SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Bom) 1402

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
G.S. KULKARNI, J.
Imax Corporation - Appellant
Versus
E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt. Ltd. And Others - Respondent
Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 414 of 2018
Decided On : 13-11-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Veerendra Tulzapurkar, Adv., Sandeep Parekh, Adv., Rahul Mahajan, Adv., Amit Surve, Adv., Meeta Kadhi, Adv., Birendra Saraf, Adv., Rohan Savant, Adv., Yakshay Chheda, Adv., Devanshi Sethi, Adv., Gautam Ankhad, Adv., Krishna Shah, Adv., Sharan Jagtiani, Adv., Sanaya Kapadia, Adv., Ankit Ransubhe, Adv., Ajay Basutkar, Adv.

Headnote:

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 47, 48 and 49 - Petition for Enforcement and Execution of Foreign Award - Claimant is Seeking Enforcement of International Commercial Award - Petitioner-original claimant is seeking enforcement of international commercial award(s) namely Liability award dated 9 February 2006, an award dated 24 August 2007 being a quantum and jurisdiction award and an award dated 27 March 2008 being a Final Award of the International Chamber of Commerce - Prayers in petition are combined prayers seeking enforcement and execution of arbitral awards which are required to be noted – Held, Court held that such an application for enforcement of the foreign award would attract Article 137 and according to that Article, the period of limitation is three years and would commence from the date when right to apply occurs - Court has also observed that least that could be said is that the question as to whether any period of limitation is prescribed for making an application for enforcement of foreign award and if there is period of limitation prescribed, what would be that period of limitation, was not a question free from doubt and this Court accordingly, condoned the delay filed by the petitioner - In my view, petitioner has filed the execution application which was within four months from date of the said foreign award and was prosecuting the same in good faith and with due diligence - Court did not find the said execution application not maintainable but on contrary directed that if any application is filed under Section 47 by petitioner, same shall be heard along with the said execution application - In my view, there is thus no substance in the submission of learned senior counsel that Section 14 would not be applicable to the facts of this case - I am therefore of view that the delay in filing arbitration petition deserves to be condoned -I shall now deal with the submissions made by both leaned counsel on enforceability of the foreign award - Order accordingly.

JUDGMENT :

G S KULKARNI, J.

1. This is a petition for enforcement and execution of the foreign award filed under Section 47, 48 and 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the Arbitration Act"). The respondents have raised a preliminary objection contending that the petition is barred by limitation. By this order this objection of the respondents is being decided.

2. The petitioner-original claimant is seeking enforcement of the international commercial award(s) namely the Liability award dated 9 February 2006, an award dated 24 August 2007 being a quantum and jurisdiction award and an award dated 27 March 2008 being a Final Award of the International Chamber of Commerce. The prayers in the petition are combined prayers seeking enforcement and execution of the arbitral awards which are required to be noted and read thus:-

"(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order and/or declaration that the said Arbitral Awards, i.e. Liability Award dated February 09, 2016, Quantum Award dated August 24, 2007 and Final Award dated March 27, 2008 passed by the Hon'ble Arbitral Tribunal in Case Reference No. 13339/JNK/EBS, in favor of the Petitioner, are enforceable under the provisions of the Part II of the Arbitration Act and directions to be issued to enforce and execute the said Arbitral Awards as a decree in favor of the Petitioner and against all the Respondents;

(b) That all the Respondents be directed to deposit the decretal amount of a sum of U.S. $ 11,309,496.06 plus interest at the rate of U.S. $ 2,512.60 per day from October 1, 2007 till payment and realization thereof and the Petitioner be permitted to withdraw the same;

(c) That pending the enforcement and/or execution of the said Arbitral Awards, this Hon'ble court be pleased to pass the order directing all the Respondents to disclose on oath forthwith or within such time as this Hon'ble Court deem fit:

i. Immovable Properties owned by all the Respondents in its possession and in possession of any third parties;

ii. Movable properties owned by all the Respondents in its possession and in the possession of any third parties;

iii. Shares, debentures, bonds, securities etc., held by all the respondents in any company/entity;

iv. All debts due and payable to all the Respondents by any third party or parties;

v. Details of bank accounts which all the

Respondents holds;

vi. Details of the stock in trade and raw material of all the Respondents;

vii. Details of cash in hand with all the Respondents.

(d) Upon disclosure as per prayer clause (c) above, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order allowing realization of the total amount as per the Arbitration Awards as and by way of attachment and sale of items disclosed by all the Respondents;

(e) For ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayers (c) above;

(f) Cost of the Petition"

3. There is a prior history of litigation also before the Indian Courts. Respondent No.1 on 27 July 2008, had approached this Court by filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, challenging the awards in question. This petition was filed after 90 days however within the extended period of 30 days as provided under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act. However as the said petition was filed beyond the prescribed period of 90 days, a notice of motion was filed by respondent No.1 seeking condonation of delay. The petitioner appeared as the respondent in the said petition, and opposed the said notice of motion as filed by respondent No.1 as also opposed the Section 34 petition. The petitioner contended that each of the foreign award(s) was a separate award and even assuming that Section 34 was to apply, the awards were required to be challenged within prescribed limitation as provided under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The petitioner in opposing the Section 34 petition also contended that the respondent's Section 34 petition was pe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top