Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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