Delhi High Court Upholds Its Jurisdiction in Foreign Arbitral Award Enforcement, Citing “Existence of Debtor’s Asset” as Key

70
0
Share:
fir bail transport pay Fees Public T20 World Cup v Pay Video School company Human Rape Sexual Taxable Evidence Tax Statement property students Policy Bail Bail cheques Police Accident Service Claim Trademark Cognizance smuggling NI Eviction Agreement Minister Acid spa Old Delhi HC MBBS DivorceLand Child Evidence Bail Senior Marriage Maintenance Application Property Exam Evidence Divorce doctrine pocso award Medical public Income Tax constable National bailUniversity Property Recovery Evidence Adopted v Payment territorial corporation Bail liability police bank Constitutionality child nature claim domestic Limitation bsnl traffic property railway legal landlords Relationship Citizen property Tax custody phonetic predicate Acquisition forum public asset tax wire eligibility violence physical financial second trademark person Corpus Director TDS policy entertainment parody games recovery 14 tax judiciary claims court bar 34 Raps advertisement employees salary mother rape decisions students 138 divorce bail CBI fir evidence evidence eviction drc lower doctors legal investigation civil copyright

 In a significant judgment that clarifies the jurisdictional aspects of enforcing foreign arbitral awards, the Delhi High Court, led by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prateek Jalan, has set a precedent by affirming its authority to entertain enforcement proceedings when the award debtor possesses assets within its domain. The case, TAQA India Power Ventures Private Limited & Anr. Vs. NCC Infrastructure Holdings Limited, revolved around the enforcement of a foreign award dated January 24, 2018, arbitrated under the Singapore International Arbitration Centre.

Justice Prateek Jalan, in his meticulous analysis, stated, “The question of jurisdiction…turns upon a determination as to whether the award debtor possesses any assets within the jurisdiction of the Court.” This observation came amidst deliberations on whether the debt owed by Himalayan Green Energy Private Limited (HGEPL) to the award debtor could be considered an asset, despite being classified as “doubtful” or “written off.”

The court dismissed the award debtor’s preliminary objection regarding the lack of jurisdiction due to non-residency and absence of assets in Delhi. The counter-argument highlighted the existence of assets owed to the award debtor by HGEPL, a company based in Delhi. The court’s judgment emphasized, “An award holder is entitled to elect any Court within which assets of the award debtor are available, howsoever diminished their value may be.”

This ruling is pivotal in the landscape of arbitration law, particularly in the context of international commercial disputes. The court effectively rejected concerns about potential “forum shopping” in enforcement proceedings, aligning with the Supreme Court’s directives that the location of the award debtor’s assets is central to determining jurisdiction.

Represented by a team of eminent lawyers, including Mr. Rajiv Nayar and Mr. Ashish Dholakia for the decree holders and Dr. Amit George for the judgment debtor, the case has set a crucial precedent. The court’s decision to uphold its jurisdiction and dismiss the applications challenging it marks a significant stride in streamlining the enforcement process of foreign arbitral awards in India.

The court has scheduled the enforcement proceedings, along with pending applications, for further proceedings on December 4, 2023. This judgment is seen as a reinforcement of the Delhi High Court’s commitment to upholding the rule of law in complex international arbitration matters.

Date of Decision: 09.11.2023

TAQA INDIA POWER VENTURES   PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. VS NCC INFRASTRUCTURE   HOLDINGS LIMITED,

Download Judgment

                                

Share: