a. In the event of there being any dispute or difference between the Parties hereto as to any clause or provision of this Agreement... or otherwise in any way relating to this Agreement such dispute or difference shall be referred to the senior management of both Parties to resolve within three (3) weeks failing which it will be referred to an Arbit[r]al Tribunal comprising of three arbitrators, one to be appointed by each party (i.e. DEVAS and ANTRIX) and the arbitrators so appointed will appoint the third arbitrator.
b. The seat of Arbitration shall be at NEW DELHI in India.
c. The Arbitration proceedings shall be held in accordance with the rules and procedures of the ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) or UNCITRAL.
f. Any decision or award made by the board of Arbitration shall be final, binding and conclusive on the Parties and entitled to be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by Laws and entered in any court of competent jurisdiction.
Agreement, Ex. 3 to Hellmann Decl. (docket no. 2-1 at 124–25).
In view of the language of Article 20 of the Arbitration Agreement which provided that the arbitration would be held in accordance with the rules and procedures of the International Chamber of Commerce or UNCITRAL, [Petitioner] was entitled to invoke the Rules of Arbitration of the ICC for the conduct of the arbitration proceedings.
Once the provisions of the ICC Rules of Arbitration had been invoked by [Petitioner], the proceedings initiated thereunder could not be interfered with [by
Respondent] in a proceeding under Section 11 of the [India Arbitration Act].
Where the parties had agreed that the procedure for the arbitration would be governed by the ICC Rules, the same would necessarily include the appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal in terms of the Arbitration Agreement and the said Rules.
Supreme Court of India Judgment, Ex. 3 to Meehan Decl. (docket no. 15-1 at 54–55).
• "The composition of the arbitral authority or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties...."; and
• "The recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of that country."New York Convention, T.I.A.S. No. 6997, art. V, §§ 1(d), 2(b). These "defenses are interpreted narrowly," and Respondent "has the burden of showing the existence of a New York Convention defense." Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Sys., Inc., 623 F.3d 832, 836 (9th Cir. 2010). The Respondent's "burden is substantial because the public policy in favor of international arbitration is strong." Id.; see Mitsubishi Motors Corps. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 631 (1985) (concluding the policy favoring arbitration "applies with special force in the field of international commerce").
(1) The Petition to Confirm Foreign Arbitral Award, docket no. 1, is GRANTED;
(2) The Court will enter Judgment in the amount of (i) the full amount of the Award, $562.5 million, together with (ii) pre-Award simple interest at the rate of three-month USD LIBOR + 4%, from February 25, 2011, to the date of the Award, September 14, 2015 ($672,791,593.75); (iii) post-Award simple interest at the rate of 18% per annum of the amounts in subsections (i) and (ii) of this Section, from the date of the Award, September 14, 2015, to the date that Judgment is entered ($331,787.64 per day); and (iv) post-Judgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961 at the rate of twelve hundredths of one percent (0.12%) per annum. See Award, Ex. 1 to Hellmann Decl. (docket no. 2-1 at 98);8(3) Any objections to the amount of the Judgment shall be filed on or before Tuesday, November 3, 2020;
(4) Each party shall bear their own legal fees and costs incurred as a result of this proceeding; and
(5) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Already registered ?