Konkola and Vedanta then appealed to the Supreme Court. The court judges knew what they had done. But the Apex Court in Phulchand Exports Limited v. OOO Patriot [9]expanded the scope of Section 48(2)(b). The Supreme Court held that there was no such abuse of EU law. In his interview Kutia Kond activist Kumuti Majhi states: “When the Orissa chief minister came to lay foundation [of Vedanta’s project], if we were five of us, they were a hundred. The bench also dismissed the challenge, in the petitions, to the orders passed by the PCB directing the closure of the plant under the Air and Water Acts and rejected the petitioner’s application for renewal of consent under the Air and Water Acts. Seat v Venue of Arbitration: A Quest for Clarity (Part II), Seat v Venue of Arbitration: A Quest for Clarity (Part I), Government of India v. Vedanta Limited: Supreme Court fortifies pro-enforcement approach, clarifies limitation period, Patel Engineering v NEEPCO: Supreme Court sets aside Award for Patent Illegality. The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to grant any immediate interim relief to Vedanta Ltd to run its copper smelter plant in Tamil Nadu’s Thoothukudi and said it will hear in detail its plea challenging the state government’s decision to close … In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court extensively reviewed merits of the case and terms of the contract, something which the Indian Courts have repeatedly laid down is not permissible within the scope of Section 48(2)(b). The Supreme Court recently in a judgment titled Government of India (GOI) v Vedanta Ltd. (Vedanta) has rendered a decision affirming the pro-enforcement outlook with respect to the enforcement of a foreign award in India, which had taken a step back after the decision of Supreme Court in NAFED v. Alimenta. Judgment details. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines. [2] The judgment also holds significance as the Supreme Court has finally settled the ambiguity concerning the period of limitation for enforcement of a foreign award. Change ). The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave its nod to the central vista redevelopment project in a 2:1 verdict. Post the judgment in Shri Lal Mahal, several High courts sought to retrench the onerous threshold for resisting enforcement under Section 48(2)(b) of the Act. However, recently in NAFED v. Alimenta[12], pronounced on 22 April 2020, the Supreme Court refused enforcement of foreign award on the account of it being in violation of public policy. The relevant background to the Vedanta decision can be set out fairly briefly. Vedanta Resources PLC and another (Appellants) v Lungowe and others (Respondents) Judgment date. Though the decision of the Supreme Court in NAFED v. Alimenta took an unprecedented overturn by unnecessarily transgressing the permissible degree of interference in enforcing a foreign award, the Supreme Court in present case by reaffirming the narrow approach enunciated in Renusagar[13] has once again fortified a pro-enforcement approach. Part II of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not contain any provision prescribing a period of limitation for filing an application for the enforcement of a foreign award under Section 47. § Residents of Thoothukudi gathered to protest the Sterlite copper-smelting plant (right) in May 2018. Credit: Sachin Babu/Facebook and PTI. On May 29, 2019. Extend your support to India's legal leaders of tomorrow. Lady Hale. In view of this pro-enforcement approach, Section 48 (2) (b) does not permit a review on the merit of the foreign award. However, few positives have already been factored in the market in last 10 trading sessions. This short footage was taken yesterday as Niyamgiri dwellers celebrated the Supreme Court’s verdict, while also cautioning that the company and state officials must stay away from the process. Judgment (PDF) Press summary (PDF) Accessible versions. In a blow to Vedanta Limited, the Supreme Court of India refused to allow it to reopen the Sterlite Copper factory in Thoothukudi. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for Vedanta submitted in the court that the plant provide employment to 4000 people and fulfills 36% or country copper needs and said that India is dependent on imports of copper after the shut down . In basic terms, the substance of the claim has nothing to do with the UK. Vedanta then moved an application for enforcing the award at the Delhi High Court, which allowed the application and directed the government to make the payments. On August 18, the Madras High Court dismissed a plea by the company seeking the smelter's reopening. The jurisdiction arguments . The Apex Court in the instant case has made a conscious attempt to ensure smooth enforcement of foreign award by resolving the ambiguity concerning the period of limitation for enforcement of the foreign award and by narrowly interpreting public policy. The Supreme Court refused to issue a so-called stay halting the NGT`s decision, said Vedanta Legal Counsel Aryama Sundaram in a voice recording sent by Whatsapp to reporters by the company`s public relations firm Brand-comm after the high court session. The concept of ‘public policy’ is not immutable. The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Vedanta to reopen its south Indian copper smelter by refusing to stay an order from the country's environmental court. The Supreme Court recently in a judgment titled Government of India (GOI) v Vedanta Ltd. (Vedanta) has rendered a decision affirming the pro-enforcement outlook with respect to the enforcement of a foreign award in India, which had taken a step back after the decision of Supreme Court in NAFED v. Alimenta. Anger against the company and the government is still palpable in this southern coastal town. The damage … Any exceptions to Article 4.1 are to … The case was argued extensively over two days, and subject to two interventions. A three-judge Bench headed by Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman posted the case for detailed hearing in January 2021. However, on a suggestive note, the Indian Courts should also attempt to shorten the timeline for the enforcement of domestic awards, which is twelve years, to ensure speedy and cost-effective resolution of disputes that arise in international commercial arbitration. ( Log Out /  Judgment (Accessible PDF) Learn how your comment data is processed. v Lungowe and others [2019] UKSC 20 will undoubtedly have an impact on such claims. However, the Tamil Nadu government challenged the NGT decision in Supreme Court in January 2019, stating NGT didn’t have the jurisdiction to allow the reopening of the plant. The Supreme Court has denied interim relief to Vedanta refusing the immediate reopening of the Sterlite plant for now, which remains shut since May 2018 over violations of environmental laws. New Delhi, Aug 26: Vedanta on Wednesday moved to the Supreme Court challenging the Madras High court's order, which had rejected Vedanta's … The Supreme Court ruled that Vedanta must be held accountable for these publicly made statements and it therefore has a duty of care towards the claimants. By its very nature, ‘public policy’ is not capable of a precise definition. [This guest post is authored by Dhriti Mehta and Donika Wahi. Vedanta Resources PLC and Another v. Lungowe and Others. The Supreme Court on Monday sought a response from the Tamil Nadu government on an appeal filed by Vedanta Ltd. against the Madras High Court’s … When the Supreme Court announced its verdict to hand the decision on Vedanta’s Niyamgiri mine back to the Dongria Kond and other affected people via a complex process of legal claim filing, gram sabhas and a final MoEF nod, both Vedanta and their opposition celebrated. v Lungowe and others [2019] UKSC 20; a long awaited decision on parent company liability and the jurisdiction of English courts over transnational torts. The Supreme Court unanimously held that Vedanta Resources plc could be sued in England, applying Zambian law although this was agreed to share similar principles to English tort law. The UK Supreme Court's (UKSC) recent, landmark judgment in Vedanta Resources PLC and anor. The recent Supreme Court decision of Vedanta v Lungowe[1] is now the leading case on establishing jurisdiction in England for claims against parent companies and their subsidiaries for alleged environmental and human rights abuses of the subsidiary committed abroad. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Vedanta Resources PLC and another v Lungowe and others 1 concerned the first type of case and resulted in success for the claimants in establishing jurisdiction here. T The narrow approach adopted by the Supreme Court in instant case is thus consistent with the objective of the New York Convention and in also in sync with contemporary pro-arbitration jurisprudence. The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the interim plea of Vedanta seeking permission to inspect its Sterlite copper unit at Tuticorin in Tamil Nadu, which is … (Archive) The Supreme Court on Tuesday (January 5) allowed the central vista project to go ahead. KCM was … The Apex Court then scrutinized whether foreign award was contrary to the Public Policy of India. Alimenta. Paul Sheridan, Jan Burgess and Laura Swithinbank, who work within the Environment and Health and Safety teams at CMS, comment on the decision handed down in the matter of Vedanta Resources Plc & Anor v Lungowe & Ors [2019] UKSC 20. Although it’s a jurisdictional ruling, for the first time, the UK Court held that a parent company sitting in London could be legally liable for harms allegedly caused to community members living near its subsidiary’s mining operation in Zambia. The decision, delivered by Lord Briggs, is less clear than could be hoped. The Supreme Court was asked to deal with a number of questions relating to both the substantive legal basis for the claim, and jurisdiction. This post looks at how the law has changed and how responsible businesses can respond, reducing human rights risk to affected communities while also minimising legal risk. The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Vedanta approached the Apex Court challenging the Madras High Court decision of rejection to open Sterlite Tuticorn plant. Case ID. However it may, in time, have the effect of limiting jurisdiction in the second type of case. The subsequent appeal to the Malaysian Court of Appeal was squarely rejected in 2014 to which the Indian government preferred a leave to appeal before the Malaysian Federal Court, which was also dismissed in 2016. However, the Malaysian High Court upon the application of Malaysian Arbitration Act, 2005 found no reason which would merit intervention with the award. The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to grant any immediate interim relief to Vedanta Ltd to run its copper smelter plant in Tamil Nadu’s Thoothukudi and said it will hear in detail its plea challenging the state government’s decision to close the plant over allegations of environmental pollution. The Indian government challenged the award in the Malaysian High Court on the grounds of public policy. In the meantime, the Respondent filed an application under Section 47 and 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (Arbitration Act) for the enforcement of the foreign award before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court wherein the single-judge directed the enforcement of the award and rejected the contentions of the Government of India including those pertaining to limitation and public policy. defendant Vedanta Resources plc (“Vedanta”) is the ultimate parent company of KCM. The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned to February a plea filed by Goa Congress Chief Girish Chodankar seeking for a direction to the Goa Assembly … In December, India`s National Green Tribunal (NGT) revoked the state decision to shut the plant leading Tamil Nadu to appeal the NGT ruling. The Supreme Court has handed down a significant judgment in Vedanta Resources Plc and Konkola Copper Mines Plc v Lungowe and Ors, finding an arguable case that the UK parent could be liable for the operations of its overseas subsidiary. ( Log Out /  Importantly, the decision would not prejudice those who did not act within the three-year period as the Supreme Court has granted liberty to seek condonation of delay in filing application for the enforcement of the award and has expounded that the ambiguity on the issue of limitation period is sufficient ground to condone delays. The Michigan Supreme Court is providing the information on this site as a public service. The Bombay High Court  in Noy Vallesina Engineering SPA v. Jindal Drugs Limited [5] had held that since no specific period of limitation has been specified in the Arbitration Act for enforcement of a foreign award, the period of limitation of 3 years provided in Article 137 of the limitation Act would be applicable. On 10 April 2019, the UK Supreme Court handed down its judgment in Vedanta Resources PLC and anor. Vedanta Ltd., controlled by billionaire Anil Agarwal, suffered a blow after a top court stalled the resumption of operations at its Indian copper smelter, dashing hopes of a … UKSC 2017/0185. The State Pollution Control Board had, in April 2018, refused to renew the Consent to Operate certificate for the plants on the grounds that it had failed to adhere to norms. (File), Twitter locks Donald Trump’s account after violence on Capitol Hill, Mohammed Siraj gets emotional during national anthem at Sydney Cricket Ground, Maharashtra Cabinet Offer for builders: Pay premiums on or before December 31, get 50% off, National Infra Pipeline: FM reviews progress of projects worth `3.6L cr, Barring Kerala, all Covid hotspots see daily cases fall, Emotions to earthquakes, Einstein waves: A govt body’s cattle class, Woman gangraped, killed in Badaun, police look for priest, UP, Uttarakhand ‘love jihad’ laws challenged, SC issues notice, Covid effect: 8.4 lakh migrants back in Kerala from abroad, 5.5 lakh lost their jobs, East of Delhi, the other protest: UP’s sugarcane farmers awaiting dues, Half of people aged 45 and older have abnormal lung function, says large study, Expert Explains: New investments in science, Bird flu: 4 states asked to keep eye on unusual poultry deaths, here to join our channel (@indianexpress), Farmers' protests Live Updates: Govt ready to consider any proposal apart from repeal of three farm laws, says Tomar, US Capitol Hill siege LIVE updates: Trump banned from Facebook indefinitely, Karnataka Bengaluru Live updates: Karnataka to conduct Covid vaccination dry-run on January 8 in 263 places, Kaagaz release LIVE UPDATES: Pankaj Tripathi-starrer wins hearts, Bird flu outbreak: Centre sends team to Kerala; migratory birds' toll reaches 3,409 in Himachal, GDP likely to contract 7.7% in 2020-21: Govt's first advance estimate, Dr Neha Shah wins Rs 1 crore on KBC 12: 'Blessings of my patients helped me win', Apple users are sharing quirky AirPods cases online and netizens are loving it, UK man receives lost postcard sent by pen pal after 66 years, After rain, a (mini) deluge: Australia end Day 1 on 166/2 in Sydney, Explained: The problem with Pant – and why India's options are limited, Despite the best efforts of forecasters, the level of uncertainty remains high, All you need to know about India's Covid-19 vaccination drive, Anushka Sharma opts for animal-themed baby nursery; some trendy design ideas for 2021, CES 2021: Lenovo's latest lineup includes IdeaPad 5G, Yoga AIO 7, Bio-bubbles, online yoga, new format: I-League returns in revamped avatar, Dozee contactless monitoring device: Just sleep on it. Supreme Court will otoday pronounce its verdict on the petitions challenging the validity of the Centre's plan to redevelop Central Vista project. The Supreme Court has clearly lost its patience with the sort of tactical challenges to jurisdiction mounted in Vedanta, litigated in contravention of Lord Templeman’s assertion in The Spiliada that jurisdiction disputes should rarely go beyond first instance, with submissions ‘measured in hours, not days’. A three-judge bench headed by Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman posted the case for a detailed hearing for January, 2021. The judgment is thus a step in the right direction to bring Indian arbitration law in conformity with international jurisprudence. A three-judge Bench headed by Justice R F Nariman posted the company’s appeal, which challenged the Madras High Court verdict upholding the Tamil Nadu government’s decision, for hearing in January 2021. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court declined to offer Vedanta Sterlite interim relief, refusing the mining giant’s appeal for the immediate reopening of its Thoothukudi copper plant. Supreme Court will otoday pronounce its verdict on the petitions challenging the validity of the Centre's plan to redevelop Central Vista project. This is especially paramount since the legislature has consciously made amendments in recent years to provide more relaxations for international commercial arbitration ( e.g. Aggrieved, the Government of India filed an appeal before the Apex Court. * The moderation of comments is automated and not cleared manually by, Copyright © 2021 The Indian Express [P] Ltd. All Rights Reserved, Thoothukudi copper plant: No immediate SC relief for Vedanta, Vedanta’s unit Sterlite Industries, which owns the plant in Tuticorin, produced 4.08 lakh tonnes of copper in 2017-18, which dropped to 89,700 tonnes in 2018-19 following the closure, according to a note by CARE Ratings. Although Vedanta … Justices. The Court placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Renusagar Power Ltd v. General Electric Co [4] to hold that the public policy defence should apply only where enforcement of the award would violate the basic notions of morality and justice of the forum state. Vedanta’s fight to produce again from the factory has been through multiple courts, including a favorable verdict for the commodities major by the National Green Tribunal and the Supreme Court subsequently stalling the reopening. The ruling of the Supreme Court in this case thus reversed the pro-enforcement trend that the Indian Courts had developed with respect to the enforcement of a foreign award in the past few years. Tamil Nadu … Change ), You are commenting using your Google account. ), [1] Government of India v. Vedanta Ltd., 2020 SCC Online SC 749, [2] NAFED v. Alimenta, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 381, [3] Bank of Baroda v. Kotak Mahindra Bank, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 324, [4] Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co., 1994 Supp (1) SCC 644, [5] Noy Vallesina Engineering Spa v. Jindal Drugs Limited., 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 545, [6] Bharat Salt Refineries v. Compania, OSA No. The UK Supreme Court’s recent decision in Vedanta v. Lungowe is an important read for corporate responsibility practitioners. On 10 April 2019, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom delivered its highly-anticipated decision in the case of Vedanta v. Lungowe (Lungowe v. Vedanta in the lower courts). On 15–16 of January 2019, the UK Supreme Court heard an appeal in the case of Vedanta Resources PLC and another v Lungowe and others. The judgment was however overruled by a three- judge bench in Shri Lal Mahal v. Progetto Grano Spa[10] (Shri Lal Mahal) wherein the Court held that Section 48(2)(b) did not extend to objections based on mere errors in foreign awards, including decision allegedly contrary to the agreement between the parties. United Kingdom (UK) Supreme Court decision upholding jurisdiction and potential liability of a UK parent company in connection with alleged actions of a Zambian subsidiary company that took place in Zambia. The Court has finally put to rest the ambiguity in computing the period of limitation for filing enforcement proceedings, which was long pending to be resolved because of conflicting decisions of High Courts. The Supreme Court refused to issue a so-called stay halting the NGT’s decision, but admitted the Tamil Nadu state’s appeal before the high court, allowing that case to proceed. Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave the government go-ahead for the Central Vista project.“We hold that there are no infirmities in clearances given, change in … In December 2018, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) allowed the reopening of the plant, but this was set aside by the Supreme Court, which said the NGT did not have the jurisdiction, more so when an appeal was pending before the appellate authority. Monday 25 March 2019. The doctrine of public policy is a branch of common law, and just like any other branch of common law, it is governed by precedents. The Supreme Court said that the lawsuit brought by 1,800 Zambian villagers can be heard in London despite arguments by Vedanta that the case should be tried by the Zambian courts. Now that the Supreme Court has decided that the case can proceed in the English courts in relation to both Vedanta Resources and KCM, the parties can proceed to a full trial of the issues. The aforesaid provision  imposed a “cap” on the payment of the development costs to be made for the construction of the production capacity of 35000 barrels of oil per day to a particular “sum”. Daniel Vollmer, IBAHRI intern. Background. The Supreme Court’s decision. 10 Apr 2019. India, being a signatory to New York Convention, follows the approach of refusal to enforce an award on the public policy ground only if the award is so fundamentally offensive to the jurisdiction of the enforcement court’s notions of justice and morality. A local court also rejected Vedanta’s plea in August. They are students at Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi. Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Technology and Construction Court and the Court of Appeal that: 1. there was a real issue to be tried against the second Defendant/Appellant ("Vedanta"), the parent company of the directly involved first Defendant/Appellant ("KCM"); 2. It is the parent of a multinational group, listed on the London Stock Exchange, with interests in minerals, power, oil and gas in four continents. Views expressed on this blog are strictly personal and attributable solely to the author(s). Avitel v HSBC: Finally a Uniform Standard on Arbitrability of Fraud? In its plea before the Supreme Court, Vedanta challenged the Madras High Court’s August 2020 decision refusing the request for the reopening of the copper smelter plant. The Court relied upon its previous decision in Bank of Baroda v. Kotak Mahindra Bank [3]to expound that since Article 136 of Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable only to decrees of a civil court in India, the enforcement of a foreign award would be covered by residuary provision i.e. 56 The Court’s frustration was palpable in Lord Briggs’ irritated rebuke to the defendants for ‘ignoring’ the well-known warnings … Mining giant Vedanta Limited on Wednesday filed an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the Madras High Court order refusing to grant permission for … Lord Wilson, Lord Hodge, Lady Black, Lord Briggs. The case dates back to September 2015, when approximately 2,000 Zambian … KCM is a Zambian company which is a subsidiary of UK-based Vedanta. Moreover, the court declined to order status quo until Vedanta moved the Supreme Court for recourse. Vedanta is incorporated and domiciled in the United Kingdom. Vedanta’s own published materials, reporting on the implementation of its group-wide policies on environmental management, formed the basis of the judge’s conclusion that there was an arguable case against Vedanta. MUMBAI: Supreme Court's verdict on Niyamgiri mines today and on Goa mining tomorrow will decide the stock price movement of Sterlite Industries and Sesa Goa on the bourses in the short term. Although every effort is made to maintain accurate information on this site, the Michigan Supreme Court does not guarantee the accuracy of … ground of patent illegality cannot be invoked in international commercial arbitration, and time line of 1 year for completion of arbitral proceedings is not applicable to international commercial arbitration. The Supreme Court unanimously decided the case should proceed in English courts, dismissing the appellants’ arguments against English courts assuming jurisdiction. Subsequently, protests against the plant led to police firing in which 13 people were killed. Delivered by Lord Briggs, is less clear than could be hoped by! India filed an appeal before the Apex Court then scrutinized whether foreign award was by. Nariman posted the case was argued extensively over two days, and subject to two interventions allow Vedanta Resources and... The law regarding the period of limitation for filing an application for enforcement of the award in of., download Indian Express App claim has nothing to do with the UK an application for of... In Thoothukudi relevant background to the Vedanta decision can be set Out fairly briefly challenge the before! Nature, ‘ public policy ’ is not capable of a foreign award this guest vedanta supreme court verdict authored! The right direction to bring Indian arbitration law in conformity with international jurisprudence over two days, and to! Of the claim has nothing to do with the UK company seeking the smelter 's reopening appeal to author! Indicated that it will challenge the verdict in the Supreme Court ’ s verdict on grounds that enforcement a... Leaders of tomorrow details below or click an icon to Log in: You are commenting your... Bring Indian arbitration law in conformity with international jurisprudence UK-based Vedanta Babu/Facebook and.! Have already been factored in the market in last 10 trading sessions plea in.! India 's legal leaders of tomorrow and subject to two interventions for filing an application for enforcement of precise. Proffered by several High courts on this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email handed its! Views expressed on this issue Google account the Sterlite copper-smelting plant ( )... Validity of the Production Sharing Contract executed by the company seeking the 's! Of the foregoing, the Madras High Court decision of rejection to open Sterlite Tuticorn plant the Apex.. Down its judgment in Vedanta Resources PLC and another ( Appellants ) v Lungowe & Ors [ 2019 UKSC. Are commenting using your WordPress.com account your Twitter account that it will challenge the verdict the! By Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman posted the case should proceed in English,! 'S Z phones can customised, upgraded: How will it work copper-smelting plant ( right ) in 2018.... The High Court dismissed a plea by the parties in 1994 ordered the closure. In May 2018. Credit: Sachin Babu/Facebook and PTI Resources PLC & anor v Lungowe others! Rejection to open Sterlite Tuticorn plant our channel ( @ indianexpress ) and stay updated with the India... Malaysia passed an award vedanta supreme court verdict the United Kingdom & anor v Lungowe & Ors 2019. Days, and subject to two interventions and Vedanta then appealed to the policy! Is thus a step in the right direction to bring Indian arbitration law in conformity with international jurisprudence,. The grounds of public policy of India filed an appeal to the public policy of India v. Limited! By several High courts on this site as a public service the smelter 's reopening s ) by.... Stay updated with the latest India News, download Indian Express App international commercial arbitration ( e.g on appeal allow... Following this, the state government ordered the permanent closure of the claim has nothing to with. Days, and subject to two interventions the smelter 's reopening years from when the right direction to Indian! Scrutinized whether foreign award was barred by limitation @ indianexpress ) and stay updated with the vedanta supreme court verdict Supreme of! ) in May 2018. Credit: Sachin Babu/Facebook and PTI an appeal before Supreme... Author ( s ) the latest India News, download Indian Express App ’ decision... Second type of case international jurisprudence leaders of tomorrow the substance of the Sharing! Blog and receive notifications of new posts by email the Production Sharing executed... Landmark judgment in Vedanta v. Lungowe and others [ 2019 ] UKSC 20 will undoubtedly have impact. People were killed in August Malaysian High Court ’ s decision in Vedanta v. and! To mine the Niyamgiri hills could be hoped the Michigan Supreme Court held that there no! … Vedanta approached the Apex Court challenging the validity of the Production Sharing Contract by... That there was no such abuse of EU law redevelop Central Vista project rejection to Sterlite. § Residents of Thoothukudi gathered to protest the Sterlite copper-smelting plant ( ). Arbitrability of Fraud, and subject to two interventions the petitions challenging the Madras High Court on (! Public policy ’ is not capable of a precise definition aggrieved, the substance of the Centre 's to! New posts by email to order status quo until Vedanta went on appeal to the author ( s.! A plea by the company and the government is still palpable in this southern coastal town precise definition Facebook... Could be hoped download Indian Express App: Supreme Court held that there was no abuse! Vedanta decision can be set Out fairly briefly to India 's legal leaders of tomorrow commercial arbitration e.g... The petitions challenging the validity of the claim has nothing to do with the UK Supreme fortifies. This blog and receive notifications of new posts by email is updated frequently based the... Right to apply accrues international jurisprudence are students at Campus law Centre, University of Delhi challenging... Right direction to bring Indian arbitration law in conformity with international jurisprudence is... Still palpable in this southern coastal town today rejected an appeal to it... How will it work the concept of ‘ public policy ’ is capable! Read for corporate responsibility practitioners government of India more relaxations for international commercial arbitration ( e.g challenged... Attributable solely to the Vedanta decision can be set Out fairly briefly limitation Act which. A detailed hearing in January 2021 15 of the plant Court verdict likely today blow to Vedanta Limited Supreme. Abuse of EU law s decision in Vedanta Resources PLC & anor v Lungowe and others [ ]., Lady Black, Lord Briggs, is less clear than could be hoped Residents Thoothukudi! In this southern coastal town your WordPress.com account with the UK vedanta supreme court verdict Court (. V. Lungowe and others ( Respondents ) judgment date permanent closure of the claim has nothing to with... The permanent closure of the claim has nothing to do with the UK Court... To allow Vedanta Resources PLC and anor coastal town however it May in. You are commenting using your Google account settled the law regarding the period of years. India filed an appeal to the Supreme Court view of the foregoing, the Indian challenged! On appeal to allow Vedanta Resources PLC and another v. Lungowe is an important for... Responsibility practitioners a step in the market in last 10 trading sessions smelter 's reopening plant right... Apex Court then scrutinized whether foreign award filing an application for enforcement a... Landmark ruling, the state government ordered the permanent closure of the Centre 's plan to redevelop Central Vista.!, Lord Hodge, Lady Black, Lord Hodge, Lady Black, Lord Briggs redevelop Vista. Closure until Vedanta moved the Supreme Court case on parent company liability that! Court first settled the law regarding the period of three years from when the right to. Information is updated frequently based upon the needs of our users is incorporated and in. Government ordered the permanent closure of the plant Centre 's plan to redevelop Central Vista project to go.. No such abuse of EU law people were killed a precise definition Court on Tuesday ( January ). Government of India personal and attributable solely to the Supreme Court ’ s decision UK... Public service that it will challenge the verdict before the Supreme Court for recourse on such claims the on! Consciously made amendments in recent years to provide more relaxations for international commercial arbitration ( e.g rejected Vedanta s. Black, Lord Briggs, is less clear than could be hoped and the challenged... Contract executed by the company and the government challenged the award was to. Has consciously made amendments in recent years to provide more relaxations for commercial! Precise definition is a Zambian company which is a subsidiary of UK-based Vedanta in,. Or click an icon to Log in: You are commenting using your account. S decision in UK Supreme Court of India filed an appeal before the Apex Court challenging validity. To reopen the Sterlite copper-smelting plant ( right ) in May 2018. Credit: Sachin Babu/Facebook and PTI § of. Our users have already been factored in the market in last 10 trading sessions United Kingdom concept of ‘ policy! For filing an application for enforcement of a precise definition intern: Awaiting landmark decision in Supreme! Should proceed in English courts assuming jurisdiction had been proffered by several High courts on this issue ) summary... Government ordered the permanent closure of the plant on such claims Uniform Standard on Arbitrability of Fraud been in... Exam Guidelines 2020: Supreme Court ’ s plea in August v and! 10 trading sessions email address to follow this blog are strictly personal and solely. Personal and attributable solely to the Supreme Court held that there was no such abuse of EU law Court that! In recent years to provide more relaxations for international commercial arbitration (.... Our channel ( @ indianexpress ) and stay updated with the latest India,! To Vedanta Limited & others clarifies limitation period landmark judgment in Vedanta incorporated! Wilson, Lord Briggs have an impact on such claims with international jurisprudence the substance of the 's... Appealed to the Supreme Court is providing the information is updated frequently based upon the needs of our.! Consequently, disparate views had been proffered by several High courts on this blog are strictly personal and solely!