Court: suit can be filed against a foreign arbitration award

Court: suit can be filed against a foreign arbitration award -THE HINDU NEWS PAPER DT. 14-1-2008

A suit can be filed in a court in India challenging a foreign award passed by an arbitrator appointed by the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) if the award is against public policy and in contravention of statutory provisions, the Supreme Court has held.
Giving this ruling, a Bench of Justices Tarun Chatterjee and P. Sathasivam held that the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, would apply to international commercial arbitrations held out of India.
The Bench said: “The provisions of Part 1 of the A and C Act would apply to all arbitrations, including international commercial arbitrations, and to all proceedings relating thereto. We further hold that where such arbitration is held in India, the provisions of Part 1 would compulsorily apply and parties are free to deviate to the extent permitted by the provisions of Part 1.”
Writing the judgment for the Bench, Justice Sathasivam said: “It is also clear that even in the case of international commercial arbitrations held out of India, provisions of Part 1 would apply unless the parties by agreement express or implied, exclude all or any of its provisions.”
The Bench held: “We are also of the view that such an interpretation does not lead to any conflict between any of the provisions of the A and C Act and there is no lacuna as such.”
In the instant case, Venture Global Engineering (VGE) incorporated in the United States of America and Satyam Computer Services Ltd (SCSL) of Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh entered into a joint venture agreement in 1999 to constitute a company named Satyam Venture Engineering Services Ltd.
FACTS OF THE CASE
In February 2005, disputes arose between the parties.
On a request from SCSL, the LCIA appointed an arbitrator and he passed an award directing VGE to transfer the shares to SCSL.
Aggrieved, the VGE filed a suit in the City Civil Court, Secunderabad, to set aside the award and the court passed an interim order of injunction restraining SCSL from seeking or effecting the transfer of shares under the terms of award or otherwise.
On appeal from SCSL, the Andhra Pradesh High Court suspended the trial court’s order but made it clear that SCSL would not affect the transfer of shares until further orders.
Thereafter, the trial court rejected the suit and the High Court dismissed VGE’s appeal.
The present civil appeal by VGE in the apex court is directed against this order.

Allowing the appeal, the Bench said: “Since from the inception of ordering notice in the special leave petition both parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to transfer of shares in issue, the same shall be maintained till the disposal of the suit

Supreme Court prohibits jallikattu

Supreme Court prohibits jallikattu
State counsel says people’s sentiments involved
Can’t continue such barbaric events, says Chief Justice

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to allow jallikattu (bull fight) festival in Alanganallur and other places in Tamil Nadu during Pongal.
A three-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice R.V. Raveendran and Justice J.M. Panchal, however, permitted ‘rekhla (bullock cart) race’ under the supervision of the police and district administration.
In July 2007, the apex court acting on a petition from the Animal Welfare Board had stayed a Madras High Court judgment allowing the event.
On Friday the court rejected applications filed by the Tamil Nadu government and on behalf of certain villages pleading for vacating the stay and to allow the event to be held this year.
In its brief interim order the Bench said, “We are not inclined to vacate the interim stay order [passed in July 2007.] Bullock cart/rekhla race is permissible under the supervision of the police and the district administration. Sufficient protection should be given to the public and let there not be any confrontation between the public and the bull.”
Earlier, senior counsel for the State T.R. Andhyarujina said people’s sentiments were involved in the event, which was being held for the past 400 years.
He said that the district administration had taken all precautionary steps for the orderly conduct of the event and there would be double barricading to prevent spectators from entering the arena. He said medical facilities would be provided to take care of the injured.
The Chief Justice intervened and said, “What is the point in allowing people to get injured and giving them treatment. Many persons were killed and injured in the past. Will your [Tamil Nadu] DGP give an undertaking in writing that no one will be injured, then we will allow it.”
Counsel said that in any such festival or event there could be some injuries and for that the event itself could not be prevented.
The Chief Justice said, “We cannot continue such barbaric and uncivilised events. We should have some concern for animals.
If enraged bulls are let loose into the crowd and many people cling on to the animal, you are exploiting the spirit of sport in an unhealthy way. We will not allow cruelty to animals and to human beings. Let there not be a fight between the bull and human beings. We have no objection to bullock or bullock cart race.”
Senior counsel K.K. Venugopal, appearing for the Board, said, “The bulls are made to drink arrack (alcohol) and chilli powder is sprinkled into their eyes to make them ferocious. He said that the bulls were subjected to enormous cruelty before and during the competition.
He said, “We have taken a video of last year’s events which would show how gruesome it is. Cruelty to animals is inherent in the event which is a clear violation of Section 11 (a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.”

All observations of judges not binding on lower courts: SC

All observations of judges not binding on lower courts: SC 20 Dec 2007, 1916 hrs IST,PTI


The Supreme Court has ruled that neither everything that a judge says constitutes a precedent, nor does the observation of a superior court has a binding effect on the subordinate judiciary. Reliance by courts on an earlier decision without looking into the factual background of the case before it is not permissible, a bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and P Sathasivam observed. The ruling comes at a time when there is considerable confusion as to whether courts can entertain PILs following the recent observations by a two-judge bench of the apex court criticising the judiciary for its "over-reach" in the executive and legislative domain. "The only thing in a judge's decision binding a party is the principle upon which the case is decided and for this reason it is important to analyse a decision and isolate from it the ratio decidendi (general rule binding on lower courts)," the apex court said. The apex court passed the ruling while quashing a Karnataka High Court judgement in which it had ruled that ownership of some trees in forests was vested with their "owners" and not the state government. The High Court decided the issue in favour of private individuals by relying upon certain observations in another case, following which the State moved the apex court.