- You are here:
- Home
- Court Decisions
- INDIA 70
INDIA 70
Supreme Court of India, 10 August 2021
(Gemini Bay Transcription Pvt. Ltd. v. Integrated Sales Service Ltd. & Anr.)
INDIA 70
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”.
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.