Both proceedings before Indian courts were pending when FCI sought enforcement in the United States. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted an adjournment. The Court noted that it had been unable to discover any standard on which a decision to adjourn should be based, other than to ascertain whether an application for the setting aside or suspension of the award had been brought before a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, the award was made. In the present case, the Court ascertained that the threshold elements of Article VI NYC were fulfilled and that it was appropriate to adjourn the proceeding until Indian courts rendered a decision. In rejecting other defenses under the NYC, the Court found that: (i) the Petitioner had fulfilled the formal conditions of Article IV(1)(b) NYC, (ii) there was no public policy ground on which to refuse enforcement under Article V(2)(b) NYC, given that enforcement of foreign arbitral awards may be denied on this basis only where enforcement would violate “the forum states’ most basic notions of morality and justice”, (iii) there was no violation of Article V(1)(c) NYC, which followed Section 10(d) of the Federal Arbitration Act since the arbitrators did not exceed their authority in granting consequential damages under the award, and (iv) Article V(1)(e) the NYC did not prevent enforcement because the award was final and binding, as no further recourse was available in arbitration. |
| see also : |
|
Attachment (1)
 Original Pending Adobe Acrobat PDF |
