Pueblo Holding Limited v. Emirates Trading Agency.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Pueblo Holdings Limited the petitioner of the case is a company incorporated under the laws of Marshall Islands. The petitioner to seek an order for the implementation of the foreign awards on 19th April 2018 approached the Supreme Court of Mauritius. The Supreme Court of Mauritius passed an order on 2nd May 2018, by which the petitioner was able to obtain a Mareva injunction, which was granted by the Supreme Court of Mauritius.
In support of the injunction application, evidence was furnished, showing the companies which held the shares. The Petitioner from the Madras High Court on 2nd November 2018, obtained an order for the execution of the foreign awards against the defendant.
Thus, the petitioner filed an execution petition instantly before the Madras High Court to seek attachment, shares of the defendant, and sale of debts of the defendant which is located in India for the execution of foreign arbitral awards which was dated 9th April 2017 and 6th August 2017 respectively.
ISSUE OF THE CASE:
The issues before the Madras High Court of this case were
- Whether the court having jurisdiction for execution is the court within whose jurisdiction the assets/shares are located or the registered office of the company which has issued those shares.
- Whether a foreign award holder can maintain multiple execution proceedings before different courts.
JUDGMENT OF THE CASE:
The Madras High Court observed that Part II, Chapter I of the Arbitration Act deals with enforcement of certain foreign awards, as per that, a party holding an international award is entitled to use in any jurisdiction within the world, where, the assets of the defaulting party are located for recognition and enforcement of the award. Further, the court also noted that if the petitioner or defendant of the case receives a binding award from a particular country, which may be a signatory to the New York Convention or the Geneva Convention and therefore the award is formed within the territory, which has been notified by India as a convention country, the award would be enforceable in India.
The court, while handling the primary issue, held that, merely because Defendant that's the award debtor has its registered office in Dubai, it can't be stated that the execution proceedings are maintainable only in Dubai. It is hospitable the Petitioner, that is, the decree-holder to execute the award within the jurisdiction, where the assets of the Defendant are located.
The Madras High Court, thus, held that: -
“in any dispute between a company or a corporation and shareholders, the jurisdiction would be with the Court where the registered office of the corporation or company is situated, whereas, any disputes between a third party over the shares held within the company, the jurisdiction would vest with the Court, where the sharers are located.”
While deciding upon the second issue, the court observed that when a party in enforcing the award in execution, which is a foreign award, it has a choice of country and it's hospitable the decree-holder to travel forum-shopping supported the situation of the assets of the award-debtor.
The Madras supreme court thus, concluded that there's no iota of doubt that the competent court for applying for enforcement of a far off award is before the court in whose jurisdiction the assets of the award-debtor are located and further noted that, when the assets of the judgment-debtor are located in various territorial jurisdictions, the award holder can file simultaneously in all of such courts and the principle of forum non-convenience will not apply to execution proceedings qua foreign awards.
This Article Does Not Intend To Hurt The Sentiments Of Any Individual Community, Sect, Or Religion Etcetera. This Article Is Based Purely On The Authors Personal Views And Opinions In The Exercise Of The Fundamental Right Guaranteed Under Article 19(1)(A) And Other Related Laws Being Force In India, For The Time Being.