- You are here:
- Home
- Court Decisions
- INDIA 2026-3
INDIA 2026-3
High Court of Delhi, New Delhi, 29 October 2024
(International Air Transport Association Through Its Head IATA India Branch Mr Rodney Augustine D Cruz v. Spring Travels Pvt Ltd Through Its Managing Director Mr Mandeep Singh Anand)
INDIA 2026-3
The High Court granted exequatur of a Singapore award, rejecting the claim that the arbitral tribunal had exceeded its power by finding that an alleged pre-condition to arbitration was not mandatory or that, alternatively, the respondent had by its conduct waived its right to object. The Court found that these were all disputes falling within the scope of the arbitration agreement. The argument that enforcement should be denied on grounds of public policy because the respondent had been denied a fair hearing as a consequence of the arbitration’s exorbitant costs also failed. The Court explained that this claim fell under the due process provision of the New York Convention, rather than its public policy objection, as it concerned the arbitration rather than the award. As a consequence, the standard was whether the party had had no opportunity to address key arguments or respond to evidence on which the award was based, not whether the tribunal violated the most basic notion of justice. In the present case, the Court found, it appeared that the respondent had had a full opportunity to submit its case.
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.
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.
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 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.