Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
The intervention of the Delhi High Court in the cases of Videocon Industries v Union of India and Cairn India limited v Union of India illustrate that courts in India are now, more than ever, taking positive steps to give primacy to an arbitration agreement. Nakul Dewan, independent advocate and arbitrator practicing out of Singapore, Delhi and London, analyses the details.
The parties entered into a contract, through a consortium, with the Union of India for the exploration and production of hydrocarbon resources. The contract was governed by the laws of India whereas the arbitration agreement was governed by the laws of
England. Parties had chosen Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) as the seat of the arbitration.
Two separate arbitrations arose out of the contract. Under the first arbitration (Videocon v Union of India) it was contended that pursuant to an agreement between the parties to hold hearings in London, the seat of the arbitration shifted from
Kuala Lumpur to London. The second arbitration (Cairn v Union of India) dealt with the issue of whether the arbitral tribunal had become functus officio after rendering its award, despite having directed that the claimant was entitled to be
awarded costs. The Union of India filed applications before the Delhi High Court, seeking injunctions in both the arbitrations.
The single judge of the Delhi High Court assumed jurisdiction and issued anti-arbitration injunctions in both cases. The decisions were based on the reasoning that since Indian law was the substantive law applicable to the contract, courts in India were
bound by an earlier Supreme Court decision in Videocon Industries v Union of India (2011) 6 SCC 161 that had pertained to the same proceedings and declared Kuala Lumpur to be the seat of the arbitration.
The High Court allowed both the appeals and set aside both decisions of the lower court. It noted that the lower court had assumed jurisdiction by placing reliance on the fact that the contract was governed by the laws of India, and that this was ‘ex
facie-contrary to law’.
It also stated that the proper forum to challenge an award could only be the courts of the seat of arbitration, and for this reason only a court of competent jurisdiction in Kuala Lumpur could entertain a challenge to any decision of the arbitral tribunal.
A court seated in India would not have such jurisdiction.
A unique stalemate has occurred in the arbitration between Videocon and Union of India. Courts in India are bound by the Supreme Court decision to the effect that Kuala Lumpur is the seat of arbitration. Consequently, as noted by the High Court of Delhi,
it would be unable to assume jurisdiction in relation to this arbitration. However, the High Court of Malaysia has also held that it has no jurisdiction, on account of the seat being shifted to London following the parties’ agreement. As Videocon
has consented to not initiate any challenge before a court in London, nothing can proceed before the English courts. Therefore, unless the Court of Appeal in Malaysia overrules the decision of the High Court of Malaysia there would be very little
room for moving forward. In fact, the High Court of Delhi noted:
[B]ut since the highest court in Malaysia had yet to pronounce upon the issue, we leave it at that with prayers on our lips that hopefully the highest Court in Malaysia passes an order which can break the impasse.
The only available remedy for the parties in the matter between Cairn and Union of India is also to approach the courts in Malaysia. It is likely that the Union of India would approach the competent court in Kuala Lumpur under section 44 of the Malaysian
Arbitration Act which empowers the High Court to determine the quantum of costs in the event the arbitral tribunal fails to specify it in its award. However, since the tribunal has not been declared as functus officio, it could continue to
proceed and ascertain the issue of quantum of costs in terms of its earlier order.
This decision reflects that courts in India are now, more than ever, consciously taking steps to give primacy to an arbitration agreement. Apart from the instant decision, the recent judgment of the Delhi High Court in Mcdonald’s India Pvt Limited v Vikram Bakshi (FAO (OS) 9/2015), rendered on 21 July 2016 is another example of this shift. The appellate bench of the Delhi High Court in Mcdonald’s set aside the order of the single judge which had issued an anti-arbitration injunction on the ground
that no arbitration agreement existed between the parties. Setting aside the anti-arbitration injunction on the ground that prima facie an arbitration agreement existed, the Delhi High Court noted that:
[C]ourts need to remind themselves that the trend is to minimise interference with arbitration process as that is the forum of choice.
The decision in Mcdonald’s lends support to the proposition that the judiciary in India is indeed making positive strides towards respecting the agreement to arbitrate.
This decision, however, brings out that even though an agreement to arbitrate would eventually be given effect, parties must be cautious against using complicated clauses in their arbitration agreements, so as not to expend precious time in long-drawn
litigation. As costs are typically not awarded by Indian courts, a party averse to proceeding with arbitration can entangle the counter party in the web of an Indian court litigation, with minimalistic cost consequences.
Nakul Dewan is a barrister practicing out of Singapore, Delhi and London. He accepts appointments both as counsel for international arbitration and international litigation and as an arbitrator. He has a broad base of expertise in the fields of international arbitration, banking and finance, international commercial law, mining, energy and natural resources. He has been appointed as arbitrator by the SIAC and has extensive experience as counsel in ICC, LCIA, SIAC, UNCITRAL and ad hoc proceedings.
Interviewed by Jane Crinnion. The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234