Skip to main content

Only Indian courts have final say in arbitration proceedings if seat is India, rules Supreme Court

In a seven-year-long legal tussle between wind turbine maker Enercon (India) and its German joint venture partner, Supreme Court ruled that only courts in the country had the right to decide on the issue, even if arbitration takes place abroad.

The ruling is seen as a setback for the German partner which had been keen to have the issue settled in a London court. Experts said that the ruling is also likely to have a broader impact with foreign partners now taking a closer look at the fineprint of their agreements.

The Supreme Court ruled that the "venue" of an arbitration, which is merely geographical location chosen based on convenience of both parties is not the same as "seat" of arbitration, which decides the appropriate jurisdiction.

In 1994, Enercon Gmbh had entered into a joint venture with Mumbai-based Mehra Group to form Enercon (India) to make wind turbines and a technology know-how pact was signed. Initially, the foreign partner had a 51 per cent stake that was later raised to 56 per cent.

When the technology pact expired in 2004, the foreign partner wanted to enforce an intellectual property licence agreement. But a dispute arose after the Indian partner said the JV deal is only a draft agreement and not the final one as claimed by the German firm.

The dispute reached the apex court after exhausting all other legal forums in the country, including the company law board and high courts. Enercon Gmbh did not respond to mail seeking comments, while the Mehra Group was not reachable.

The Supreme Court said even if the agreement is not finalised, the arbitration clause is valid. It also noted that since the deal between the parties and aspects such as technical knowhow and allocation of shares are made under Indian laws, the courts in the country alone have jurisdiction to decide the case.

Article referred: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/energy/power/enercon-saga-only-indian-courts-have-final-say-in-arbitration-proceedings-rules-supreme-court/articleshow/31025100.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...