The Bombay High Court recently passed an order in favour of the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award which had been rendered by an arbitral tribunal constituted under the Singapore International Arbitration Centre Arbitration Rules. The award upheld the validity and performance of a put option created pursuant to a share subscription agreement and a put option deed, which provided a foreign investor with an exit from its investment in an Indian company on agreed terms and conditions.
The Supreme Court recently refused enforcement of a foreign award on the basis that it was contrary to the fundamental public policy of India. Although a recent decision, the dispute arose almost 40 years ago and thus pertains to an era which preceded the amendment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. In its decision, the court analysed the concept of public policy and the difference between contingent contracts and frustration as a principle for voidability of contracts under the Contract Act.
The Supreme Court recently decided key issues relating to the interpretation of arbitration clauses and the scope of appealable orders under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. This judgment does an admirable job of resolving residual ambiguities regarding the issue of exclusive jurisdiction where the seat of an arbitration is situated. Notably, through its decision, the Supreme Court has specifically declared that its earlier judgment in Hardy Exploration and the Delhi High Court's decision in Antrix are incorrect.