Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Supreme Court Reiterated: In Two Tier Arbitration Agreement, The Foreign Arbitral Award Can Be Executed.
The case of two tier arbitration agreement, which held that the foreign Arbitral Award can be executed and was dated 2nd of June, 2020. Therefore the Supreme Court I the case of M/S Centotrade Minerals and Metals INC. v. Hindustan Copper LTD and was heard by the bench comprising of Justice R.F. Nairman, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice V. Ramasubramian.
FACTS
The contract was made between the U.S. Corporation and the Hindustan Copper Ltd. Therefore, the U.S. Corporation urged for the sale of 15,000 DMT copper concentrate which was to be delivered at the Kandla Airport and was to be used at the Khetri Plant of the respondent Hindustan Copper Ltd. The agreement contained a two-tier arbitration agreement, the first one which was to be held in India and I it is invoked by either of the party then the second arbitration moves to the London, ICC. Thereupon, the Centrotrade invoked the second part of the arbitration agreement, as a result of which Jeremy Cook QC, appointed by the ICC, delivered an award in London.
SUIT BY HCL
The suit which lays pending in London, the suit for the second tier was filed in the court Khetri in the State of Rajasthan. The Court at the Rajasthan stated that the proceeding to be laid cancelled as the proceedings to be continued in this Court. Howsoever, the arbitrator told about the continuing of the proceedings.
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
The Divisional Bench stated about the maintainability of the petition inasmuch as the London award could not be said to be a foreign award, howsoever the two-tier arbitration clause could be valid. therefore the appeal was allowed and the single bench Judgement was set aside.
SUPREME COURT
The Supreme Court held that
"The respondent was not interested in the arbitral proceedings as he was invited to do so.Having found that by approaching the courts in Rajasthan and having prevailed in part, the respondent decided to stay the arbitral proceedings. This was taken into account by the arbitrator, and then passed his prize. That being so, we can not find any fault with the actions of the arbitrator on evidence.The arbitrator is in control of the arbitral proceedings and procedural orders which set time limits must be strictly adhered to, because the arbitrator can not be faulted on this ground.That the arbitrator understood should have excused further delay and should not have relied on frivolous techniques.HCL decided not to appear before the arbitrator, and instead opted to file documentation and legal requests beyond the arbitrator's time limits.Even otherwise, it is obviously beyond the jurisdiction of an implementing court under Section 48 of the 1996 Act to refer the matter to the ICC arbitrator for a fresh award.The Court further stated that the foreign award shall now be enforced."
86540
103860
630
114
59824