ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, INDU MALHOTRA
SHRIRAM EPC LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
RIOGLASS SOLAR SA – Respondent
JUDGMENT
R.F. NARIMAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises from the judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated 09.02.2017, in which a petition filed to enforce a foreign award was allowed. Several grounds were taken before the learned single Judge. We are concerned with only one ground that has been argued before us, namely, that as the award has not been stamped, it cannot be enforced under Sections 48 and 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“1996 Act”).
3. The brief facts that are necessary for determination of the present controversy are as follows: 3.1. An ICC award was delivered in London on 12.02.2015 by Mr. Christopher Style QC in the following terms:
“363. After consideration of all the factual and legal submissions which have been presented to me and for the reasons set out in full above, I award, declare and adjudge as follows:
(1) I declare that I have no jurisdiction over the Second and Third Respondents.
(2) I declare that Rioglass is not obliged to issue a Performance Bank Guarantee as provided for in cl
Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc.
Naval Gent Maritime Ltd. v. Shivanath Rai Harnarain (I) Ltd.
Orient Middle East Lines Ltd., Bombay v. Brace Transport Corporation of Monrovia
Senior Electric Inspector v. Laxminarayan Chopra
M. Anasuya Devi v. M. Manik Reddy
Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd.
Thyssen Stahlunion GMBH v. Steel Authority of India Ltd.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.