Arbitration

Representative Matters

• Successfully represented IL&FS against the Govt. of the Rajasthan, in an Arbitration, where it has attained an award in excess of INR 130 Crores for a project which started back in 2008, Bhamashah Scheme, which aimed at upliftment of women in the marginalized sections of the rural society.
• The Firm has represented a Hong-Kong based mineral resources & real estate investment group in a recently concluded arbitration in London under the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) Rules. The matter related to iron-ore export and involved complicated trade law and contractual law issues.
• The Firm represented an Indian company operating in the television production & television syndication industry in an International Chambers of Commerce (ICC) arbitration conducted in Singapore. The dispute related to the payment of facilitation fee by the client to a Mauritian entity for acquiring the television broadcast rights of the Indian Premier League.
• The Firm defended a leading American global investment Firm in arbitration proceedings conducted under the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) Rules. The dispute related to a Share Purchase Agreement. The Firm also represented the client before the Bombay High Court in related proceedings.
• Representing Air Liquide in arbitration proceedings opposite Indian Oil Corporation Limited in relation to a PMC contract entered into between the parties.
• Cairn Energy India Pty Limited: Representing Our Client in a dispute with Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India (MoPNG) with regard to interpretation of terms of a Production Sharing Contract, and certain claims raised by the MoPNG thereunder. The arbitral tribunal is presided over by a former Chief Justice of India, and comprises two retired High Court Judges as well.
• The Firm represented an Indian shareholder in its joint venture dispute with a leading German multinational company in the sportswear industry. The arbitration was conducted under the LCIA Rules in London, in two separate rounds. The first round related to determination of liability and the second round decided the valuation of shares.
• The Firm advised and represented a leading Indian real estate investment group in three multi-million SIAC arbitrations against a Norwegian multinational telecommunications company in respect of shareholders disputes in a joint-venture in the telecommunication sector. The disputes related to matters such as rights issue, enforcement of indemnity clauses and validity of the veto / affirmative rights of the minority shareholders.
• The Firm represented a Mauritian company engaged in oil exploration, drilling & production sector and other related activities against an Indian company over the wrongful plugging and abandonment of an oil well. The arbitral proceeding were conducted under the LCIA Rules. Earlier, the Firm had successfully secured appropriate interim relief from the Indian court of competent jurisdiction. The relief was subsequently extended by the arbitral tribunal. The matter was extensively negotiated and settled by the parties.
• Representing the concessionaire and the consortium of lenders in an arbitration proceeding in relation to the proposed termination by the National Highways Authority of India of the concession agreement in respect of a high visibility marquee highway project connecting the national capital, New Delhi with the satellite city of Gurgaon. The Firm is also representing the concessionaire and the consortium of lenders in court proceedings before the High Court of Delhi in a petition for interim relief in terms of a stay on the proposed termination.
• Represented United Conveyor Corporation in an arbitration proceeding in relation to disputes arising out of an EPC contract between United Conveyor Corporation and Damodar Valley Corporation in relation to defaults by Damodar Valley Corporation.
• Representing the concessionaire in an arbitration proceeding against the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation in relation to the termination of a contract for the construction and operation of a road in Maharashtra.
• Deephaven Capital Management: Successfully conducted the proceedings in a petition for interim relief filed under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 against Hindustan Oil Exploration Co., which was allowed by the Madras High Court vide Order dated 21.07.2007.
• The Firm is representing an individual client with respect to disputes arising out of a Share Purchase Agreement executed by the Client with a leading Australian Company in the travel industry under the SIAC rules.
• The Firm is representing a major Indian engineering and construction group in international construction arbitration under the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where the claim exceeds USD 25 million.
• The Firm is assisting a leading Finnish multinational communications and informational technology company in its investment dispute with the Government of India. It has advised on the claims available under the India-Finland BIT and the procedure for initiation of the arbitral proceedings.
• The Firm was closely associated with the White Industries arbitration initiated by the Australian mining and building services company under the India-Australia BIT was an expert witness for White Industries in this arbitration which resulted in an important investment treaty ruling that examined, among others, provisions on fair and equitable treatment, expropriation, MFN treatment, and free transfer of funds.
• Represented Triune Energy Services Private Limited in a domestic arbitration over an Engineering, Procurement and Management Consultancy (EPMC) Contract against a state-owned oil & gas production company. The Firm has also successfully represented the Client before the High Court of Delhi in a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for the appointment of a sole arbitrator.
• The Firm successfully defended a major financial services company in an arbitration application filed before the Delhi High Court by its Indian joint venture partner. The application was filed under Section 9 of the Indian Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) and sought an injunction restraining the client from entering into any joint venture in India without the partner’s express consent.
• Successfully represented the consortium of lenders in a petition for interim relief under the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 pending commencement of arbitration proceedings in relation to the termination of a concession agreement in respect of a project for the four laning of the Jetpur-Somnath section of a national highway in the state of Gujarat. The project was constructed and was being operated by Jetpur Somnath Tollways Private Limited, which is majority owned by Uniquest Infra Ventures Private Ltd, which in turn is indirectly majority owned by Khazanah Nasional Berhad – Government of Malaysia’s sovereign wealth fund.
• The Firm successfully represented a leading German sanitary mixer manufacturer before the Delhi High Court and resisted proceedings filed by certain Indian joint venture constituents against the client. The proceedings were commenced under Sections 9 and 11 of the Act, seeking interim relief and appointment of Arbitrator respectively. The matter was ultimately settled.
• The Firm successfully instituted proceedings on behalf of the Dutch investment arm of a well-known Israeli cables and wires supplier against its Indian joint venture partners. The proceedings were filed before the Delhi High Court under Sections 9 and 11 of the Act, seeking interim relief and appointment of Arbitrator respectively.
• Second Vivekananda Bridge Tollway Company Pvt. Ltd.: Successfully resisted proceedings filed by the EPC Contractor (a premier construction Company of India dealing with infrastructural projects) against our Client before the Calcutta High Court under Section 9 and 11 of the Indian Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim injunctive relief and appointment of Arbitrator respectively.
• The Firm represented an Indian food products manufacturer in its dispute with its Danish joint venture partner. The Firm successfully obtained a permanent injunction before the Indian court against initiation of any arbitration proceedings before the SIAC. In addition, the Firm also challenged the jurisdiction of the tribunal before the SIAC.
• The Firm successfully represented a foreign company in a breakthrough appeal before the Supreme Court of India challenging an Indian High Court order that sustained objections to a foreign award under that part of Indian law which governs domestic arbitration. The resulting judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Service, Inc. overruled its previous judgments and confined the interference of Indian courts only to those international commercial arbitrations which are seated in India.
• The Firm advised a leading Indian engineering and construction company in initiating arbitration proceedings before the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce. The underlying dispute relates to an Engineering, Procurement and Construction Contract awarded to the client to establish a coal-fired power plant in Senegal.
• Representing the EPC contractor in an arbitration proceeding against – the National Highways Authority of India relating to a dispute relating to a project for the four-laning of a large section of the Kalka – Shimla highway in the state of Himachal Pradesh. the National Highways Authority of India in relation to a dispute relating to a project for the two-laning with paved shoulders of the Lambia – Raipur section of National Highway 458 in the state of Rajasthan. its sub-contractor in a dispute arising out of a contract for the provision of civil works for conveyors, transfer towers and yard machines at a port in South India.
• Gangavaram Port Limited, which is responsible for the management and operation of the Gangavaram Port in Vishakapatnam, in a dispute relating to the development and expansion works at the Gangavaram Port.
• The Firm advised a major European defence contractor on the initiation of arbitration proceedings against an Indian state-owned aerospace and defence company. The dispute related to the wrongful termination of the procurement contract by the Indian party with the arbitration to be conducted under the ICC rules with the seat in India. In addition, the Firm advised the client on all aspects of the dispute.
• The Firm advised the Indian subsidiary of an American multinational technology company, specialising in Internet-related services, in drafting dispute resolution clauses contemplating international arbitration of disputes relating to its online advertising programme.
• Unitech Limited: Advising and representing Unitech in a multi-million international arbitration against Telenor in respect of shareholders disputes, inter alia, pertaining to Rights issue, indemnity clause and veto/afFirmative rights of Unitech.
• Represented Huawei in its disputes with Videocon related to certain payments regarding supply of equipments and other issues. Also the Firm handled matters before Bombay High Court and Arbitral Tribunals, consisting of retired Supreme Court judges.
• M/s Hero FinCorp Private Limited: The Firm represented Hero before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court on whether the proceedings under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be initiated together. Hero had advanced a loan to a Company against mortgage of certain immoveable properties. Since a default occurred on behalf of the Borrower, Hero initiated action under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
• Representing Duro Felguera (contractor) in an arbitration proceeding against the employer in relation to a dispute in connection with the invocation of a corporate guarantee given by it for certain expansion works for a port project.
• Avenue Asia: Advised the Client on the Share Purchase Agreement and corporate restructuring through complex cross negotiations and successfully represented and defended the Client in arbitration proceedings under the SIAC rules, as well as in Bombay High Court, in a challenge made by the counter party while refusing to abide by the settlement made.
• Sancorp Confectionary Private Ltd: Advised and represented the Client in relation to a dispute arising under Joint Venture Agreement. The Firm successfully filed a suit on behalf of Client seeking permanent injunction restraining the counter party from pursuing any arbitration proceedings before the SIAC against Sancorp under the terms of the JVA. In addition, the Firm also challenged the jurisdiction of the SIAC by way of filing an application before the SIAC.
• Global Wire BV: Successfully instituted proceedings against the Indian Group comprising Global Signals Cables (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others (the joint venture partners) before the Delhi High Court under Sections 9 and 11 of the Indian Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim injunctive relief and appointment of Arbitrator respectively.
• Hansa Metallwerke AG: Successfully resisted proceedings filed by the Indian joint venture constituents comprising Mr. Sanjay Khanna and others against our Client before the Delhi High Court under Sections 9 and 11 of the Indian Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim injunctive relief and appointment of Arbitrator respectively. The matter was ultimately settled between the parties.
• Headstrong Corporation: The Firm filed a Section 9 petition against Headstrong Worldwide Limited (a subsidiary of Headstrong Corporation). Successfully defended an interim application filed by Mr. Satish Jha against HWL seeking an injunction, till conclusion of arbitral proceedings, restraining HWL from entering into any joint venture in India, without his express consent.
• General Nice Group: This London seated international commercial arbitration under the aegis of London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) is being handled by the Firm. The matter involved complicated trade as well as contractual law issues.
• Punj Lloyd: Representing Punj Lloyd Ltd. in its arbitration claims against Ramaprastha Builders Ltd. involving a claim exceeding USD 25 million as well as before the Company Law Board in respect of shareholders disputes.
• Rahul Nath: Advised the Client with respect to disputes arising out of the Share Purchase Agreement executed by the Client with a leading Australian Company dealing in travel business. Actively representing the Client before the Hon’ble Company Law Board and in the arbitration proceedings before the SIAC.
• Representing Felguera Gruas India in an arbitration proceeding against its sub-contractor in relation to disputes arising out of three contracts for providing on-shore services and (on-shore and imported) supplies for the coal conveyor package and stacker cum reclaimer for the Northern Coal Handling System at the Krishnapatnam Port.
• Focus Oil & Gas Ltd.: The Firm successfully represented as a defendant in a claim by Reebok, in arbitration before the London Court of International Arbitration.
• Multi-Screen Media Singapore (MSMS): MSMS had been granted media rights relating to telecast over television of matches of the Indian Premier League by the BCCI in the year 2008, and the agreement between the parties was subsequently terminated by Mr. Lalit Modi, the then IPL Commissioner. The facilitation deed contained a dispute resolution clause according to which all disputes were to be submitted to the International Chamber of Commerce for final and binding arbitration under its Rules of Arbitration, to be held in Singapore before a single arbitrator.
• The Firm assisted a leading US multinational in the glass and automotive industry in arbitral proceedings arising out of a Joint Venture dispute related to Foreign Direct Investment in India. The Respondent is a leading Industrial house in India. The Firm also represented the Client in related proceedings before various High Courts in India.
• Arbitration proceedings instituted on behalf of a leading distribution house in India against a premier Chinese business group, relating to disputes arising out of taking over of a subsidiary and exclusive distributorship rights, pending before a retired Chief Justice of India. Incidentally, an off-shoot of this matter, a petition was filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Delhi High Court.
• Successfully resisted arbitration proceedings on behalf of a leading Indian business conglomerate against a Japanese unincorporated Company, arising out of disputes relating to an engineering, procurement and construction contract (EPC Contract) between the parties. The Firm filed counter-claims in the said proceedings. The proceedings were finally disposed off as compromised by an Arbitral Tribunal consisting of two retired Chief Justices of India and one retired Judge of the Delhi High Court.
• Arbitration proceedings instituted on behalf of a Mauritius Company engaged in oil exploration, drilling, production and other related activities against an Indian based Company, relating to wrongful plugging and abandonment of an oil well. The arbitral proceedings, governed by the LCIA rules. Earlier, the Firm had successfully secured the valuable rights of the Client by getting appropriate interim relief from the Indian Court of competent jurisdiction, which was subsequently extended by the Arbitral Tribunal. The matter was extensively negotiated and settled between the parties.
• Arbitration proceedings instituted on behalf of a Netherlands incorporated Company, which is a subsidiary of an Israeli Company, against its Joint Venture partner in India. Pursuant to constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal, the matter was withdrawn under instructions. Simultaneously, related proceedings filed before the Indian Court of competent jurisdiction, wherein various interim reliefs were sought and granted, was also withdrawn.
• Representing an Australian Company, engaged in the business of oil and gas exploration, and its partners in arbitral proceedings against the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, challenging certain illegal recoveries. The Arbitral Tribunal consists of a Retired Chief Justice of India, a retired Chief Justice of an Indian High Court and a retired High Court Judge.
• Successfully represented a leading German based Company, which is one of the world leaders in sanitary ware and fittings, against the Indian constituents of a Joint Venture Company. In the said matters, the Indian constituents filed two petitions under Section 9 and 11 of the Indian Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for interim relief and appointment of Arbitrator respectively, which were vehemently contested on various grounds including maintainability. The matter has been amicably settled between the parties.
• Representing a US based global leader in global consultancy providing clients with value-based solutions across Consulting, Application Outsourcing, Product Development Services and Business Process Outsourcing in its arbitration proceedings with its Indian Joint Venture partner, presided over by a retired High Court Judge. In connected proceedings, the Delhi High Court imposed exemplary and unparalleled costs upon the Indian Joint Venture partner and vacated the interim relief initially granted in his favour and against the Firm’s Client.