Bail Applicant Under Mandatory Obligation To Disclose Criminal Antecedents, Non-Disclosure Results In Erroneous Decisions: Andhra Pradesh High Court Judicial Decrees Cannot Be Set Aside By Administrative Orders After Decades; Long-Standing Revenue Entries Must Be Protected: Allahabad High Court 'Any Use Whatsoever' Includes Promotion & Events: Bombay High Court Restrains New Indian Express Group From Hosting Commercial Events Outside Southern States Reserved Category Candidates Who Qualify On Their Own Seniority Must Be Adjusted Against Unreserved Vacancies: Calcutta High Court Decree For Possession Can Be Passed If Landlord-Tenant Relationship & Termination Are Admitted; Unregistered Lease Is Month-To-Month: Delhi High Court Prosecution Against Co-Accused Not Sustainable When Main Accused Is Discharged On Same Facts: Jharkhand High Court Admission Of Handwriting On Account Statement Is Not Admission Of Its Contents; Corroborative Evidence Necessary To Prove Claim: Gujarat High Court Omission Of Label Defects In Food Inspector's Spot Memo Fatal To Prosecution For Misbranding: Himachal Pradesh High Court RBI Must Consult State Government, Not Just Registrar, To Supersede Co-operative Bank Board; Principles Of Natural Justice Excluded Under Section 36AAA: Kerala High Court Suit Filed Before IBC Proceedings Cannot Be Dismissed Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Section 96 Moratorium Only Stays Pending Actions: Calcutta High Court Senior Citizens Not Technologically Savvy Cannot Be Penalized For Not Checking Case Status On Court Website: Tripura High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Case Against CM Revanth Reddy Over 2019 Election Roadshow, Cites Bar Under Section 195 CrPC Maintenance Tribunal Orders Passed Without Mandated Three-Member Coram Are A Nullity: Punjab & Haryana High Court School Register Entry Regarding Date Of Birth Lacks Probative Value Unless Source Of Information Is Proved: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside POCSO Conviction Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Will | Disinheriting Caring Spouse In Favour Of Non-Relatives Is An ‘Unnatural Disposition’ Raising Grave Suspicion: Supreme Court Registration Does Not Automatically Validate Will If Process Is Shrouded In Suspicion; Testator's Illiteracy Increases Burden On Propounder: Supreme Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme 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.

Latest Legal News