INDIA 12 May 2020 Spentex

High Court, Delhi, 12 May 2020, CS (OS) 568/2017

(Spentex Industries v. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP)

12 - 05 - 2020

INDIA 12 May 2020 Spentex

Jurisdiction India
Summary

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.

Related topics
220

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.

"Null and void", etc.
INDIA 12 May 2020 Spentex