JANUARY 2013
Legal Focus
43
Arbitration: Enforcing Awards India
The Indian Ministry of Law and Justice recently made the announcement that China is to be added to India’s official list of “gazetted” States, meaning that arbitral awards made in China will be recognisable and enforceable in Indian courts. A bold move, this is one that is thought will boost the attraction of bringing disputes connected to India to arbitration centres in China and Hong Kong. To find out more about this and the other implications for businesses surrounding enforcing arbitration awards, we speak to Shreyas Jayasimha, partner at AZB & Partners, one of India’s leading law firms.
What are your opinions on the recent announcement from the Indian Ministry of Law?
India and China are signatories of ‘New York Convention’ and which requires all Contracting States to recognize and enforce arbitral awards made in other States. This is subject to declarations and reservations made by all contracting states. In India, 46 countries have been notified by the central government with the recent inclusion of China also has been included through notification in March. The inclusion of China including Hong Kong and Macau to the “gazette” state list is an interesting development in the arena of international arbitration. It showcases the growing popularity of India as a seat for international commercial arbitration and deepens India’s economic ties with China. It would be interesting to note the number of Indian parties who now choose to seat arbitrations in Mainland China and Hong Kong and the potential increased use of China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) and the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) by Indian parties
It is thought that this move will increase the attraction of bringing disputes connected to India to arbitration centres in china and Hong Kong. do you agree with this?
Inclusion of China to the list of “gazetted” states is a necessary step to attract disputes concerning Indian parties and foreign investors/purchasers and vice versa to arbitration centres in China. However, this may not be sufficient. There is a definite leverage in holding dispute resolution in neutral venues. Practically, Indian parties may be hesitant to accept China as a venue, in the event they have Chinese counterparts and may still prefer neutral venues.
How will this decision impact arbitration in India?
The notification of China as a recognised territory may have an indirect impact on arbitration in India in as much as it would expose Indian lawyers and parties to arbitration in Hong Kong and China through institutional arbitration and may provide a competitive impetus to further improve arbitration in India.
What, in your opinion, are the advantages of arbitration as a dispute resolution method as opposed to court action?
Arbitration, and particularly international arbitration, gives parties autonomy in choosing venue, law and institution. If run efficiently, arbitration has the capacity to save time and cost to parties as opposed to litigation. Unfortunately, the state of arbitration in India leaves much to be desired but recent decisions of the Supreme Court and other Courts are heartening in their intent to develop India into a more evolved arbitration environment.
What are the main challenges involved in enforcing arbitral awards?
The main challenges to enforcing international arbitral awards in India are time and uncertainty. An expansive definition of public policy is often used to convert challenges to awards into fully-fledged appeals on questions of law and sometimes on facts as well. At least after the BaLCO decision, Indian Courts will no longer hear challenges to foreign awards made in respect of agreements entered into after 6th September 2012.
do laws and regulations differ for domestic companies as opposed to foreign companies?
In the context of arbitration, laws are the same for domestic and foreign companies.
www.lawyer-monthly.com
do you foresee the need for legislative change in 2013, if so why?
The Indian Government has made attempts to make India into an arbitration hub, primarily to combat docket explosion and to increase India’s presence as a commercially accepted and popular seat of international commercial arbitration. While recent trends have been towards removing lacunae in the law; the recent decision of the Supreme Court barring recourse to Indian courts for all disputes and arbitrations outside India for judgments executed after September 06, 2012 has raised the need for immediate legislative debate. Further, the enlarged definition of public policy needs to be curtailed to avoid frivolous litigation as regards setting aside awards, which requires legislative reform. LM
contact details:
Shreyas Jamasimha Partner aZB & Partners
aZB House, 67-4, 4th cross, Lavelle Road, Bangalore 560 001
tel: + 91 80 4240 0500 Fax: + 91 80 2221 3947
Shreyas.jamasimha@azbpartners.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112