Delhi High Court imposes costs of INR 1 Lakhs for seeking to file objections against enforcement of a foreign award in a piecemeal manner
The Delhi High Court in TAQA India Power Ventures Private Limited and Ors v. NCC Infrastructure Holdings Limited has held that a Respondent cannot be permitted to file its objections under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) in a piecemeal manner. Delhi High Court imposes costs of INR 1 Lakhs for seeking to file… Read More »
The Delhi High Court in TAQA India Power Ventures Private Limited and Ors v. NCC Infrastructure Holdings Limited has held that a Respondent cannot be permitted to file its objections under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) in a piecemeal manner.
Delhi High Court imposes costs of INR 1 Lakhs for seeking to file objections against enforcement of a foreign award in a piecemeal manner.
From the order, it is seen that the petition for enforcement of the foreign award was filed in the year 2018 and has been pending since. While sufficient opportunity was granted to NCCIHL to file its objections, NCCIHL had limited its objection only on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.
The Delhi High Court followed the judgement of the Supreme Court in LMJ International Limited v. Sleepwell Industries Company Limited: (2019) 5 SCC 302 where it has been held that:
“We are of the considered opinion that the scheme of Section 48 of the Act does not envisage piecemeal consideration of the issue of maintainability of the execution case concerning the foreign awards, in the first place; and then the issue of enforceability thereof. Whereas, keeping in mind the legislative intent of speedy disposal of arbitration proceedings and limited interference by the courts, the Court is expected to consider both these aspects simultaneously at the threshold.
Taking any other view would result in encouraging successive and multiple round of proceedings for the execution of foreign awards. We cannot countenance such a situation keeping in mind the avowed object of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in particular, while dealing with the enforcement of foreign awards.
For, the scope of interference has been consciously constricted by the legislature in relation to the execution of foreign awards. Therefore, the subject application filed by the petitioner deserves to be rejected, being barred by constructive res judicata, as has been justly observed by the High Court in the impugned judgment.”
In the interest of justice, the Delhi High Court has allowed NCCIHL a final opportunity to file their objections to the enforcement of the foreign award. However, the Delhi High Court came down heavily on NCCIHL and imposed a cost of ₹1,00,000/- on NCCIHL in doing so.
TAQA India was represented by Trilegal lawyers, Ms Anuradha Agnihotri and Mr Ketan Gaur. Trilegal instructed Senior Advocate, Mr Ashish Dholakia.
NCCIHL was represented by Dr Amit George and Mr Jai Sahai Endlaw. Senior Advocate, Mr Nakul Dewan was instructed on behalf of NCCIHL.
