CLOSE
11 January 2022 | NCC Infrastructure Holdings Limited v. TAQA India Power Ventures Private Limited | Arb OP (Comm Div.) No. 410 of 2021 | NCC Limited v. TAQA India Power Ventures Private Limited | Arb OP (Comm Div.) No. 412 of 2021 | Madras High Court | Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy J
The Madras High Court has said that more than one proceeding for recognition and enforcement of a foreign award may be brought by and against parties if assets fall within the jurisdiction of different High Courts.
Another question considered was, which court has jurisdiction under Explanation to Section 47 ACA to consider an enforcement action?
The tribunal had partly allowed the claim and partly the counterclaim too. So, one set of parties filed a petition to enforce the foreign award in the Delhi High Court. Another set applied to the Madras High Court.
Following the Supreme Court’s Brace Transport AIR 1994 SC 1715, the court also ruled that for a money award, the “subject-matter” is money. Hence, the relevant test for deciding jurisdiction is whether the relief granted by the tribunal may be enforced or executed by issuing process for the attachment or sale of the award debtor's assets.
Following the same case, it also noted the distinction between recognition and enforcement: there can be no enforcement without recognition. Also, a party may not enforce an award but can use its recognition as a shield from re-agitation by the other party of issues decided by the tribunal.
Read the decision here.
Categories: Arbitrators Interpretation of Contract | Challenge to Foreign Award | Enforcement | Enforcement of Arbitral Awards | Merits Based Review | Most Basic Notions of Morality or Justice | New York Convention Awards | Part II | Public Policy | Public Policy of India | Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Award | Revaluation of Evidence | Review on the Merits of the Dispute | Section 47 ACA | Section 48 (2) (b) ACA | Section 48 ACA | Section 49 ACA | Vijay Karia | When Foreign Award binding