Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

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,

Similar News