Dispute Resolution Hotline: Demystifying Public Policy To Enable Enforcement of Foreign Awards – Indian Perspective
Posted by By nishithadmin at 15 April, at 11 : 30 AM Print
Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /web/qlc/nishith.tv/htdocs/wp-content/themes/Video/single_blog.php on line 46
Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /web/qlc/nishith.tv/htdocs/wp-content/themes/Video/single_blog.php on line 52
DEMYSTIFYING PUBLIC POLICY TO ENABLE ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN AWARDS – INDIAN PERSPECTIVE
This article was originally published in Indian Review of International Arbitration.
The open-textured and variable nature of ‘public policy’ has created much divergence in the international arbitration community on its meaning, applicability and limits. For some, public policy has played a savior of foreign awards; for others, it has set the arbitration proceedings and the outcome at naught. Most award creditors may have realized the fruits of their arbitration only after long arduous legal proceedings to establish non-contravention of public policy. This has created a cloud of uncertainty and unpredictability around public policy.
This present article attempts to demystify this uncertainty, and deduce situations in which the scope and ambit of public policy can be assertively ascertained. It examines ‘public policy’ as a ground for grant or refusal of enforcement of a foreign award in a jurisdiction that has one of the largest judicial caseload of international commercial disputes and international arbitration – India. While arriving at our deductions, we will analyze the context in which public policy is placed under the New York Convention; Indian law and its adoption of the New York Convention; the meaning of public policy and its realm of operation in law for purposes of enforcement of foreign awards; and judicial interpretation of public policy by Indian courts. In the end, based on the aforesaid analysis, we identify practical situations in which public policy can be raised as a ground to resist or defend resistance to enforcement of foreign awards.
The complete article can be accessed here.
Benchmark Litigation Asia-Pacific:Tier 1 for Government & Regulatory and Tax
2020, 2019, 2018
Legal500 Asia-Pacific:Tier 1 for Tax, Investment Funds, Labour & Employment and TMT
20a20, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012
Chambers and Partners Asia-Pacific:Band 1 for Employment, Lifesciences, Tax and TMT
2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015
IFLR1000:Tier 1 for Private Equity and Project Development: Telecommunications Networks.
2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2014
AsiaLaw Asia-Pacific Guide 2020:Ranked ‘Outstanding’ for TMT, Labour & Employment, Private Equity, Regulatory and Tax
FT Innovative Lawyers Asia Pacific 2019 Awards: NDA ranked 2nd in the Most Innovative Law Firm category (Asia-Pacific Headquartered)
RSG-Financial Times: India’s Most Innovative Law Firm
2019, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014
Who’s Who Legal 2020:
• Nishith Desai- Thought leader (Corporate Tax 2020, India 2020), Global leaders
(Private Funds 2020)
• Vikram Shroff-Global Leaders (Labour & Employment 2020, Pensions & Benefits 2020)
• Milind Antani- Pharma & Healthcare – only Indian Lawyer to be recognized for
‘Life sciences – Regulatory,’ for 5 years consecutively
DISCLAIMER
The contents of this hotline should not be construed as legal opinion. View detailed disclaimer.