Topic
Bombay High Court mandates asset disclosure as a precondition for enforcing a foreign arbitral award under Section 9, directing security for USD 610,818.68. The ruling underscores that non-disclosure of executable assets may jeopardize interim protection, reinforcing the need for compliance with enforcement proceedings.
The Delhi High Court ruled that a foreign arbitral award, even if unenforceable under Sections 48 and 49 of the Arbitration Act, does not extinguish the underlying civil cause of action. This means plaintiffs may still pursue recovery through a fresh suit, preventing litigants from being trapped by unenforceable awards and preserving access to judicial remedies under the CPC.
Bombay HC reinforces that arbitration clauses must be read contextually, not in isolation. The court upheld an award where the tribunal engaged with submissions on advance payments, rejecting the argument that delayed objections violate natural justice if counterclaims remain open for adjudication.
Bombay HC enforces an ICC award governed by Qatari law, holding that Indian public policy does not override parties' choice of foreign law for damages, including both liquidated and unliquidated claims. The ruling clarifies the scope of enforceability of foreign awards in commercial disputes with international elements.
Bombay HC clarifies that parties can seek interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act even after initiating enforcement proceedings for foreign awards. The ruling rejects the contention that enforcement and execution petitions under Part II preclude Section 9 jurisdiction, ensuring continued protection for award creditors during enforcement.