MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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,

Latest Legal News