Brazil accedes to United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG)

VIENNA, 5 March (UN Information Service) - With its accession to the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), Brazil becomes the 79th State Party to the Convention. The Convention will enter into force for Brazil on 1 April 2014.

The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods provides an equitable and modern uniform framework for the contract of sale, which is the backbone of international trade in all countries, irrespective of their legal tradition or level of economic development. The CISG is therefore considered to be one of the core conventions in international trade law.

The Convention, which has been adopted by a large number of major trading countries, establishes a comprehensive code of legal rules governing the formation of contracts for the international sale of goods, the obligations of the buyer and seller, remedies for breach of contract and other aspects of the contract. Further information on the CISG is available on the UNCITRAL website at www.uncitral.org.

Source:  http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrels/2013/unisl182.html

Recourse against an international arbitration award made in Singapore

• By Darius Chan, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP

In Astro Nusantara International BV v PT Ayunda Prima Mitra [2012] SGHC 212, the Singapore High Court set out the available recourse against an international arbitration award made in Singapore. This case has significant implications for Singapore as a seat of arbitration, and this note contrasts the position between Singapore and Hong Kong against the backdrop of this case.

In October 2008, after a failed joint venture, the Claimants, which belonged to the Astro group of companies of Malaysia, commenced arbitration in Singapore against the Respondents, which belonged to the Lippo group of companies of Indonesia. In May 2009, the tribunal first issued an award on jurisdiction upholding its jurisdiction over the Respondents. Subsequently, the tribunal issued four other awards on the substantive merits of the case, largely in favour of the Claimants.

The Claimants obtained leave to enforce these awards in Singapore (“the Enforcement Orders”). These Enforcements Orders were then purportedly served on the Respondents in Indonesia. After expiry of the period to set aside the Enforcement Orders, judgments were rendered against the Respondents.

The Respondents brought applications to set aside the judgments and for leave to apply to set aside the enforcement orders on the grounds of improper service. The Respondents also brought applications to challenge the enforcement of the awards, which rested on the ground that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to join three Astro companies to the arbitration in the first place.

In light of the complexity of the issues raised by these applications, the Singapore High Court granted permission for Astro to be represented by David Joseph QC, and for Lippo to be represented by Toby Landau QC.

This note focuses on the issues arising out of the challenge to the Enforcement Orders.  The relevant legislative background is that Singapore adopted in its International Arbitration Act:

(a) Art 16 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (“Model Law”), which provides, among other things, that a tribunal can rule on jurisdiction as a preliminary issue, which a party may seek curial review of within 30 days; and

(b) Art 34 of the Model Law, which provides for, among other things, the setting aside of an award on stipulated grounds within 30 days; but not

(c) Arts 35 and 36 of the Model Law, which deal with the refusal of recognition or enforcement of an award. The Legislature preferred the enforcement regime of foreign awards to be governed by the New York Convention due to reciprocity concerns. Hong Kong has also similarly excluded Arts 35 and 36.

The central issue was whether the Respondents were entitled to invoke lack of jurisdiction as a ground to resist enforcement when they did not make any prior applications under Art 16 or 34 of the Model Law. As of the date of the Enforcement Orders, the prescribed timelines in Art 16 and 34 had long expired.

The Singapore High Court laid down several principles, which can be summarized as follows:

(a) In relation to an international arbitration award made in Singapore, the unsuccessful party does not have the option of remaining passive by resisting recognition and enforcement only when enforcement proceedings are brought in Singapore.  The only possible recourse against an international award made in Singapore is a pro-active application to set aside the award on one of the prescribed grounds within the statutory timeframe.

(b) If the award is allegedly tainted by fraud or a breach of the rules of natural justice, there is a possibility that a court may extend the time frame for bring a setting aside application to prevent injustice.

(c) A challenge of an international award made in Singapore on jurisdictional grounds may be revived where enforcement is being sought in a court other than that of Singapore. For example, it is open to an unsuccessful party to invoke lack of jurisdiction before the courts of another New York Convention state as a means of resisting the recognition and enforcement of an international award made in Singapore. However, the enforcement court may not permit the unsuccessful party to revive a jurisdictional objection because of that party’s conduct and failure to raise the objection before the curial court.

(d) In relation to a ruling on jurisdiction heard as a preliminary question, the unsuccessful party similarly does not have the liberty of challenging its enforcement only when enforcement proceedings are brought in Singapore. If the unsuccessful party does not subject the ruling on jurisdiction to curial review within the statutory timeline and continues participation in the arbitration, the ruling on jurisdiction is no longer susceptible to challenge.

The Singapore High Court’s holding sets Singapore apart from Hong Kong. In Hong Kong, an unsuccessful party retains its “passive” remedy against an award made in Hong Kong, ie, instead of applying to set aside the award pro-actively, the unsuccessful party can resist enforcement when enforcement is sought before the Hong Kong courts.

The Singapore High Court’s holding may arguably provide a disincentive for commercial parties to choose Singapore as a seat of arbitration.  The extent of disincentive in each case may differ. But in terms of general risk management, a corporation facing the possibility of enforcement proceedings in Singapore may be more comfortable designating a seat of arbitration that would give it both “active” (ie, setting aside) and “passive” remedies in the face of an unfavourable award.

As mentioned, although Hong Kong, like Singapore, has eschewed Art 36 of the Model Law, Hong Kong permits an unsuccessful party to resist the enforcement of an award made in Hong Kong.

Section 86 of Hong Kong’s Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) provides the grounds upon which an Hong Kong award may be refused enforcement in Hong Kong.  Section 86 is a new provision that came into force on 1 June 2011. It largely adopts the grounds in Art V of the New York Convention, with an additional ground that a court may refuse to enforce an award “for any other reason the court considers it just to do so.”

Prior to the enactment of section 86, the enforcement of Hong Kong awards in Hong Kong was regulated by s 2GG of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 341, since repealed).  The prevalent view of writers on the interpretation of s 2GG was that, instead of bringing an application to set aside the award, an unsuccessful party could resist the enforcement of an Hong Kong award in Hong Kong when enforcement proceedings were brought, and that the Hong Kong courts may refuse to enforce a Hong Kong award only on grounds similar to Art 34 of the Model Law.  The enactment of s 86 of the Arbitration Ordinance on 1 June 2011 removed any uncertainty on what those grounds would be.  Prior to the case at hand, Singapore writers held a similar view on the position in Singapore.

Whether the case at hand would be overturned on appeal remains to be seen. Since the relevant provisions in Singapore’s International Arbitration Act contain language very similar to s 2GG of Hong Kong’s Arbitration Ordinance, it may be arguable that the International Arbitration Act should be read in the same way writers had interpreted s 2GG, ie, it allows an unsuccessful party to resist the enforcement of an international award made in Singapore.

 Fonte: http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/blog/2012/11/23/recourse-against-an-international-arbitration-award-made-in-singapore/

Australia targets international arbitration

Australia is upping the ante in an increasingly competitive field, says Doug Jones

 

International arbitration hub

Like many countries in Asia, Australia has been working hard to promote itself as an arbitration hub. In line with this, the Australian Government has undertaken a number of reforms, in conjunction with Australia's various arbitration institutions, in an attempt to ensure that Australia will have an edge in what is becoming an increasingly competitive market to capture the lucrative business of hosting international arbitrations.

Legal Reforms

The most significant reforms currently taking place in Australia relate to the domestic arbitration regime. Between the mid-80s and early-90s, uniform domestic arbitration legislation was introduced in all Australian states. Unfortunately, its utility as uniform legislation was diminished by a number of drafting discrepancies in its implementation, and as a result, it was possible for different courts in different states to develop individual lines of jurisprudence. Further, as the legislation was first drafted in the early 1980s, it had become dated and ill-suited to meeting the needs of contemporary disputants.

In order to rectify this, the various Australian state governments have agreed to introduce new uniform legislation. The new Commercial Arbitration Acts are intended to be truly uniform, ensuring that regardless of which Australian state the domestic arbitration is taking place in, the applicable law will be the same. The new acts are built around the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 (incorporating the 2006 amendments). Currently, the new acts have been enacted in New South Wales, Tasmania, Victoria, the Northern Territory and South Australia. However, Western Australia, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory are yet to have passed the new laws through their respective parliaments.

By using the UNCITRAL Model Law as a basis, the Australian domestic arbitration paradigm is brought into line with international standards. This will have a number of ramifications for Australia's dispute resolution landscape. Ideally, the updated legislation will ensure that arbitration plays an even more important role in resolving commercial disputes. This will, in turn, ensure that Australian clients, practitioners and industries are familiar and comfortable with arbitration as a viable alternative to litigation. This will serve to develop Australia's legal industry even further so that expertise in, and experience with, arbitration become hallmarks of the Australian legal system.

What does Australia have to offer?

One of the major selling points for Australia in its bid to become a venue of choice for arbitrations in the region is the attractiveness of its major cities, particularly Sydney, in hosting arbitrations. Capitalising on the reputation of its legal system, parties to arbitrations in Australia have lauded the presence of a supportive and proactive judiciary. Australia also boasts a well-established and reliable legal profession, with specialist legal advice readily available. Further, and importantly in the highly competitive market for arbitrations, Sydney is significantly cheaper in comparison to other popular arbitration locations such as London, Paris, New York, or Hong Kong.

There is also strong institutional support for parties arbitrating in Australia. The Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (ACICA) is Australia's preeminent international arbitration institution. ACICA was established in 1985 and its members include leading practitioners and academic experts in both international and domestic arbitration. ACICA works closely with the Australian International Disputes Centre (AIDC), which is known for its world-class logistical support of arbitration. This logistical support is essential to the swift resolution of disputes, and the AIDC has proved capable of catering for both small and large disputes, from providing the necessary technologically-equipped meeting rooms to case management and trust account administration.

Recent changes to the ACICA Rules

In 2011, ACICA introduced new arbitration rules with the goal of expediting the resolution of international commercial disputes. The rules were updated in response to the Australian Government's decision to appoint ACICA as the sole default appointing authority under the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth). Having this authority allows ACICA to appoint arbitrators where the parties to an arbitration agreement are either unable to agree on the process for appointment, or where the appointment process to which they agree fails. The process of updating the rules involved extensive consultation with respected practitioners, policymakers, academics and business leaders.

The updated rules include Emergency Arbitrator provisions, which are a first for an Australian arbitral body, and will increase flexibility available to parties seeking to arbitrate. These provisions allow parties to obtain emergency interim measures by before an arbitral tribunal is formally constituted.

The introduction of these new rules was welcomed by industry leaders, including Damian Lovell, the Vice President of Litigation at BHP Billiton. Mr. Lovell noted that there was increasing demand for first-rate, cost-effective arbitration services, particularly in the Asia Pacific region, and that Australia was well placed to meet this demand.

Successes of ACICA

Another milestone for ACICA occurred in January 2012, when the New South Wales Bar Association announced it would follow the Victorian Bar by partnering with ACICA. The partnership allows Australia's largest state barrister body to participate more readily in international arbitration by giving members of the NSW Bar easier access to solicitors and clients involved in arbitration.

In February of this year, ACICA launched its International Program for 2012 in New Delhi and Mumbai. The ACICA delegation focused on the fact that Australia could provide a modern international arbitration law, a supportive judiciary, first class professional services facilities and purpose-built hearing locations.

The launch attained international acclaim, attracting the endorsement of various delegates including the Adani Group, the Indian conglomerate with the most major investments in Australia. The Adani delegation praised Australia's robust legal framework, noting that this was a key factor that gave Australia an advantage over Singapore and Hong Kong as an international dispute resolution destination.

Where to from here?

It is an exciting time to be involved in international arbitration in Australia. The current domestic reform process is well underway and has already had a positive impact on the perception and efficacy of domestic commercial arbitration in Australia.

Internationally, Australia's legal environment has been receiving much attention recently, with a number of larger international firms establishing a position in the Australian market. Along with this broader recognition of the strength of Australia's legal industry, the recent developments surrounding international arbitration have ensured that Australia is well-positioned to continue its growth in the international arbitration sphere.

Professor Doug Jones AO is a Partner at Australian law firm Clayton Utz and is a member at London’s Atkin Chambers.

Source: globallegalpost

New Saudi Arbitration Law: A Positive Step, but Practical Questions Remain

• Mohammed Al-Ghamdi, John Vincent Lonsberg, John C. Boehm, Jr. and Samuel Edward Eversman

On June 8, 2012, Saudi Arabia published its long-awaited arbitration reform law. The new Arbitration Regulation (Royal Decree No. M/34) (the "New Law") replaces the Arbitration Regulation of 1983 (Royal Decree No. M/46) and the Rules for the Implementation of the Arbitration Regulation of 1985 (Ministerial Resolution No. 7/2021/M) (the "Old Law"). The New Law (which became effective on July 7, 2012) institutes a variety of reforms to Saudi Arabia's arbitration system. While not expressly stated, the New Law appears to be a part of a broader and continuing reorganization of Saudi's judicial system. However, only time will tell the extent to which the New Law's reforms will be implemented in practice.

Historical Perspective

A. The Saudi Judicial System

Saudi Arabia is an Islamic monarchy founded in Islamic Shari'ah. Saudi Arabia has a dual judicial system consisting of Shari'ah courts, which are the courts of general jurisdiction and hear criminal and civil matters, and various other tribunals. The most important of those tribunals is the Board of Grievances which was established initially to hear governmental related claims, but whose jurisdiction has been expanded to include a wide variety of commercial disputes involving non-Saudi parties and actions to enforce foreign judgments and arbitral awards affecting those parties. 

In 2007, King Abdullah initiated major reforms to the judiciary and courts of Saudi Arabia. The new Law of the Judiciary (Royal Decree No. M/78 dated October 1, 2007) reorganized the existing structure and jurisdiction of the Saudi court system. In addition, the new Board of Grievances Law (also issued under Royal Decree No. M/78 dated October 1, 2007) restricted the jurisdiction of the Board of Grievances to governmental matters. The judicial reorganization regulations also established a new "commercial court" with jurisdiction over certain commercial disputes and enforcement of arbitral awards. However, these regulations have not yet been fully implemented in practice notwithstanding that they have been duly promulgated and are technically "in effect".

B. Arbitration

Previously, arbitrations in Saudi Arabia were governed by the Old Law, which subjected arbitrations to intense judicial oversight by the Saudi courts (generally the Board of Grievances for matters involving non-Saudi parties). The Old Law required all arbitration proceedings in Saudi Arabia to be conducted in Arabic and awards could be rejected and reformed in the discretion of the court. All proceedings in Saudi courts and tribunals (including the Board of Grievances) are in Arabic. 

Under the Old Law, the relevant court was responsible for approving the parties' agreement to arbitrate and appointing arbitrators if the parties failed to do so. There were no written requirements for arbitration agreements under the Old Law. Thus the decision whether to approve arbitration as a means to resolve a dispute was in the discretion of the relevant court. The relevant court also supervised and ruled on disputes arising during the arbitration, including procedural objections, arbitrator recusals, and requests for interim or injunctive relief. 

In addition, under the Old Law the relevant court was responsible for enforcement of arbitral awards (foreign and Saudi) and conducted whatever level of review it deemed necessary to ensure that the arbitration award was compliant with Shari'ah. In practice this typically amounted to what appeared to be a de novo review of the entire matter. In fact, in some instances the Board of Grievances has reversed and re-written awards (e.g., vacated the arbitral award and awarded new damages to the party who lost on the merits in the arbitration). 

It is noteworthy that Saudi Arabia has been a party to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards of 1958 (the "New York Convention") since 1994. The New York Convention provides the procedure for enforcement of arbitral awards made in other member countries. In practice, however, the Saudi courts have rarely (if ever) enforced foreign arbitral awards pursuant to the New York Convention. Presumably, this has been the result (at least in part) of the Saudi courts' finding that review, rehearing and/or revision was necessary to ensure Shari'ah compliance. This practice of the Saudi courts may be considered an application of the New York Convention's public policy exception to enforcement. 

The New Law does not change the Shari'ah compliance requirement and expressly recognizes the court's authority to review arbitral awards for Shari'ah compliance.

Positive Steps

On its face, the New Law borrows from the 1985 - UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, as amended in 2006 and, accordingly, more closely aligns Saudi law with international arbitration norms, allows more control to the parties, and provides greater clarity on several issues, including the following:

• The New Law provides written guidelines for determining whether an agreement to arbitrate may be enforced. Previously, there were no written guidelines for arbitration agreements (except the requirement that the arbitration agreement be made by a person with full legal capacity) and it was the responsibility of the Saudi court to approve the parties' agreement to arbitrate before the arbitration process could begin.
• The New Law provides clear and detailed procedures for the appointment and/or recusal of arbitrators. Under the Old Law there were no detailed guidelines.
• The New Law allows arbitrations to be conducted in a language other than Arabic if ordered by the arbitration panel or the parties agree (although awards must be translated to Arabic prior to enforcement). Under the Old Law, arbitrations were required to be conducted in Arabic.
• The New Law increases the length of time to complete the arbitration process. Under the Old Law, the arbitrator was required to issue an award within 90 days (unless the parties otherwise agreed), although this requirement was not typically observed in practice. Under the New Law, the arbitration process is allowed to take at least 12 months and can be extended by 6 months or more if the parties agree.
• The New Law now expressly prohibits government bodies from entering into arbitration agreements, unless approved by the Prime Minister. The Old Law was less specific in this regard and merely stated that government authorities could not resort to arbitration for settlement of disputes except after having obtained the approval of the Prime Minister.
• The New Law allows parties the freedom to choose which law will apply. The Old Law was silent in this regard (other than requiring that arbitral awards must be pursuant to the provisions of Islamic Shari'ah and the "laws in force", i.e. applicable Saudi law).

Practical Questions

Although the New Law provides additional detail and clarity on issues that were lacking under the Old Law, only time and experience will tell whether, when and how these reforms will be implemented in practice. More specifically, from a practical perspective it is important to recognize that:

• The new arbitration law affirms that Shari'ah is paramount and that arbitration awards may be enforced only if they are Shari'ah compliant.
• As noted above, the appropriate Saudi tribunal (typically the Board of Grievances at least until the new Law of the Judiciary, Board of Grievances Law and related judiciary reorganization regulations are fully implemented) remains responsible for approving awards and ensuring that awards are Shari'ah compliant as a condition of enforcement.
• Although the New Law provides increased flexibility with respect to selecting the location of the arbitration, the choice of governing law, language, selection of arbitrators and other matters, this flexibility is still clearly subject to the Saudi courts' oversight and mandate to ensure Shari'ah compliance. For example, while the New Law expressly states that arbitrators need not be "competent" in Shari'ah (e.g., arbitrators may have a civil law degree), the impact on the court's review and enforcement of an arbitral award issued through an arbitrator who is not deemed "competent" in Shari'ah is not addressed other than to confirm the paramount requirement of Shari'ah compliance. The same observation and uncertainty arises in connection with venue, language of the arbitration, choice of law and other matters. In sum, while the New Law allows significant flexibility and control with respect to the procedures for conducting an arbitration, the parties will want to take the Shari'ah compliance requirement into consideration when making such decisions.
• The New Law requires the Saudi court to act within a certain amount of time when performing its supervisory functions during the arbitration process. For example, if the parties fail to agree on the appointment of the arbitrator, the court must do so (according to the procedures set out in the New Law) within 30 days of the parties' application. These time limits should help to move the arbitration process along more quickly. However, in practice, it is unclear whether the courts will adhere to such time limits or other "mandatory" aspects of the law.
• The New Law permits the arbitration panel to issue temporary or injunctive relief if the parties agree that the arbitration panel may do so. However, this appears to conflict with another provision in the New Law which reserves such action for the "competent court". It is unclear in practice whether the court or arbitration panel will issue or enforce such temporary or injunctive orders, which are extremely rare in practice in Saudi Arabia.

Conclusion

The New Law appears to be a further step in reforming Saudi Arabia's judicial system. It is unclear how and to what extent the new Arbitration Regulation will "take hold" pending the full implementation of other judicial system reforms. As a result, parties must still consider many Saudi-specific practice issues in deciding what dispute resolution mechanism to choose in their contracts relating to Saudi Arabia. For many contracts, choosing Saudi courts as the forum for dispute resolution may remain a better alternative than choosing arbitration in Saudi Arabia, even under the New Law. 

If you have any questions, please contact any of the following attorneys in Fulbright's Middle East Practice Group: 

Mohammed Al-Ghamdi
mal-ghamdi@fulbright.com
+966 1 279 5401 

John V. Lonsberg
jlonsberg@fulbright.com
+966 1 279 5400 

John C. Boehm, Jr.
jboehm@fulbright.com
+966 1 279 5400 

Samuel E. Eversman
seversman@fulbright.com
+966 1 279 5400 

Source: fulbright

New national and international arbitration statute of Colombia is in force

•   Eduardo Zuleta (Partner), Gómez-Pinzón Zuleta Abogados S.A.

The National and International Arbitration Statute of Colombia (Law 1563/12) entered into force on 12 October 2012. The new statute, which is mainly based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, is intended to create a modern international arbitration legal regime for Colombia.

In the new National and International Arbitration Statute of Colombia (Law 1563/12), the section on international arbitration incorporates the UNCITRAL Model Law, including the amendments approved in 2006. However, variations were made to:

• Adapt the Model Law to the specific doctrine of the Constitutional Court regarding the internationality of arbitration.
• Include several successful non-Model Law provisions from other legislations.

Some of the key features of the new statute can be summarised as follows:

• The statute excludes Article 1(3)(b)(i) of the UNCITRAL Model Law, which states that an arbitration is "international" when the place of arbitration determined in or according to the arbitration agreement is located in a state different to that of the places of business of the parties.
  The reason underlying this approach is that this provision, as reproduced in the previous International Arbitration Statute (Law 316/96), was declared compatible with the Constitution on condition that it could only be applied where at least one the parties was foreign (Constitutional Court of Colombia, Decision C-347/97). Therefore, the Drafting Commission (designated by the Government to prepare the new Law) had two options. On the one hand, it could create a new internationality criterion establishing that arbitration is international when the seat is located in a jurisdiction other than that of the parties' places of business and at least one of the parties is not a Colombian national. Alternatively, it could exclude the provision in question as a whole.
  To avoid the introduction of an unusual internationality criterion, which would certainly be unfamiliar to foreign lawyers, the Drafting Commission preferred the second option.
• The statute incorporates the objective economic criterion of internationality, to the effect that an arbitration is international when international trade interests are at stake. It does so by using wording based on Article 1504 of the French New Code of Civil Procedure.

Where none of the parties to the arbitration agreement is domiciled or has residence in Colombia, the new statute allows them to exclude one or more grounds of annulment, or even annulment as a whole. Where annulment is excluded, however, the award can only be enforced in Colombia by exequatur proceedings. In this connection, it is worth noting that the Supreme Court of Justice recently issued two decisions applying the New York Convention as the only instrument listing the grounds on which recognition of foreign awards may be denied (to the exclusion of local rules on exequatur). The new statute seeks to maintain this approach by reproducing the text of Article V of the New York Convention and exhaustively regulating the exequatur of foreign awards.

To ensure that the new statute's provisions on annulment and exequatur are applied consistently, the Supreme Court of Justice is designated as the competent authority for both types of proceedings. However, where the award concerns a dispute involving a Colombian State entity, the Council of State would be the competent authority.

The new statute is the result of the efforts made by experts and public authorities for creating a modern international arbitration legal regime for Colombia. The statute is based not only on the Model Law, but also incorporates and adapts the best from other legislations. However, it is still too soon to claim Colombia as a promising Latin American arbitration venue. Only time will tell whether local courts will apply the new legal provisions correctly.

Source: http://arbitration.practicallaw.com/0-522-1973?source=rss&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=plcarbitration

India: A New Era For Enforcement Of Foreign Arbitration Awards In India

The Indian Supreme Court has issued an important decision that affects the enforceability of foreign international arbitration awards in India.

The decision in Bharat Aluminium Co. v Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services overrules previous controversial decisions from the Indian Supreme Court in the cases of Bhatia International v Bulk Trading S.A.in 2002 and Venture Global Engineering v Satyam Computer Services Limited in 2008.

Continue reading here: http://www.mondaq.com/x/201554/Arbitration+Dispute+Resolution/A+New+Era+For+Enforcement+Of+Foreign+Arbitration+Awards+In+India