MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |    

Protection of Award Amount Paramount: Delhi HC Directs Reliance Infrastructure to Secure Assets Worth US$ 135 Million in Shanghai Electric Arbitration Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Delhi, in the landmark case of Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. Versus Reliance Infrastructure Ltd., has upheld the enforceability of interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the context of foreign arbitral awards. The Court ordered Reliance Infrastructure to refrain from alienating assets up to US$ 135,320,728.42 to ensure the enforceability of a Singapore International Arbitration Centre award. The decision, delivered by Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Manoj Jain on 6th March 2024, also dismissed cross objections raised by Reliance Infrastructure regarding jurisdiction and the applicability of Section 9 of the Act.

Legal Point: The key legal issue addressed was the grant of interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act for foreign arbitral awards and the jurisdiction of Indian courts in such matters.

Facts and Issues: The case involved a dispute over equipment supply and service contracts for the Sasan UMPP, with Shanghai Electric alleging unpaid dues of approximately INR 1100 Crores by Reliance Infrastructure. Following an arbitration process under the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, which resulted in an award favoring Shanghai Electric, the appellant sought interim reliefs in India to secure the award amount, apprehending non-compliance by Reliance Infrastructure.

Jurisdiction and Interim Measures: The Court confirmed its jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act based on the location of assets in Delhi. It emphasized the necessity of interim measures to preserve assets for enforcing foreign arbitral awards.

Financial Condition of Respondent: Observations were made on Reliance Infrastructure’s financial health and previous assurances to the court, which led to the necessity of granting interim measures.

Dismissal of Cross Objections: Reliance Infrastructure’s objections on jurisdiction and Section 9 applicability were dismissed, affirming the court’s stance on its authority to grant interim measures in cases of international arbitration.

Decision: The High Court ordered Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. To refrain from selling, alienating, transferring, or encumbering assets amounting to US$ 135,320,728.42. This decision aims to preserve the enforceability of the foreign arbitral award, subject to any existing charges on the assets.

Date of Decision: 06th March 2024

Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. Versus Reliance Infrastructure Ltd.

Similar News