Demystifying the Limitation Period for Enforcing a Foreign Award in India

Must Read

An Insight into Custodial Death in India

“The occurrence of Custodial deaths in the world’s greatest democracy has raised the eyebrows of every citizen and shaken...

Implications in Travel Insurance in Light of the COVID-19 Crisis

As the world, today is crippled by this once in a century pandemic and as of date more than...

Second-Round Effects of Rent Control Laws: The Argentine Case

Introduction In colonial India, a city had an issue with its cobra population, which was a problem clearly in need...

Why Are the Big Techs of Silicon Valley Accused of Anti-Competitive Behaviours?

The big tech giants of the Silicon Valley are facing major challenges with relation to their monopolistic powers after...

KSK announces Sanjay Kumar as a Partner for Pharma & Life Sciences Practice

New Partner for KSK's Pharma & Life Sciences Practice King Stubb & Kasiva recently announced that Mr Sanjay Kumar has...

The Debate Between IPR and Competition Law Explained

There are various market processes or structures that govern market scenario. For simplicity, this paper focuses on two mechanisms:...
CSL Chambers
CSL Chambershttps://www.cslchambers.com
CSL Chambers is a boutique law firm based in New Delhi, India with global capabilities through its close association with Clyde & Co. Headquartered in New Delhi, CSL Chambers offers effective and complete legal solutions to its domestic, as well as international clients throughout India. The firm's core practice areas include international commercial arbitration, insurance and reinsurance disputes, insolvency and bankruptcy, international trade and commercial disputes. The firm thrives on its global capabilities through its close association with Clyde & Co, a full service international law firm with over 50 offices worldwide.

Follow us

Introduction

Divergent views were expressed by different High Courts on the issue of the limitation period for enforcing foreign awards.

Until recently, the law on the limitation period for filing a petition seeking enforcement of a foreign award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) remained largely unsettled. This in turn allowed foreign award holders to take their time in examining the viability of bringing enforcement action in India against award debtors and at the same time permitted award debtors to oppose enforcement of foreign awards at the very threshold, on account of limitation.

On 16 September 2020, the Supreme Court of India in Government of India v. Vedanta Limited & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3185 of 2020) has laid to rest the debate on limitation period to enforce a foreign award by conflating the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act), and the Arbitration Act.

The present article is limited in its elucidation on the issue of limitation as settled by the Supreme Court of India. We briefly examine the earlier position on the limitation period for enforcing foreign awards under the Arbitration Act and the clarity provided on the issue by the Supreme Court of India.

What is past is prologue

The Supreme Court back in 2001, observed in the context of proceedings under Part II of the Act, which deals with enforcement of certain foreign awards that a foreign award is already stamped as a decree. It was thus perceived that the award holder may apply for enforcement after steps are taken for the execution of the award.

On the strength of the above, it was argued and at different times accepted that Article 136 which falls in the Third Division of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, was the applicable provision for filing a petition for enforcement of a foreign award. It will be worthwhile to highlight that Article 136 of the Limitation Act provides that execution of any decree or order of a civil court, is twelve years from the date when the decree or order becomes enforceable.

Illustratively, the Bombay High Court, Madras High Court, and Delhi High Court subscribed to the view that the limitation period for enforcement of a foreign award is twelve years. The reasoning for holding so can be narrowed down to the premise that a foreign award is already stamped as a decree of the Court. This view naturally augured well for foreign award holders.

On the other hand, one finds contrary views expressed by the Bombay High Court itself, on at least two occasions. In conspectus, on these two occasions, the Bombay High Court was inclined towards the view that the period of limitation for filing a petition for enforcement of a foreign award would be three years from the date when the right to apply accrues. The rationale appears to be that the limitation period for enforcement of a foreign award is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, a residuary provision, which provides for three years from when the right to apply accrues.

The precedent

In the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the award debtor’s plea that the award holder’s enforcement petition was barred by limitation necessitated the exercise for the Supreme Court to settle the law on this issue, given the divergence of the legal opinion of different High Courts.

While adjudicating the issue of limitation, Supreme Court succinctly discussed Article III of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Awards, 1958 (New York Convention), which provides that recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards should be done by the rules of procedure of the State where the award was to be enforced. As a corollary, the limitation period for filing an enforcement petition for enforcement of a foreign award in India would be governed by Indian law.

While expositing the position of law, the Court observed that Article 136 of the Limitation Act deals only with decrees passed by Indian courts. The legislature has omitted reference to ‘foreign decrees’ under Article 136 of the Limitation Act and the intention thus was, to confine Article 136 to the decrees of a civil court in India.

A foreign award once recognized and determined to be enforceable, is deemed to be a decree of that Court for the limited purpose of enforcement. This is the legal fiction provided by Section 49 of the Arbitration Act.

Therefore, as a foreign award is not a decree of an Indian civil court and consequently, Article 136 of the Limitation Act is inapplicable.

Thus, the Supreme Court authoritatively ruled, that the period of limitation for filing a petition for enforcement of a foreign award would be governed by the residuary provision, Article 137 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes three years from when the right to apply accrues.

Residuary Safeguard

Given the ambiguity on the issue of limitation till date and considering that enforcement of a foreign award entails filing a substantive petition under the Arbitration Act, the Supreme Court has granted liberty to foreign award holders to seek condonation of delay in filing enforcement petitions, if required in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision finally crystallizes the long-standing issue of the limitation period for enforcing a foreign award. One would think that the considerably reduced number of years now available to a foreign award holder could prejudice those who did not act within three years. There is, however, still hope, especially with the Court opining that lack of clarity on the issue of the limitation period is sufficient ground to condone delays.

 

 

Authored by: CSL Chambers, New Delhi – Sumeet Lall (Partner) and Sidhant Kapoor (Senior Associate)

 

Sumeet Lall, Partner, CSL Chambers
Sumeet Lall,
Partner, CSL Chambers 

Sidhant Kapoor, Senior Associate, CSL Chambers
Sidhant Kapoor,
Senior Associate, CSL Chambers

CSL Chambers is a boutique law firm based in New Delhi, India with global capabilities through its close association with Clyde & Co.

Headquartered in New Delhi, CSL Chambers offers effective and complete legal solutions to its domestic, as well as international clients throughout India. The firm’s core practice areas include international commercial arbitration, insurance and reinsurance disputes, insolvency and bankruptcy, international trade and commercial disputes.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -