M/S Shinhan Apex Corporation Vs M/S Euro Apex B.V, On 22nd April, 2016, Supreme Court of India: Case Brief – Read Judgment

data-matched-content-ui-type="image_card_sidebyside" data-matched-content-rows-num="1" data-matched-content-columns-num="4"

When party to the Arbitral proceeding, duly acted as per directions given in Award, he cannot be held in default

Civil Appeal No. 4359- 4360 of 2016
Bench: Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla; Justice S. A. Bobde

Case Brief: In the present case, the order passed in the execution application in Award with Chamber Summons, is in challenge before this bench. In the facts of the case, there was a Licence Agreement between the appellant and respondent which is also providing for the Arbitration clause for the settlement of the disputes, by following the Rules of the Dutch- Arbitration Institute. Respondent earlier issued a notice, 2007 through which the agreement sought to be terminated, and this termination was to be effected from 2008. The dispute was taken to the Arbitral Tribunal. Appellant herein filed application in 2008 for registration of Patents in the United States as well as in India. The bench here was concerning with the Indian Patents in which the rights and interest of the appellants were involved. The Arbitration partially declared final award, 2011. Then Respondent made request through a letter to appellants by enclosing the required documents to be executed by the appellant for the purpose of transfer of the patents. Again request to re- draft the transfer deed was made. Appellant executed the deed, as per instructions. Even after that the Respondent filed application before High Court for enforcement of the aforementioned award’s relevant para. However, again the high Court directed the Appellant to execute the deed of transfer of patents in favour of award holder, as such the appellant brought challenge before this court. Now this bench, after considering all such facts and circumstances and also development in the case after the said award was passed, found that the appellant did not committed any fault in complying with the directions given in award, and as such the directions by the High Court did not warranted in this case. Bench also found that the appellant executed the same deed, the draft of which was forwarded to it by the respondent, and here it is respondent which has not acted upon the same. It was also held that the direction contained in the concerned para of Award was duly carried out by the appellant. As such, in the light of the patent illegality committed by the High Court’s learned judge, the impugned order as per this bench was liable to be set aside. As such the appeal was allowed by this bench, by setting aside the impugned order.

data-matched-content-ui-type="image_card_sidebyside" data-matched-content-rows-num="1" data-matched-content-columns-num="4"
data-matched-content-ui-type="image_card_sidebyside" data-matched-content-rows-num="4" data-matched-content-columns-num="4"

Read the Judgement: M/S Shinhan Apex Corporation Vs. M/S Euro Apex B.V

Leave a Reply