- You are here:
- Home
- Court Decisions
- INDIA 65
INDIA 65
Supreme Court of India, 13 February 2020
(Vijay Karia v. Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi srl et al.)
INDIA 65
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.
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.