Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan 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.

Latest Legal News