Impartiality and Independence of Arbitral Tribunal Upheld: SC Dismisses Challenge Against Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India, in March 2024, upheld the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in the matter of Avitel Post Studioz Limited & Ors. versus HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Limited. The bench, comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra, dismissed the appeals filed by Avitel Post Studioz Limited and others (appellants) against the enforcement of the award, emphasizing the need for minimal judicial intervention in foreign arbitral awards and the international standards of arbitral impartiality.

The case primarily revolved around the challenge to the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award under Section 48 of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appellants contended that the presiding arbitrator, Mr. Christopher Lau, had failed to disclose conflicts of interest, affecting his impartiality and independence, thereby violating the public policy of India.

The dispute emerged from a Share Subscription Agreement between HSBC PI Holdings and Avitel India. HSBC, the award holder, alleged fraudulent misrepresentations by the appellants concerning a purported contract with the BBC, leading to an investment of US$ 60 million. The appellants, in turn, accused the arbitrator of bias and conflict of interest, claiming a violation of public policy under the Indian legal framework.

The Court undertook a detailed examination of the allegations of arbitrator bias, applying the International Bar Association (IBA) Guidelines on Conflict of Interest in International Arbitration. It found that Mr. Christopher Lau complied with his disclosure obligations and that no bias or improper conduct could be attributed to him. The Court underscored the international standards of arbitral impartiality and the distinction between the public policy standards applicable in domestic and international arbitration.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, emphasizing the imperative for timely enforcement of foreign arbitral awards and adherence to international arbitration standards. The Court held that allegations of bias must be substantiated with a high threshold of proof, and any challenge to arbitral awards should not be used as a strategy to delay enforcement.

Date of Decision: March 4, 2024

Avitel Post Studioz Limited & Ors. vs. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Limited