Enforcement Of Foreign Awards Research Articles

Development on Enforcement of Foreign Awards in India

Development on Enforcement of Foreign Awards in India

Enforcement of Foreign Award and Public Policy Rules in Pakistan

Enforcement of Foreign Award and Public Policy Rules in Pakistan

Article: A Critical Review of the Nonarbitrability of Tax Disputes and Recognition and Enforcement of Tax-Related Foreign Awards in Nigeria

Nigerian Courts have held in several cases that tax disputes are not arbitrable. This article examines whether: (1) the cases are correct in light of applicable tax instruments and emerging trends on arbitrability; (2) the decisions foreclose the arbitrability of all tax disputes in Nigeria; and (3) foreign awards, whose underpinning disputes are tax claims, are no longer enforceable in Nigeria, in view of the decisions. The importance of the foregoing questions cannot be overstated, particularly to foreign investors and Nigeria’s trade partners. With the aid of primary and secondary sources and comparator analysis, this article argues that the decisions were reached per incuriam. It also observes that whilst the decisions remain valid until set aside, the decisions neither foreclose (1) the arbitrability of tax disputes arising from certain domestic and international instruments; nor (2) the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards in at least three identified situations.

The Impact of NTT Docomo INC v. Tata Sons Limited on the Enforcement of Foreign Awards in India

This paper attempts to analyse the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court that dealt with the conflict between enforcement of international arbitration awards and the foreign exchange laws or monetary laws.

Enforcement of Foreign Awards among the Silk Road Countries: With Special References to Iran and China

Enforcement of Foreign Awards among the Silk Road Countries: With Special References to Iran and China

Reforming the Alternative Mechanisms of Dispute Resolution in Pakistan

Pakistan has an effective Alternate Dispute Resolution laws in place, which gives breathing space to resolve dispute outside the court room. Mainly, these kinds of proceedings are governed by The Arbitration Act 1940, within the country. There are some other statutes which deal with the arbitration processes in other fields of life such as The Family law 1961, The Small Claims and Minor Offence Ordinance 2002, Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) 2002 etc. Before 2005, there were no formulated framework or procedures implemented to govern International Arbitration in Pakistan, except, The Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937, to execute foreign awards. To restore the interest and attract the foreign investors in Pakistan, Parliament of Pakistan has passed “The Arbitration (The International Investment Dispute) Act” in 2011.This statute steps forward to empower International Arbitration and enforcement of foreign awards. This paper focused on macro understanding of the alternate dispute resolution mechanism existing in Pakistan. Further, it highlights the setbacks which are facing by such kind of mechanisms in the country.

Indian Arbitration: The Ghost of Implied Exclusion and other Related Issues

The purpose of this article is to examine the effect of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 on the scope and applicability of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In 2015, several provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 were amended by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 based on the recommendations of the Law Commission of India in its 246th Report. Among other things, a proviso was inserted to section 2(2) of the 1996 Act to empower Indian courts to act in aid of foreign-seated international commercial arbitrations. So, pursuant to the amendment, Indian courts can aid foreign-seated arbitral tribunals in taking of evidence or grant interim measures in favour of such arbitrations if the resulting award is enforceable under the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Awards or Convention on Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards in India. The Law Commission of India had recommended that such remedies available under the proviso to section 2(2) could be excluded only by an ‘express’ agreement between the parties. However, in the present form, the proviso to section 2(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides that the aforesaid remedies could be excluded by an ‘express’ and ‘implied’ agreement between the parties. The author highlights the various problems that may arise as a result of such remedies being made excludable by an ‘implied agreement’ between the parties in light of the ‘theory of implied exclusion’ propounded by the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Bhatia International v Bulk Trading SA. The author also deals with other ancillary issues arising from such an amendment to section 2(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Are anti-arbitration injunctions a malaise? An analysis in the context of Indian law

Until recently, Indian courts have adjudicated upon their authority to issue anti-arbitration injunctions in the context of foreign-seated arbitrations in a haphazard manner, without examining the source or compatibility of this power with either the (Indian) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or the Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Awards, 1958. Deviating from this trend, two recent decisions of the Supreme Court of India, viz Chatterjee Petrochem and World Sport Group, have deliberated upon this issue and interestingly, they have followed an inconsistent approach. This has led to uncertainty over whether Indian courts may entertain a civil action seeking to restrain foreign arbitral proceedings. Accordingly, in this article, the authors analyse the existing position of law in this regard. They elucidate the early Indian approach towards anti-arbitration injunctions, the relevant provisions of the 1996 Act, and the comparative framework in which the current position should be examined. The authors conclude that the decision in World Sport Group is in consonance with the interpretation of the 1996 Act. Further, it reflects international best practice, according to which anti-arbitration injunctions may be awarded where the arbitration agreement is null and void or inoperative or incapable of being performed, and the foreign arbitral proceeding is vexatious and oppressive. International Convention: Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, 1958, 330 UNTS 38 (1959) [‘New York Convention’].Domestic Legislation: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (August 16, 1996) (India)Judicial Decisions: Chatterjee Petrochem Co v Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd, 2013 (15) SCALE 45 (Indian Supreme Court)World Sport Group (Maurities) v MSM Satellite (Singapore), AIR 2014 SC 968 (Indian Supreme Court)

Enforcement of Foreign Awards in Mainland China: Current Practices and Future Trends

The ability to enforce an arbitral award in Mainland China is a crucial factor for every non-Chinese party to consider when entering into an arbitration agreement or arbitrating a dispute with a Chinese party. This article examines the Chinese courts' current practices of recognizing and enforcing awards made in commonly chosen seats for China-related disputes, such as Hong Kong, Singapore, London and Stockholm. It concludes by exploring future trends that are discernible from statistics collected by the Supreme People's Court of China, the authors' prior discussions with Chinese judges, and a review of several noteworthy decisions rendered by the Chinese courts in recent years.

Judicial Attitude Towards Foreign Arbitral Awards in the United Arab Emirates

This article presents a comparison of the UAE courts' approach towards the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards before and after the UAE's accession to the New York Convention. Before the State's accession to the New York Convention, the UAE courts had a restrictive approach towards enforcement of foreign awards as they applied the same conditions required by Article 235 of the Civil Procedures Code for the enforcement of foreign judgments. However, this historical approach changed markedly after the UAE's accession to the New York Convention on 19 February 2006 by virtue of Decree No. 43 of 2006. To this effect, the present article examines several recent rulings issued by the UAE courts which evidence a strong support for international arbitration and confirm the UAE's adherence to the New York Convention. Furthermore, the courts' current positive approach towards enforcement of foreign arbitration awards does not appear to be threatened by one recent court ruling contravening the progressive developments.

The Case for an International Commercial Court

This article which was first published in the "Festschrift for Norbert Horn", 931 (de Gruyter Berlin 2007), deals with the supervision of international arbitrators and the need and facility for them to seek preliminary opinions in appropriate cases from a newly to be created International Commercial Court, especially when matters of public policy may arise at the transnational level or where new proprioetary rights affecting third parties may be formulated by international arbitrators in the context of the further development of the modern lex mercatoria, its different legal sources and the hierarchy amongst them. The notion of an appeal or revision facility is here rejected in favour of a more limited facility that is preemptive and also supervises the conduct of international arbitrators. It would require treaty status and could then even replace and centralise the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards under the New York Convention.

International Commercial Arbitration in Asia and the Choice of Law Determination

The article essentially deals with the choice of law process associated with three principal aspects of applicable laws in international commercial arbitration, namely, the law governing arbitration agreements, the law governing arbitral procedure and the law governing the substantive merits of the dispute. This research is of significance as these different aspects of arbitration (the agreement, the procedure and merits of the dispute) are commonly subjected to different laws. As a precursor, the introductory part of this article discusses the evolution and present position of international commercial arbitration in the region. The following chapter sets out the basic interaction between private international law and international commercial arbitration, as well as an overview of the choice of law process, which by and large is treated as the essential stage of a conflict of laws methodology. This section of the article gives a brief sketch of the conflict of laws system in ascertaining the applicable laws relating to the three elements of an international arbitration process, placing a focus on different approaches adopted by some of the more important arbitral-legal systems in Asia. As a disclaimer, the other two important questions of private international law, jurisdiction and enforcement of foreign awards, are not part of this discussion.

Enforcement of Foreign Awards in India

Enforcement of Foreign Awards in India

Public Policy Narrowly Interpreted in Foreign Award Enforcement Proceedings in India: A Comment

The Supreme Court of India had previously given a broad interpretation to the ground of public policy and thereby permitted a review of the foreign arbitral award on merits in award enforcement proceedings. The Supreme Court has recently abandoned this position. Consistent with international practice, the Supreme Court has held in Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. v. Progetto Grano S.p.a. that the public policy as a ground for refusing enforcement of foreign awards should be interpreted narrowly.

Enforcement of Foreign Awards in India - Application of Public Policy

Enforcement of foreign awards has been subject to changes on judicial ruling paradigm. This paper presents the evolution of enforcement of foreign award in context of rulings on the doctrine of public policy.

A Critical Study on How the Saudi Arbitration Code Could Be Improved and on Overcoming the Issues of Enforcing Foreign Awards in the Country as a Signatory State to the New York Convention

It is essential for developing countries, including Saudi Arabia, to reform investment related regulations and laws, especially those related to arbitration. Sharia law in Saudi Arabia causes major concerns to foreign investors as it differs considerably from western legal systems. Therefore, the processes of arbitration and outcome are suffering from uncertainty and ambiguity. This essay will answer the question of how the Saudi government could encourage foreign investors through improving the current arbitration law. In reaching a conclusion on the necessary improvements, three main aspects will be analysed in the Saudi Arbitration Act which are finality of awards, choice of arbitrators and the authority to enter into arbitration agreements. Another important aspect will be discussed is the enforcement of foreign awards as a contracting state of the New York Convention. In conclusion, it is found that the Arbitration Code has several deficiencies that would concern foreign investors. Recommendations on how to develop the law will be given in order for the arbitration law to serve its purpose that is to create a legal certainty and security regarding dispute settlement.

Arbitration & Alternative Dispute Resolution in India: Issues & Challenges in International Commercial Arbitration

Despite the increasing inflow of foreign capital in the Indian economy, India’s potential to attract to attract FDI from the world has not yet been fully trapped most probably due to the lack of an efficient dispute resolution system in the country. Due to the slow pace of the Indian Courts, Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 was introduced as a solution to the international commercial settlement disputes in India.Arbitration law in India is modeled on the UNCITRAL Model of arbitration which empowers the parties to resolve disputes without approaching the Court of Law which has made it the preferred mode of dispute resolution in international commercial transactions of India. The 1996 Act provides choices to the parties in international commercial arbitration for deciding the nature of arbitration like ad hoc arbitration, institutional arbitration, where retired judges of High Courts/ Supreme Courts acts as arbitrators. These dispute resolution methods lacks efficiency due to the lack of ability on part of retired judges to work efficiently, or the time consuming factor where it takes 3-5 years for settlement. Even low fees payable at institutional arbitration to arbitrators is a hindrance in the commercial arbitration, as it does not have good arbitrators working in it.Furthermore, International arbitration outside India attracts disputing parties to enlist the services outside India. International arbitration outside India can be held under the auspices of institutions like London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), the ICC International Court of Arbitration (ICC), the American Arbitration Association (AAA), the World Intellectual Property Arbitration (WIPO), the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce and the International Council for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) which provide procedural rules, fixed arbitration costs, and various support services which are is big issue/challenge for the dispute resolution for Indian contexts. The paper would provide suggestions with respect to Enforcement of Foreign Awards in India, lowering of bias or fraud in dispute resolution.

The 2010 Amendments to the International Arbitration Act: A New Dawn for Australia?

On 6 July 2010 Royal Assent was given to amendments passed by the Australian Federal Parliament relating to the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) (IAA). These were the first substantial changes to the IAA for over 20 years and consequently warrant close scrutiny. Along with some other innovations, they follow most of the 2006 revisions to the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (Model Law), which has been particularly popular for Australasian jurisdictions updating their arbitration legislation. The amended IAA also provides the agreed core for Australian states and territories updating their Commercial Arbitration Acts (CAAs), although they adopt some variants given that their focus is on domestic arbitrations. This paper considers the amended IAA’s aims, writing requirements for arbitration agreements, enforcement of foreign awards, exclusion of the Model Law, interim measures, confidentiality, other substantive matters, and the temporal application of the 2010 amendments. It concludes that their scope is somewhat limited and unadventurous, but should significantly enhance the legal regime for international arbitration in Australia.

Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Awards under the New York Convention in Australia and New Zealand

This article examines the current status and interpretation of the New York Convention provisions on recognition and enforcement of awards in Australia and New Zealand. While there have been no New Zealand decisions so far, Australian courts have considered a number of important issues including the effect of interim and interlocutory awards, the limitation period applicable to enforcement proceedings, the existence of a residual discretion not to enforce an award, the consequences of misnaming of a party and public policy. While some decisions have been consistent with the Convention’s objectives and purposes, in others courts have arguably relied too heavily on principles of Australian domestic law.

Application of the New York Convention in India

Forty–five independent states were represented at the Conference of Plenipotentiaries held in New York in June 1958 to conclude the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. India’s representative was elected as First Vice–President of the Conference. India was not only a party to the New York Convention but had been an active participant at the deliberations that led to the Convention. To give effect to the New York Convention (often described as “the most successful of all UN Conventions”) India’s Parliament enacted the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act 1961; domestic arbitrations continued to be governed by the somewhat antiquated Indian Arbitration Act 1940. The 1961 Act, along with the 1940 Act, were later repealed and replaced by a new consolidated law applicable to both domestic and international arbitrations, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. This article examines how issues arising under statutory provisions implementing Article V of the New York Convention (Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Awards) have been dealt with by courts in India.