Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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