"I realise that some of my criticisms may be mistaken; but to refuse to criticize judgements for fear of being mistaken is to abandon criticism altogether... If any of my criticisms are found to be correct, the cause is served; and if any are found to be incorrect the very process of finding out my mistakes must lead to the discovery of the right reasons, or better reasons than I have been able to give, and the cause is served just as well."

-Mr. HM Seervai, Preface to the 1st ed., Constitutional Law of India.

Monday, August 28, 2017

Has Sumitomo Been Overruled by BALCO? A Resounding Yes!

Sumitomo v ONGC  (04.12.1997: Supreme Court of India) was a pre-1996 Act case which laid down the law on the law governing challenge to arbitral awards. The case really reflects the debate in international commercial arbitration as to the law which governs challenge to arbitral awards. Some theorists were of the view that it is the law governing the arbitration agreement which deals with the law of challenge while some are of the view that it is the law of the seat. 

In this post, we present the idea that Sumitomo has been overruled on the issue that the court was asked to adjudicate upon: Whether proceedings challenging an arbitral award are governed by the law of the seat or the law of the arbitration agreement? 

To recap the facts briefly, Sumitomo and ONGC agreed that Indian laws would govern their contractual relationships and London would be the seat of arbitration in case of disputes. The parties did not designate the law of the arbitration agreement. Disputes arose and led to an arbitral award which was in favour of Sumitomo. ONGC challenged the arbitral award in India. Sumitomo objected stating that English courts alone had the jurisdiction to set aside the arbitral award. ONGC argued otherwise and was successful before the Bombay High Court. 

On appeal, the Supreme Court decided in favour of ONGC and held that once the arbitral award was passed, the curial law ceased to operate and the law of the arbitration agreement governed the setting aside proceedings. The court based its conclusion on two grounds. The first was Mustill & Boyd's book on English arbitration and the second was the fact that the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961 did not apply where the arbitral award was made under an arbitration agreement governed by Indian law. 

Section 9 of the 1961 Act provided:
"Saving. Nothing in this Act shall-(a) prejudice any rights which any person would have had of enforcing in India of any award or of availing himself in India of any award if this Act had not been passed; or(b) apply to any award made on an arbitration agreement governed by the law of India."
(emphasis supplied)
Taking the aforesaid provision into consideration, the three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held:
"The proceedings before the arbitrator commence when he enters upon the reference and conclude with the making of the award. As the work by Mustill and Boyd aforementioned puts, it with the making of a valid award the arbitrator's authority, powers and duties in the reference come to an end and he is "functus officio" (page 404). The arbitrator is not obliged by law to file his award in court but he may be asked by the party seeking to enforce the award to do so. The need to file an award in court arises only if it is required to be enforced, and the need to challenge it arises if it being enforced. The enforcement process is subsequent to and independent of the proceedings before the arbitrator. It is not governed by the curial or procedural law that governed the procedure that the arbitrator followed in the conduct of the arbitrator.
By reason of Section 9(b), the 1961 Act does not apply to any award made on an arbitration agreement governed by the law of India. The 1961 Act, therefore, does not apply to the arbitration agreement between the appellant and the first respondent. The 1940 Act, applies to it and, by reason of Section 14(2) thereof, the courts in India are entitled to receive the award made by the second respondent."
Thus, the choice of law rule that the three-judge Bench relied upon was that the proceedings for challenging the arbitral award and the grounds therefor were governed by the law of the arbitration agreement and not by the law of the seat. 

It is important to note that the aforesaid judugement was passed in the pre-1996 Act regime. Under the 1996 Act, the provision analogous to Section 9 of the 1961 Act does not deal with the law of the arbitration agreement. Section 51 of the 1996 Act states:

"Saving.—Nothing in this Chapter shall prejudice any rights which any person would have had of enforcing in India of any award or of availing himself in India of any award if this Chapter had not been enacted."

There is no clause in the aforesaid provision similar to Section 9(b) of the 1961 Act. Further, Section 44 makes Chapter I (New York Convention Awards) of Part II (Enforcement of Certain Foreign Awards) applicable on the basis of territoriality, as provided in Section 44(b), which reads:

"Definition.—In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires, “foreign award” means an arbitral award on differences between persons arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, considered as commercial under the law in force in India, made on or after the 11th day of October, 1960—
(a) in pursuance of an agreement in writing for arbitration to which the Convention set forth in the First Schedule applies, and
(b) in one of such territories as the Central Government, being satisfied that reciprocal provisions have been made may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be territories to which the said Convention applies." (emphasis supplied)

Similar provisions are contained in Sections 53 and 60, which deal with Geneva Convention Awards. 

Further, the seat as the principal jurisdiction that would govern challenge proceedings has been authoritatively laid down by the five judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Bharat Aluminium v. Kaiser Aluminium (06.09.2012: Supreme Court of India). The Supreme Court held:
"120. Upon consideration of the entire matter, it was observed that - "In these circumstances it is clear to me that the law with which the agreement to arbitrate has its closest and most real connection is the law of the seat of arbitration, namely, the law of England". (Para 14). It was thereafter concluded by the High Court that English Law is the proper law of the agreement to arbitrate. (Para 15)
121. The legal position that emerges from a conspectus of all the decisions, seems to be, that the choice of another country as the seat of arbitration inevitably imports an acceptance that the law of that country relating to the conduct and supervision of arbitrations will apply to the proceedings.122. It would, therefore, follow that if the arbitration agreement is found or held to provide for a seat / place of arbitration outside India, then the provision that the Arbitration Act, 1996 would govern the arbitration proceedings, would not make Part I of the Arbitration Act, 1996 applicable or enable Indian Courts to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitration or the award. It would only mean that the parties have contractually imported from the Arbitration Act, 1996, those provisions which are concerned with the internal conduct of their arbitration and which are not inconsistent with the mandatory provisions of the English Procedural Law/Curial Law. This necessarily follows from the fact that Part I applies only to arbitrations having their seat / place in India.
The words "suspended or set aside", in Clause (e) of Section 48(1) can not be interpreted to mean that, by necessary implication, the foreign award sought to be enforced in India can also be challenged on merits in Indian Courts. The provision merely recognizes that courts of the two nations which are competent to annul or suspend an award. It does not ipso facto confer jurisdiction on such Courts for annulment of an award made outside the country. Such jurisdiction has to be specifically provided, in the relevant national legislation of the country in which the Court concerned is located. So far as India is concerned, the Arbitration Act, 1996 does not confer any such jurisdiction on the Indian Courts to annul an international commercial award made outside India. Such provision exists in Section 34, which is placed in Part I. Therefore, the applicability of that provision is limited to the awards made in India. If the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants are accepted, it would entail incorporating the provision contained in Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, which is placed in Part I of the Arbitration Act, 1996 into Part II of the said Act. This is not permissible as the intention of the Parliament was clearly to confine the powers of the Indian Courts to set aside an award relating to international commercial arbitrations, which take place in India.
Therefore, the word "suspended/set aside" in Section 48(1)(e) cannot be interpreted to mean that, by necessary implication, the foreign awards sought to be enforced in India can also be challenged on merits in Indian Courts. The provision only means that Indian Courts would recognize as a valid defence in the enforcement proceedings relating to a foreign award, if the Court is satisfied that the award has been set aside in one of the two countries, i.e., the "first alternative" or the "second alternative.
148. The consistent view of the international commentators seems to be that the "second alternative" refers to the procedural law of the arbitration rather than "law governing the arbitration agreement" or "underlying contract". This is even otherwise evident from the phrase "under the law, that award was made", which refers to the process of making the award (i.e., the arbitration proceeding), rather than to the formation or validity of the arbitration agreement
The aforesaid quote clearly establishes the choice of law rule that it is the law of the seat of the arbitration which governs setting aside proceedings and not the law of the arbitration agreement. One could argue that Sumitomo still stood as a precedent for the pre-1996 Act position. Sumitomo was also relied on prior to BALCO [See, Dozco v. Doosan (2011) 6 SCC 179 & Videocon v. Union of India AIR 2011 SC 2040]. It is submitted that Sumitomo should be deemed implicitly overruled for the reason that Sumitomo's conclusion that it is the law of the arbitration agreement and not the curial law that governs challenge proceedings was made independent of Section 9(b) which has not been incorporated under the 1996 Act.
It may be noted that BALCO (2012) did not rely on or consider Sumitomo. Curiously, BALCO II (2016) (a three judge Bench) did rely on Sumitomo at Para 5:
"Party autonomy being the brooding and guiding spirit in arbitration, the parties are free to agree on application of three different laws governing their entire contract-(1) proper law of contract, (2) proper law of arbitration agreement and (3) proper law of the conduct of arbitration, which is popularly and in legal parlance known as curial law. The interplay and application of these different laws to an arbitration has been succinctly explained by this Court in Sumitomo Heavy Industries Limited v. ONGC Limited and Ors. (1998) 1 SCC 305, which is one of the earliest decisions in that direction and which has been consistently followed in all the subsequent decisions including the recent Reliance Industries Limited and Anr. v. Union of India (2014) 7 SCC 603." (emphasis supplied)
BALCO II (2016) also acknowledged that Sumitomo was an authority for the proposition that in the absence of a choice of the law of the arbitration agreement, the choice of law governing the contract will also mean that the law of the arbitration agreement is chosen. To this extent, reliance on Sumitomo was correct. But the reliance in BALCO II (2016) on Sumitomo for the interplay between the law of the contract, of the arbitration agreement, and the lex arbitri (as quoted and emphasised above) is wholly wrong because such reliance contradicts with BALCO (2012).

In view of the above, the law governing challenge proceedings is not the law of the arbitration agreement but is the law of the seat. It is possible that both these laws could be the same. For instance, parties might agree that the seat of the arbitration is London and the law governing the arbitration agreement is English law but might agree on Indian laws to govern the contract (excluding the arbitration agreement). In such a case, English law will govern the setting aside proceedings not because English law is the law governing the arbitration agreement but because English law is the lex arbitri owing to the choice of London as the arbitral seat. 

Saturday, August 5, 2017

Raj TV v Thaicom, Madras High Court & Choice of Law

On 14.07.2017, a two-judge Bench of the High Court of Madras passed a judgement in the case of Raj TV v Thaicom (OSA No. 113/2017 & CMP 7665/2017)(MANU/TN/2117/2017). The judgement deals with choice of law in international arbitration and is an important reason why commercial Benches are to be set up in the Madras High Court and in the State of Tamil Nadu. In this post, we will not be doing a detailed case comment on the decision but will identify certain portions of the judgement which are erroneous and require correction.

To give a brief factual background, the dispute arose out of a Transponder Service Agreement entered into between the parties in 2003. Clause 19 of the Agreement provided that the agreement, rights and responsibilities of the contracting parties, including any dispute, controversy, or claims arising out of the said contract or breach shall be subject to and construed according to Singaporean laws. Clause 23 provided that all disputes shall be referred to arbitration to be held in Singapore under UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.

From Clause 19, it could be inferred that the substantive law of contract was Singaporean law. Further, since the seat was agreed to be Singapore, the lex arbitri or the law governing arbitration was Singaporean law. But what about the law of the arbitration agreement? Note that Clause 19 comprehensively covered all aspects of the Agreement such as rights, responsibilities, disputes, controversies, and claims, etc. Given this, the law of arbitration agreement, which was nothing but a clause in the Agreement, was Singaporean law. It is a presumption that where the arbitration clause forming a part of the agreement the law of the arbitration agreement is same as that of the agreement. Note that the latest law on international commercial arbitration provides for a three fold test in determining the law of the arbitration agreement. The below quoted portion of this post apltly sums the current legal position:
"[I]n the absence of any indication to the contrary, parties are assumed to have intended the whole of their relationship to be governed by the same system of law, and the natural inference is that the proper law of the main contract should also govern the arbitration agreement. While seat choice could be a mitigating factor, it would be insufficient in and of itself to negate this presumption."
The aforesaid post also neatly summarises the legal position under the English and the Singaporean laws. Even the Indian postition is similar to this, as can be seen from this post. The Indian position can be summarised as below, as noted in the said blog post:
  • In the absence of express choice of the law of arbitration agreement, the choice of the proper law of the contract will also govern the arbitration clause.
  • However, in exceptional circumstances, even if the proper law of the contract is chosen, such may not be the law of the arbitration agreement where the agreement is silent.
  • Where neither the proper law of contract nor the proper law of arbitration agreement is chosen, it would be presumed that the latter would be the seat of arbitration.
Contrary to the prevailing international and the Indian legal position, the Madras High Court held that it was the law of the seat which determined the law of the arbitration agreement in the aforesaid factual situation. Although the conclusion that the Singaporean law was the law of the arbitration agreement was correct, the reasoning was wholly errenous as the High Court relied on the choice of seat as being determinative but the correct position was that the choice of the substantive law of contract determined the law of the arbitration agreement in this case. Further, the court seems to have held that curial law (that is, the law governing the arbitration) was the same as the law of the arbitration agreement, which is not the case: See the quoted portions of the judgement containing the errors:
"4(q)... In other words, it is not in dispute that the seat of arbitration is Singapore. Therefore, there can be no two views or dispute about the fact that the 'proper law' for the 'arbitration agreement' is Singaporean law. In other words, the Curial Law is Singaporean Law."...
"4(v)(i) (i) While proper law for arbitration agreement (Curial Law) is indisputably Singaporean Law, what is the proper law for the contract qua the said contract dated 10.9.2003?" ... 
(issues framed by the court)(emphasis supplied)
"4(z) In our opinion, this makes the task very simple and easy. The reason is, Curial Law or proper law for the arbitration agreement is directly evident (not even inferred) from the agreed seat of arbitration. The moment contracting parties agree on the seat of arbitration, it goes without saying that proper law for the arbitration agreement shall be the law of land, which is the seat of arbitration." 
This reasoning is faulty and is also against settled Indian precedents and the international position.

On another related note, administration of justice in the State of Tamil Nadu has not been upto the mark. The High Court is a typical case. The website of the High Court is one of the most user unfriendly ones in India. The Cause-Lists are uploaded only at 2230/2300 hrs for the next day making it absolutely inconvenient for litigants and even lawyers. The icing in the cake is the failure by the High Court to set up Commercial Benches. For some time, the Court could give the excuse of the lack of Bench strength. But now there are enough judges. Even so, it is perplexing why the Court has not set up even a single Commercial Bench. 

Thursday, August 3, 2017

NLSIR Announcement

(NLSIR Announcement is below)

The National Law School of India Review

Submission Guidelines

The National Law School of India Review (NLSIR) is now accepting submissions for its upcoming issue – Volume 30(1). The NLSIR is the flagship law review of the National Law School of India University, Bangalore, India. The NLSIR is a bi-annual, student edited, peer-reviewed law journal providing incisive legal scholarship on issues that are at the forefront of contemporary legal discourse. For more than 25 years, the NLSIR has regularly featured articles authored by judges of the Indian Supreme Court, senior counsels practicing at the Indian bar, and several renowned academics from national and foreign universities.
The most recent volume of the NLSIR, Vol. 29 will feature contributions by Professor M.G. Bridge, Cassel Professor of Commercial Law at London School of Economics and Professor of Law, National University of Singapore, and Professor Richard Pierce, the Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law at George Washington University, among several others. Moreover, in August 2009, NLSIR attained the unique distinction of being the only Indian student-run law journal to be cited by the Supreme Court of India, in Action Committee, Un-Aided Private Schools v. Director of Education. NLSIR has also recently been cited in Justice R. S. Bachawat’s Law of Arbitration and Conciliation, a leading treatise on arbitration law in India.

Papers may be submitted under the following categories:

1.      Long Articles: Between 5000 and 8000 words, inclusive of footnotes. Papers in this category are expected to engage with the theme and literature comprehensively, and offer an innovative reassessment of the current understanding of that theme. It is advisable, though not necessary, to choose a theme that is of contemporary importance. Purely theoretical pieces are also welcome.
2.      Essays: Between 3000 and 5000 words, inclusive of footnotes. Essays are far more concise in scope. These papers usually deal with a very specific issue, and argue that the issue must be conceptualized differently. They are more engaging, and make a more easily identifiable, concrete argument.
3.      Case Notes and Legislative Comments: Between 1500 and 2500 words, inclusive of footnotes. This is an analysis of any contemporary judicial pronouncement or a new piece of legislation whether in India or elsewhere. The note must identify and examine the line of cases in which the decision in question came about, and comment on implications for the evolution of that branch of law. In case of legislative comment the note must analyze the objective of the legislation and the legal impact the same is expected to have.
Authors are requested to note that pieces engaging with a foreign theme or legal development, in any of the above categories, should also explain its relevance in the Indian context, whether by virtue of similar laws or otherwise.
Formatting and Citation Guidelines
The body of the manuscript should be in Times New Roman, font size 12 with double line spacing. The footnotes should be in Times New Roman, font size 10 with single line spacing.
The manuscript should contain only footnotes (and not end notes) as a method of citation. Citations must conform to the Bluebook (20th edn.) style of citation.
How to submit?
The NLSIR only accepts electronic submissions. Submissions may be emailed to mail.nlsir@gmail.com under the subject heading “30(1) NLSIR – Submissions.” All submissions must contain the following:
1.      The manuscript in doc.x format. The manuscript should not contain the name of the author or his/ her institutional affiliation or any other identification mark.
2.      A cover letter containing the name of the author, professional information, the title of the manuscript, and contact information.
3.      All manuscripts must also contain an abstract of not more than 150 words.
The last date for submissions to Volume 30(1) is November 1, 2017.
More Information
For more information on NLSIR, please log on to www.nlsir.com.
Subscribe to the NLSIR
You can subscribe to the NLSIR at:

Monday, July 24, 2017

PF Act, Contract Labourers & Principal Employer

Doubts are often expressed by Principal Employers on their liability vis-a-vis the Contract Labourers engaged in the Principal Employer's Establishment through Contractors. Strictly speaking, for the purposes of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the term "Establishment" is relevant. Seen in its truest spirit, the PF Act calls for determination of the number of employees not on the basis of the number of direct employees of the Principal Employer alone but also the Contract Labourers. Consequently, it does not matter if the Contractor does not employ on his rolls 20 persons (and therefore claims exemption from the PF Act). Therefore, it is in the interest of the Principal Employer to specifically provide or agree upon in the Contract with the Contractor at the time of contract negotiations that the Contractor has to pay the PF for his workers as well.

Some courts have held that if the Contractor has his own code, then he, not the Principal Employer" is the Establishment (and the Employer). Although this is convenient for Principal Employers (and seems to find courts' acceptance), the PF Act per se does not recognise this aspect. The PF Act places the burden on the Principal Employer provided the Contract workers work in the premises of the Principal Employer. The PF authorities have tried to distinguish these judgements.

So long as the total number of employees (including Contract Labour) working in the Establishment crosses the 20 persons threshold, the Principal Employer (and not the Contractor) is obligated to comply with the PF Act. 

In a recent circular (No. C-I/3(19)2016/Clarification/ECR/7357, Dated 21.07.2017) by the PF authorities pertaining to separate PF Code and payment mechanism for employees working in multiple locations, the PF Authorities have stated that a facility has now been provided "to such employers to furnish their location-wise employees’ particulars." This will only support the arguments of the Principal Employers that even such Contract Labourers work in their premises, the "Establishment" will refer to that of the Contractor and not the Principal Employer.