The court decisions available on this website interpret and apply the New York Convention. These court decisions are published in the Yearbook Commercial Arbitration since its Volume I (1976).
For instructions on how to search for court decisions per topic and per country in this website, please refer to our helpful access guide here.
High Court of Delhi, New Delhi, 30 May 2023, (OS) 3525/2022
(Nuovopignone International SRL v. Cargo Motors Private Limited & Anr.)
The court discusses the definition of “arbitral award”, and the application of the Convention to the various types of award, including awards on specific performance, awards enjoining a party from certain conduct, declaratory awards, etc. Also, whether preliminary, partial, interim, interlocutory awards, and awards by consent can be enforced under the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, 11 August 2022, AP.EFA No. 1 of 2022
(CTI Future Corporation v. Ducgiang Chemical and Detergent Powder Joint Stock Company)
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses the impact of the nationality of the parties on the application of the Convention.
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The Indian Supreme Court ruled that the fact that an award is rendered against a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement is not a ground for resisting enforcement of the award vis-à-vis the non-signatory under Section 48(1)(a) (based on Article V(1)(a) of the Convention) and Section 48(1)(c) (based on Article V(1)(c) of the Convention) of the Indian Arbitration Act. The Court further ruled that the pre-requisites for enforcement of a foreign award under Section 47 of the Indian Arbitration Act (based on Article IV of the Convention) are procedural in nature, the object being that the enforcing court must first be
satisfied that it is indeed a foreign award and that it is enforceable against persons who are bound by the award. The Court ruled that Section 47 (and Article IV of the Convention) do not require the submission of substantive evidence to prove that a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement can be bound by a foreign award. Similarly, the “proof” referred in the chapeau of Section 48 of the Indian Arbitration Act refers to “established on the basis of the
record of the arbitral tribunal”.
Supreme Court of India, 10 August 2021
(Gemini Bay Transcription Pvt. Ltd. v. Integrated Sales Service Ltd. & Anr.)
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses the relevance and determination of the commercial nature of the relationship underlying the award, including in the context of contractual and non-contractual relations.
The court discusses the general conditions the Convention imposes on a petitioner for seeking recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award – namely, the submission of the original arbitration agreement or arbitral award or a certified copy thereof – and examines in general whether these conditions were complied in the case at issue.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
The Indian Supreme Court affirmed the recognition and enforcement of an ICC award rendered in Zurich between two Indian companies. The Court answered in the affirmative the “interesting” question whether two Indian companies can choose a foreign seat of arbitration, and whether the ensuing award can be said to be a “foreign award” under Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to which the New York Convention applies. The Court rejected the argument that such foreign designation was contrary to public policy, stressing that party autonomy and freedom of contract must be upheld.
Supreme Court of India, 20 April 2021, Civil Appeal No. 1647 of 2021
(PASL Wind Solutions Private Limited v. GE Power Conversion India Private Limited)
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The Delhi High Court discusses issues pertaining to the territorial jurisdiction of the Indian courts in connection with enforcement of a foreign arbitral award. The Court explained that the definition of “Court” in Section 47 of the Indian Arbitration Act (pertaining to recognition and enforcement of New York Convention awards) is different from the definition of Court in Section 2(1)(e) of the Indian Arbitration Act. Section 47 determines territorial jurisdiction of the enforcement court based on subject-matter of the award as opposed to Section 2(1)(e), which determines territorial jurisdiction based on the subject-matter of the arbitration. The Court ruled that where the relief granted by the Arbitral
Tribunal is in the form of money, the location of the assets of the award debtor would determine the territorial jurisdiction of the enforcement court under Section 47 of the Indian Arbitration Act.
High Court of Delhi, 22 February 2021
(Rishima SA Investments LLC v. Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited & Anr.)
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The Supreme Court held that the limitation period for filing a petition for enforcement of a foreign award under Sections 47 and 49 of the Indian Arbitration Act is governed by Article 137 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a time period of three years from when the right to apply accrues. Article 136 of the Indian Limitation Act is not applicable for the enforcement or execution of a foreign award as a foreign award is not a decree of a civil court in India, but is only a deemed decree. With respect to the Appellant's public policy defence to the enforcement of the award, the Supreme Court applied Section 48 of the Indian Arbitration Act, as it existed prior to the 2016 amendment to the Act, as the court proceedings for enforcement had been filed before the 2016 amendment came into force. The Court dismissed the Appellant's objections to enforcement of the award, finding that a violation of the enforcement State's most basic notions of morality and justice was not established. It emphasized that the public policy defence to enforcement must be construed narrowly. The Court further held that an enforcement court cannot refuse enforcement by taking a different interpretation of the terms of the contract from what was taken by the arbitral tribunal in the award.
Supreme Court of India, 16 September 2020
(Government of India v. Vedanta Limited (formerly Cairn India Ltd.))
The court discusses the applicable period of limitation for seeking enforcement of an award.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
This case arose out of an application for interim measures, where the Court was faced with the issue of whether HSBC had a prima facie case for enforcement of the award in India since allegations of fraud had been made in the arbitral proceedings. The Court laid down the test for non-arbitrability in case of "serious allegations of fraud".
Supreme Court of India, 19 August 2020
(Avitel Post Studioz Limited & Ors. v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Limited and HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius Limited) v. Avitel Post Studioz Limited & Ors.)
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
The Indian petitioner sought interim relief in respect of an ICC arbitration to be commenced in New York. It claimed that in the wake of the COVID- 19 pandemic and the timelines for commencing the arbitration proceeding, it had the reasonable apprehension that the US respondent may make attempts to obstruct the satisfaction of a future award. The Court held that the jurisdiction of the Indian courts to issue interim measures was not an asset-based one: the availability of assets in India was irrelevant. On the facts of the case, however, the Court denied the measure of protection, holding that no prima facie case was made out and that this was not an exceptional case where the record sufficiently showed the respondent was likely to render the entire arbitration proceedings infructuous by depleting funds.
High Court, Delhi, 9 June 2020, OMP(I) (Comm) 120/2020
(Goodwill Non-woven P. Ltd. v XCoal Energy & Resources LLC)
Related court proceedings: The court discusses whether provisional measures, such as the pre-award attachment of assets, are compatible with the Convention.
The Court held that the competent court for the enforcement of a money award is the court that is able to enforce it, that is, the court where moveable or immoveable properties of the award debtor are located. Here, the award was an LCIA award rendered in London.
High Court, Delhi, 8 June 2020, O.M.P. (EFA) (COMM)
(Glencore International AG v. Hindustan Zinc Limited)
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The Court rejected the argument that the respondent had not been given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or had been otherwise unable to present his case in an ICC arbitration in London, refusing to give a broad interpretation of “otherwise”.
Supreme Court of India, 2 June 2020
(M/S Centrotrade Minerals and Metals INC v. Hindustan Copper Ltd.)
Due process: The court discusses what are to be considered proper time limits and notice periods that fulfill the requirement that the party opposing recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award was extended due process.
The Court held that the power of the courts to issue interim measures was impliedly excluded in an international commercial arbitration when the parties had chosen a set of rules – here, the rules of the JCAA – providing for interim measures.
High Court, Delhi, 12 May 2020, OMP (I) Comm 90/2020
(Ashwani Minda v. U-Shin)
Related court proceedings: The court discusses whether provisional measures, such as the pre-award attachment of assets, are compatible with the Convention.
The Engagement Letter between an Indian client and a foreign law firm – in respect of services to be provided in an arbitration – was commercial in nature. The JAMS arbitration clause in the Engagement Letter therefore referred to a commercial relationship. It was also not null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed for being against the public policy of India because it contained a provision for contingency fees, which may not by charged by counsel in India.
High Court, Delhi, 12 May 2020, CS (OS) 568/2017
(Spentex Industries v. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP)
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
The Supreme Court adopted a broad interpretation of the concept of public policy to deny recognition and enforcement of a FOSFA award rendered in London, finding that the effects of the award would be in contravention of an export control order.
Supreme Court of India, 22 April 2020, Civil Appeal 667 of 2012
(National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India (NAFED) v. Alimenta SA)
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
The Court examined the application to enforce a Malaysian award, considering the issue what is the limitation period applicable for a petition for the enforcement of a foreign award. After considering earlier conflicting case law, the Court concluded that a foreign award should be treated as a decree, to which a limitation period of 12 years is applicable.
High Court, Delhi, 19 February 2020
(Cairn India Ltd et al. v. Government of India)
The court discusses the applicable period of limitation for seeking enforcement of an award.
The Supreme Court affirmed the recognition and enforcement of three partial final and one final LCIA award rendered in England. The Court noted that the role of the enforcement court under the 1958 New York Convention and the Indian Act was very limited: no review of the merits of the award was possible, and the court could only ascertain whether any of the limited grounds that could be raised by the defendant existed, or whether enforcement would violate the public policy of India – to be construed narrowly to mean a violation of a fundamental policy of Indian law, justice, or morality. Further, the Court retained the residual discretion to grant enforcement even if a refusal ground existed, but only where such ground affected solely party interests. In the present case, the alleged violations of due process did not justify a refusal, in light of the narrow reading to be given to the expression "otherwise unable to present his case" in Sect. 48(1)(b) of the Indian Arbitration Act, which mirrored Art. V(1)(b) of the Convention. The Supreme Court affirmed the recognition and enforcement of three partial final and one final LCIA award rendered in England. The Court noted that the role of the enforcement court under the 1958 New York Convention and the Indian Act was very limited: no review of the merits of the award was possible, and the court could only ascertain whether any of the limited grounds that could be raised by the defendant existed, or whether enforcement would violate the public policy of India – to be construed narrowly to mean a violation of a fundamental policy of Indian law, justice, or morality. Further, the Court retained the residual discretion to grant enforcement even if a refusal ground existed, but only where such ground affected solely party interests. In the present case, the alleged violations of due process did not justify a refusal, in light of the narrow reading to be given to the expression "otherwise unable to present his case" in Sect. 48(1)(b) of the Indian Arbitration Act, which mirrored Art. V(1)(b) of the Convention.
Supreme Court of India, 13 February 2020
(Vijay Karia v. Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi srl et al.)
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the consequences of the apparent or actual bias of an arbitrator on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award.
Public policy: The court discusses alleged violations of a fundamental rule of due process in the arbitration on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, including the failure to communicate the names of the arbitrators, the failure to send copies of reports or letters filed in the arbitration, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
India No. 64, Glencore International AG v. Indian Potash Ltd. et al., High Court of Delhi, New Delhi, EX.P. 99/2015, 9 August 2019
High Court of Delhi, New Delhi, 9 August 2019
Glencore International AG v. Indian Potash Ltd.
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
Public policy: The court discusses alleged violations of a fundamental rule of due process in the arbitration on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, including the failure to communicate the names of the arbitrators, the failure to send copies of reports or letters filed in the arbitration, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
India No. 63, LMJ International Ltd. v. Sleepwell Industries Co. Ltd., Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 540 of 2018 with Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5493 of 2019, 20 February 2019
63. Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction,
20 February 2019
LMJ International Ltd. v. Sleepwell Industries Co. Ltd.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
India 62. P.E.C. Ltd. v. Austbulk Shipping SDN BHD, Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 4834 of 2007, 14 November 2018
The court discusses issues relating to the moment when the documents that are required for seeking recognition and enforcement must be supplied, and whether any defect can be cured later in the enforcement proceeding.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
India 61. Shriram EPC Limited v. Rioglass Solar SA, Supreme Court, Civil Appeal No. 9515 of 2018, 13 September 2018
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
India No. 59. LDK Solar Hi-Tech (Suzuhou) Co. v. Hindustan Cleanenergy Limited (formerly Moser Bear Clean Energy Limited), High Court of Delhi, New Delhi, EX. APPL. (OS) 192/2017, 4 July 2018
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Due process: The court discusses what are to be considered proper time limits and notice periods that fulfill the requirement that the party opposing recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award was extended due process.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
India 60. Kandla Export Corporation et al. v. OCI Corporation et al., Supreme Court, Civil Appeal No. 1661-1663 of 2018, 7 February 2018
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
India No. 58. Django Navigation Ltd v. Indo Ferro Metal Private Ltd, High Court of Judicature, Rajasthan, S.B. Arbitration Application No. 88/2016, 2 February 2018
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses how to determine whether the document supplied is an award capable of being recognized and enforced, including whether the award is duly authenticated, and whether a copy is duly certified; whether a prior interim and/or partial award should be supplied together with the final award.
The court discusses issues relating to the requirement to supply the original arbitration agreement or a copy thereof to prove the prima facie validity of the arbitration agreement, as well as the application of more favorable municipal laws that do not provide for this requirement.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
India No. 57. Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited v. Malvinder Mohan Singh and others, High Court, Delhi, O.M.P. (EFA) (COMM.) 6/2016, 31 January 2018
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
India No. 56. GMR Energy Limited v. Doosan Power Systems India Private Limited et al., High Court of Delhi, New Delhi, CS(COMM) 447/2017, 14 November 2017
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses the principle of competence-competence, including whether the parties “intended to have arbitrability decided by an arbitrator”, and the separability of the arbitration agreement from the main contract.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
India 55. NTT Docomo Inc. v. Tata Sons Limited, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi, 28 April 2017
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
India 54. Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v. Unitech Limited, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi, 11 April 2017
The court discusses the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
Due process: The court discusses various irregularities affecting due process, including letters not sent, names of arbitrators or experts not communicated, language of proceedings and communications, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
India 53. Sasan Power Limited v. North American Coal Corporation India Private Limited, Supreme Court of India, 24 August 2016
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
The court discusses the principle of competence-competence, including whether the parties “intended to have arbitrability decided by an arbitrator”, and the separability of the arbitration agreement from the main contract.
India 52. Supreme Court of India, 24 January 2014
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
India 50. Supreme Court of India, 3 July 2013
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
India 51. Supreme Court of India, 13 March 2013
India 49. Supreme Court of India, 28 September 2012
The court discusses whether referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration is mandatory under the Convention and whether mandatory referral is an internationally uniform rule which supersedes municipal law.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
India 48. Supreme Court of India, 6 September 2012
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
India 47. High Court of Calcutta, 20 March 2012
The court discusses general questions relating to the interpretation of the Convention as an international treaty, also in respect of the methods of interpretation laid down in the 1969 Vienna Convention; the relationship between the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law and Recommendation 2006.
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
India 46. High Court, New Delhi, 11 January 2011
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses alleged violations of a fundamental rule of due process in the arbitration on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, including the failure to communicate the names of the arbitrators, the failure to send copies of reports or letters filed in the arbitration, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
India 45. High Court, Delhi, 11 May 2010
The court discusses the principle of competence-competence, including whether the parties “intended to have arbitrability decided by an arbitrator”, and the separability of the arbitration agreement from the main contract.
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
India 43. Supreme Court of India, 25 August 2008
The court discusses the first alternative requirement of Art. II(2) that the arbitral award is “signed by the parties”.
The court discusses what more recent means of communication are also covered by the “exchange of letters or telegrams” alternative: telefax, email, e-commerce, etc.
India 42. Supreme Court of India, 14 May 2008
Related court proceedings: The court discusses measures in aid of arbitration (e.g., anti-suit injunction). This topic also includes the issue of the relationship between the Convention and the recognition of a foreign judgment on the validity of the arbitration agreement.
India 41. Supreme Court, 12 August 2005
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
The court discusses which law – lex fori, lex contractus, law of the State where the award will be made – applies specifically to determining whether an agreement to arbitrate is “null and void etc.“, and, by extension, which law applies to determining the validity of arbitration agreements.
India 44. High Court, Gujarat, 7 February 2005
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses aspects relating to the implementation of the Convention in a Contracting State: the self-executing nature of the Convention v. the requirement of implementing legislation; the lack of implementing legislation; legislation that diverges from the text of the Convention or is defective under national law. Also, the domestic requirement that a State be included in an official list (“gazetted”) to ascertain reciprocity.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
India 39. High Court, Gujarat, 19 December 2002
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
India 40. High Court, Andhra Pradesh, 9 September 2002
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
The court discusses the definition of “arbitral award”, and the application of the Convention to the various types of award, including awards on specific performance, awards enjoining a party from certain conduct, declaratory awards, etc. Also, whether preliminary, partial, interim, interlocutory awards, and awards by consent can be enforced under the Convention.
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
India 38. Supreme Court, 31 August 2001
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
India 37. Supreme Court, 20 August 2001
The court discusses issues specific to bills of lading and charterparties, such as whether the subsequent holder of the bill of lading is bound by the arbitration agreement therein and whether the arbitration clause in the charterparty is incorporated into the bill of lading.
India 36. Supreme Court, 4 May 2001
The court discusses aspects relating to the implementation of the Convention in a Contracting State: the self-executing nature of the Convention v. the requirement of implementing legislation; the lack of implementing legislation; legislation that diverges from the text of the Convention or is defective under national law. Also, the domestic requirement that a State be included in an official list (“gazetted”) to ascertain reciprocity.
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
India 34. High Court, Delhi, 5 July 2000
The court discusses the impact of the nationality of the parties on the application of the Convention.
The court discusses whether a declaratory judgment on the validity of the arbitration agreement is available under the Convention.
Related court proceedings: The court discusses whether provisional measures, such as the pre-award attachment of assets, are compatible with the Convention.
India 35. High Court, Bombay, 19 November 1999
India 31. Supreme Court, 7 October 1999
The court discusses aspects relating to the implementation of the Convention in a Contracting State: the self-executing nature of the Convention v. the requirement of implementing legislation; the lack of implementing legislation; legislation that diverges from the text of the Convention or is defective under national law. Also, the domestic requirement that a State be included in an official list (“gazetted”) to ascertain reciprocity.
India 33. High Court, Delhi, 23 July 1999
The court discusses the definition of “arbitral award”, and the application of the Convention to the various types of award, including awards on specific performance, awards enjoining a party from certain conduct, declaratory awards, etc. Also, whether preliminary, partial, interim, interlocutory awards, and awards by consent can be enforced under the Convention.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
The court discusses the principle of competence-competence, including whether the parties “intended to have arbitrability decided by an arbitrator”, and the separability of the arbitration agreement from the main contract.
India 30. Supreme Court, 13 May 1999
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses the relevance and determination of the commercial nature of the relationship underlying the award, including in the context of contractual and non-contractual relations.
The court discusses the definition of “arbitral award”, and the application of the Convention to the various types of award, including awards on specific performance, awards enjoining a party from certain conduct, declaratory awards, etc. Also, whether preliminary, partial, interim, interlocutory awards, and awards by consent can be enforced under the Convention.
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the conditions under which an award that has merged into a court judgment in the country of origin can still be enforced as an award under the Convention, and whether a decision granting recognition under the Convention can be enforced as a foreign court judgment in a third country.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
India 32. High Court, Bombay, 22 April 1999
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
India 29. High Court, Delhi, 19 February 1999
The court discusses aspects relating to the implementation of the Convention in a Contracting State: the self-executing nature of the Convention v. the requirement of implementing legislation; the lack of implementing legislation; legislation that diverges from the text of the Convention or is defective under national law. Also, the domestic requirement that a State be included in an official list (“gazetted”) to ascertain reciprocity.
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the general conditions the Convention imposes on a petitioner for seeking recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award – namely, the submission of the original arbitration agreement or arbitral award or a certified copy thereof – and examines in general whether these conditions were complied in the case at issue.
India 27. Court of Appeal, 14 January 1998
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, etc.
India 28. Supreme Court, 4 December 1997
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
India 25. Supreme Court of India, 10 February 1994
The court discusses general questions relating to the interpretation of the Convention as an international treaty, also in respect of the methods of interpretation laid down in the 1969 Vienna Convention; the relationship between the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law and Recommendation 2006.
The court discusses the relevance and determination of the commercial nature of the relationship underlying the award, including in the context of contractual and non-contractual relations.
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses whether related court proceedings may absorb (by vis atractiva) arbitration proceedings.
India 24. Supreme Court of India, 24 January 1994
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses the consolidation of arbitrations; also, whether the possibility of conflicting awards is a ground for refusing enforcement of an arbitration agreement.
India 23. Supreme Court of India, 10 December 1993
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
India 26. High Court, Delhi, 15 October 1993
The court discusses which awards are considered non-domestic even if rendered in the State of enforcement (international element, lex mercatoria).
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses whether referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration is mandatory under the Convention and whether mandatory referral is an internationally uniform rule which supersedes municipal law.
The court discusses how to determine that there is a dispute as a condition for referral to arbitration.
More-favorable right provision: The court discusses examples of domestic laws of countries where enforcement of foreign awards is more favorable.
India 22. Supreme Court of India, 7 October 1993
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses questions relating to interest on the amount due under the arbitral award, including whether the enforcement court may grant interest not granted in the award, modify interest granted in the award, and grant post-award interest.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
India 21. Supreme Court, 7 May 1992
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses the law applicable to the validity of the arbitration agreement at the enforcement stage.
India 20. High Court, Delhi, 23 May 1990
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
India 19. High Court, Bombay, 12 October 1989
The court discusses whether referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration is mandatory under the Convention and whether mandatory referral is an internationally uniform rule which supersedes municipal law.
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses how to determine whether the document supplied is an award capable of being recognized and enforced, including whether the award is duly authenticated, and whether a copy is duly certified; whether a prior interim and/or partial award should be supplied together with the final award.
The court discusses issues relating to the manner of authentication and certification of the award and/or arbitration agreement.
The court discusses issues relating to the moment when the documents that are required for seeking recognition and enforcement must be supplied, and whether any defect can be cured later in the enforcement proceeding.
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
India 18. High Court, Bombay, 21 October 1988
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses how to determine whether the document supplied is an award capable of being recognized and enforced, including whether the award is duly authenticated, and whether a copy is duly certified; whether a prior interim and/or partial award should be supplied together with the final award.
The court discusses issues relating to the manner of authentication and certification of the award and/or arbitration agreement.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the consequences of the apparent or actual bias of an arbitrator on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
India 17. Supreme Court, 11 August 1987
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses whether referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration is mandatory under the Convention and whether mandatory referral is an internationally uniform rule which supersedes municipal law.
India 12. Supreme Court, 16 January 1987
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
India 13. High Court, Delhi, 30 July 1986
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to determine that there is a dispute as a condition for referral to arbitration.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
India 14. High Court, Calcutta, 1986
The court discusses the relevance and determination of the commercial nature of the relationship underlying the award, including in the context of contractual and non-contractual relations.
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses whether related court proceedings may absorb (by vis atractiva) arbitration proceedings.
India 11. High Court, Delhi, 12 July 1985
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the conditions under which an award that has merged into a court judgment in the country of origin can still be enforced as an award under the Convention, and whether a decision granting recognition under the Convention can be enforced as a foreign court judgment in a third country.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
India 16. High Court, Gujarat, 19 April 1985
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the applicable period of limitation for seeking enforcement of an award.
India 15. High Court, Bombay, 19 November 1984
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the conditions under which an award that has merged into a court judgment in the country of origin can still be enforced as an award under the Convention, and whether a decision granting recognition under the Convention can be enforced as a foreign court judgment in a third country.
India 10. Supreme Court, 16 August 1984
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses whether referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration is mandatory under the Convention and whether mandatory referral is an internationally uniform rule which supersedes municipal law.
The court discusses the principle of competence-competence, including whether the parties “intended to have arbitrability decided by an arbitrator”, and the separability of the arbitration agreement from the main contract.
India 9. High Court, Bombay, 29 January 1983
The court discusses the applicability of this requirement under (domestic) US law – that parties must have expressed in the arbitration agreement their consent that judgment of the court shall be entered upon the award –in respect of Convention awards.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Due process: The court discusses what constitutes “proper notice” of the appointment of the arbitrators or of the arbitration proceedings.
Public policy:The court discusses the consequences of the default of a party in the arbitration on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award against it.
Public policy: The court discusses the consequences of the lack of reasons in the award on its recognition and enforcement.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
India 8. High Court, Gujarat, 4 May 1982
The court discusses issues relating to the quality of the parties, as physical or legal persons against whom enforcement of an arbitral award is sought, including the incapacity of a State to enter into an arbitration agreement, and questions relating to sovereign immunity. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
The court discusses the relevance and determination of the commercial nature of the relationship underlying the award, including in the context of contractual and non-contractual relations.
The court discusses whether referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration is mandatory under the Convention and whether mandatory referral is an internationally uniform rule which supersedes municipal law.
The court discusses this general reciprocity clause, which was inserted in the Convention to remedy the absence in the commercial reservation (Art. I(3)) of a federal-state clause allowing Contracting States not to apply the Convention to awards made in a constituent state or province of a Contracting State which was not bound to apply the Convention.
India 7. High Court, Delhi, 12 April 1982
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the general conditions the Convention imposes on a petitioner for seeking recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award – namely, the submission of the original arbitration agreement or arbitral award or a certified copy thereof – and examines in general whether these conditions were complied in the case at issue.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.
India 6. High Court, Appellate Branch, Bombay, 5 November 1981
The court discusses the relevance and determination of the commercial nature of the relationship underlying the award, including in the context of contractual and non-contractual relations.
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
The court discusses whether a certain dispute could be settled by arbitration, and the law applicable to that determination.
India 5. Supreme Court, Case No. 80 of 1981
The court discusses the relationship between the New York Convention, the Geneva Protocol on Arbitration Clauses of 1923, and the Geneva Convention on the Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1927.
India 4. High Court, Bombay, 4 April 1977
The court discusses the relevance and determination of the commercial nature of the relationship underlying the award, including in the context of contractual and non-contractual relations.
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses whether referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration is mandatory under the Convention and whether mandatory referral is an internationally uniform rule which supersedes municipal law.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses the consolidation of arbitrations; also, whether the possibility of conflicting awards is a ground for refusing enforcement of an arbitration agreement.
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses whether related court proceedings may absorb (by vis atractiva) arbitration proceedings.
India 3. High Court, Kerala, 1 January 1977
The court discusses whether the Convention may be applied retroactively and, if so, as of when: e.g., with the conclusion of the arbitration agreement, the commencement of arbitration, the rendition of the award.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
India 1. Supreme Court of India, January 1971
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
India 2. High Court, Delhi, 28 August 1970
The court discusses whether the Convention applies to domestic arbitration and to proceedings for the setting aside of domestic awards.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.