About

Can you briefly explain how the legal team is structured, highlighting key individuals and their role within the department? The legal heads at each location report to the
general manager (law) who is responsible for the litigation management, legal risk mitigation, documentation, statutory and regulatory compliances, arbitrations, conciliation and mediation, tendering, import/export, consumer issues, land acquisition and contract management in the company. What are the most significant activities that your legal team has been involved with in the last two years? Significant achievements in arbitrations and litigations. Particularly, the intervention in the case between two Mauritian companies, to secure MRPL interests as one of them was our customer. The matter went up to the Supreme Court and highest levels of governments and the interests of MRPL were fully protected through meaningful and efficient submissions as an intervener.

What recent political, economic or regulatory changes in India have impacted your company and the team the most? The enactment of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and the amendments to Companies Act 2013. The IBC really made it so unpredictable, whether your contracting partner would be there tomorrow or not. The evolving law of IBC is bringing about many uncertainties as there are many amendments also coming up after its enactment. The amendments in company law also made it difficult to work within the group as the provisions stipulating arm’s length etc. brought new dimensions to the normal businesses between the group concerns.

What will be the main focus for the company in the next 12 months and how does the team intend to assist with this? The focus is on reducing arbitrations and litigations by promoting finer ideas of mediations and conciliations. We have set up our novel institutional mechanisms to further such amicable dispute resolution practices. It would be a teamwork and we plan to reduce the litigations/arbitrations to about 50% in the coming 12 months. We also plan revisions to our standardised legal document formats so as to address the new regulatory frameworks and make those documents dynamic enough to respond to the quickly changing business paradigms. How has the team harnessed technology to improve output or drive efficiencies? Technology drives the businesses and institutions. Our legal department cannot opt out from the technological advancements the company propels. Perhaps, we may stand well ahead of legal departments of other companies in many ways as we use technology for all purposes from maintenance of data, updating status, formalisation of important legal documents and all that we do. Can you sum up the team culture/ethos? “Sharing and caring”– we share the responsibilities in a responsible and systematic way such that one can substitute another when it comes to our performance. We give utmost care in dealing with each and every matter referred to us, be it a dispute or a drafting or a request for a legal solution. Constant focus and assimilation of all good practices across industries has helped us in bringing this about. Today each team member here is able to inculcate confidence to the management and the users that we can deliver the best legal solution for all the issues referred. Focus on… Interim reliefs in foreign arbitrations Availability of interim relief is a vital feature of an efficient arbitration paradigm. In an arbitration, parties agree to oust the jurisdiction of courts and all remedies are to be sought from arbitration only. However, parties will have to essentially approach courts for interim reliefs, many times. In such cases, the jurisdiction of courts for providing interim relief is always a concern.

Arbitration laws in India have been framed following UNICITRAL Model Law to avoid a situation wherein two nations simultaneously exercise territorial jurisdictional over a matter. And so, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 was meant to apply, to cases in Indian Territory only. The Amendment Act 2015, provisions of Sections 9, 27 and 37(1)(a) and 37(1)(3), apply to international arbitrations seated outside India also, unless parties contrary agree. This has allowed interim reliefs to parties in arbitration, irrespective of the seat.

Amendment in fact has a backdrop of two landmark judgments – Bhatia International vs. Interbulk Trading SA1 and Bharat Aluminum and Co. vs. Kaiser Aluminium & Co. 2 and recommendations of the law commission. Prior to the amendment, even when the assets of a party are located in India, there was no remedy to prevent squandering or to protect the asset. Due to this many times, even if the party gets an arbitral award subsequently, enforcement was tough.
Now, this provision even allows interim orders against third parties. Similarly, it allows ex parte interim reliefs. An amendment in section 17 makes any order passed by arbitrator to be deemed as an order of court for its enforceability.

Still the amended act does not adequately address the problems of interim relief in so far as the parties taking interim relief have to litigate twice; once to obtain interim relief, and again possibly before a different court to ensure execution. This is due to the fact that a court’s interim order is not a deemed a decree, unlike an arbitration award and hence another application would have to be made for the enforcement of the interim order.

The amended law in India no doubt has recognised the problems of interim reliefs in international arbitrations and this is a welcome change making India a better place for business. And the further amendments in the anvil, will give more edge for India as a country fostering arbitrations and making its judiciary more business friendly.