- You are here:
- Home
- Court Decisions
- INDIA 2026-2
INDIA 2026-2
High Court of Delhi, New Delhi, 30 April 2024
(Mercator Ltd. v. Dredging Corporation of India Ltd.)
INDIA 2026-2
The Court held that the respondent could not object to the composition of the arbitral tribunal because it had not raised this objection in the arbitration or in an annulment action at the seat. Further, the objection that enforcement would be contrary to Indian public policy, because the vessels that were the subject matter of the parties’ contracts had been loaded in contravention of the safety rules of the Indian Merchant Shipping Act, failed. The public policy argument, the Court explained, had to be construed narrowly and in consonance with international notions of public policy, particularly in the context of enforcement of foreign awards.
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.
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.
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.
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.