- You are here:
- Home
- Court Decisions
- SINGAPORE 17
SINGAPORE 17
Singapore International Commercial Court of the Republic of Singapore, 30 January 2023, Originating Summons No 8 of 2022 (HC/Summonses Nos 155 and 720 of 2022 and SIC/Summonses Nos 24 and 45 of 2022)
... Read more
Singapore International Commercial Court of the Republic of Singapore, 30 January 2023, Originating Summons No 8 of 2022 (HC/Summonses Nos 155 and 720 of 2022 and SIC/Summonses Nos 24 and 45 of 2022)
(Deutsche Telekom AG v. The Republic of India)
SINGAPORE 17
The SICC affirmed the ex parte order granting exequatur of a Swiss award rendered in BIT arbitration, holding that India was not immune from jurisdiction, because it had agreed to arbitration in the BIT. The Court then found that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration clause in the BIT, and further decided not to exercise its discretion to stay proceedings pending the outcome of the revision application filed by India before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court in an annulment action, finding that the application had minimal prospects of success.
See also SINGAPORE 18 on a different issue.
The court discusses issues relating to the quality of the parties, as physical or legal persons against whom enforcement of an arbitral award is sought, including the incapacity of a State to enter into an arbitration agreement, and questions relating to sovereign immunity. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
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.
Invalidity of the arbitration agreement: The court discusses other cases of invalidity of the arbitration agreement, including that there was no agreement at all or that the party was not a signatory thereto, that the incorrect arbitral institution was chosen, 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.
The court discusses the conditions for granting adjournment of a proceeding relating to the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, and the court’s discretionary power to do so, as well the determination of “suitable security” and the power to request it.