Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 21 APRIL 2017

Enforcement Of A Foreign Arbitral Award And FEMA, 1999

Khaitan & Co.
Khaitan & Co.
Contributor
Khaitan & Co.

Khaitan & Co.

Founded in 1911, Khaitan & Co is a heritage law firm that has been a trusted adviser to leading...

View firm profile
Explore more from Khaitan & Co.

On 11 April 2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (High Court), pronounced its judgment in a case where the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award was opposed inter alia on the ground that the enforcement of the said award would be contrary to the public policy of India ...

IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Sanjeev Kapoor
Sanjeev Kapoor
Aakash Bajaj
Aakash Bajaj
Aayush Jain
Aayush Jain
Author LinkedIn connections

On 11 April 2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (High Court), pronounced its judgment in a case where the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award was opposed inter alia on the ground that the enforcement of the said award would be contrary to the public policy of India as it violated the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA).

Factual Background

In 2008, Mauritius-based Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings (Cruz City) entered into a Shareholders' Agreement (SHA) dated 6 June 2008 with Cyprus-based Arsanovia Ltd. and Mauritius-based Kerrush Investments Ltd. (Kerrush) under which Cruz City and Arsanovia Ltd. agreed to invest in Kerrush, which in turn, agreed to invest in a real estate project captioned as 'Santacruz Project' in India. On the same date, Cruz City also entered into a Keepwell Agreement with India-based Unitech Limited (Unitech) and Mauritius-based Burley Holdings Ltd. (Burley), a wholly owned subsidiary of Unitech.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Decree Execution Under Order XXI CPC – An In-depth Insight

Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides the comprehensive framework for executing decrees in Indian civil litigation. This article examines the procedural mechanisms for decree execution, including filing execution petitions, methods of property attachment, and the legal processes for recovering money decrees through sale of attached assets.
IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Maheshwari & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants
Maheshwari & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants
Article

The Limitation Clock On Money Recovery: Understanding Article 113, Acknowledgment And Extension Under Indian Law

Understanding the critical timelines and legal frameworks governing money recovery suits in India requires navigating the complex interplay between the Limitation Act of 1963 and the Indian Contract Act of 1872. When does the clock actually start ticking on your right to sue, and how can acknowledgments or digital evidence extend or restart that crucial three-year window?
IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Maheshwari & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants
Maheshwari & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants
Article

Ministry Of Labour And Employment Operationalises The Provisions On Payment Of Statutory Bonus

On 25 August 2026, the Ministry of Labour and Employment issued two notifications (Notifications) under the Code on Wages, 2019 (Wage Code), thereby operationalising specified provisions relating to payment of statutory bonus for establishments for which the appropriate government is the Central Government. The Wage Code consolidates the legislative framework governing wages and related employee entitlements, including the regime previously governed by the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.
IndiaEmployment and HR
Khaitan & Co.
Khaitan & Co.
Article

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability Of SARFAESI Remedies For A Secured Creditor Who Acquires An NPA From A Non-notified NBFC

In Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v Trupti Sanjay Mehta and Others, 2026 INSC 943 (Kotak Mahindra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India considered whether a bank as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) could invoke the provisions of the SARFAESI Act to recover a secured debt acquired from an entity which was not covered under the ambit of the SARFAESI Act at the time of disbursement of the loan.
IndiaFinance and Banking
Khaitan & Co.
Khaitan & Co.
Article

Punjab And Haryana High Court Strikes Down JAO - FAO Retrospective Amendment As Unconstitutional

The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court (HC) in Jyoti Sareen vs. UOI & Others (CWP No. 15791-2024 (O&M)) (Order) held the retrospective amendments carried out vide the Finance Act, 2026, with respect to the powers of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to issue a reopening notice under section 148 (Reopening Notice) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (IT Act), as unconstitutional, being violative of the ‘doctrine of separation of powers’ and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
IndiaGovernment, Public Sector
Khaitan & Co.
Khaitan & Co.
Article

DOT Notifies Telecom Network Authorisation Rules, 2026: What Has Changed?

On 20 July 2026, the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) notified the Telecommunications (Authorisation for Telecommunication Network) Rules, 2026 (Rules). The Rules operationalise Section 3(1)(b) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and establish a framework for six categories of telecommunication network authorisations: infrastructure provider (IP) (formerly, IP-I), digital connectivity infrastructure provider (DCIP), internet exchange point (IXP) provider, satellite earth station gateway (SESG) provider, cloud-hosted telecommunication network (CTN) provider and mobile number portability (MNP) provider.
IndiaMedia, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment
Khaitan & Co.
Khaitan & Co.