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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more