Supreme court judgment in BALCO case and international commercial arbitration
By: Patil, Vasundhara
.
Publisher: Pune NICMAR 2013Edition: Vol.28(4), Oct-Dec.Description: 61-65p.Subject(s): Construction Engineering and Management (CEM)Online resources: Click here
In:
NICMAR Journal of construction managementSummary: This paper tries to analyse the judicial trends in interpreting the provisions of Indian Arbitration act 1996 in relation to the enforcement of foreign awards passed in seat of Arbitration situated outside India .Though the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by and large has adopted the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) model law and the New York conventions and Geneva Convention , the decisions given in Bhatia international bulk Trading SA were not according to the objects of UNCITRAL model laws. As such, the foreign investors or the contracting parties felt that due to such judgment, the intervention of Indian Courts would be more which meant long drawn out court battles leading to increase in costs and uncertainty. However, on 6th September 2012, in the case of Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Service, Inc. which dealt with arbitration law, Supreme Court has given a land mark judgment changing stance from its earlier judgments and giving new dimension to the interpretation of international arbitration contract clauses and enforcement of foreign awards in India. The Court has held that where the seat of Arbitration is outside India the Indian courts cannot set aside the award. After ten years, the Supreme Court has interpreted the enforcement of foreign awards in terms of UNCITRAL objects. This BALCO judgment has rewritten history. It will prove to be a boost to international arbitration i.e. parties to the international commercial contract can now be certain of getting justice as they expected from Indian courts in respect of enforcement of foreign awards.
| Item type | Current location | Call number | Status | Date due | Barcode | Item holds |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Articles Abstract Database
|
School of Engineering & Technology (PG) Archieval Section | Not for loan | 2024-0840 |
This paper tries to analyse the judicial trends in interpreting the provisions of Indian Arbitration act 1996 in relation to the enforcement of foreign awards passed in seat of Arbitration situated outside India .Though the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by and large has adopted the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) model law and the New York conventions and Geneva Convention , the decisions given in Bhatia international bulk Trading SA were not according to the objects of UNCITRAL model laws. As such, the foreign investors or the contracting parties felt that due to such judgment, the intervention of Indian Courts would be more which meant long drawn out court battles leading to increase in costs and uncertainty. However, on 6th September 2012, in the case of Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Service, Inc. which dealt with arbitration law, Supreme Court has given a land mark judgment changing stance from its earlier judgments and giving new dimension to the interpretation of international arbitration contract clauses and enforcement of foreign awards in India. The Court has held that where the seat of Arbitration is outside India the Indian courts cannot set aside the award. After ten years, the Supreme Court has interpreted the enforcement of foreign awards in terms of UNCITRAL objects. This BALCO judgment has rewritten history. It will prove to be a boost to international arbitration i.e. parties to the international commercial contract can now be certain of getting justice as they expected from Indian courts in respect of enforcement of foreign awards.
Click on an image to view it in the image viewer
There are no comments for this item.