Bina Modi and Ors. v. Lalit Modi and Ors., CS(OS) 84 and 85/2020 [India]
The Delhi High Court recently made a very controversial decision on the powers of the Indian civil courts to issue injunctions in restraint of arbitration. The decision of Endlaw J analyses obiter dicta comments of the Supreme Court in Kvaerner Cementation India Limited v. Bajranglal Agarwal and Anr., (2012) 5 SCC 214 and explains why the refusal to consider these comments in subsequent cases means that the law in India has developed in the wrong direction. The decision is under appeal but well worth reading for anyone interested in the developing state of arbitral law pursuant to the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.
A v B  EWHC 952 (Comm) [England and Wales]
An application to set aside an order of Teare J granting leave to enforce an arbitration award pursuant to sections 101 and 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996 came before Moulder J. During the course of a hearing held remotely due to coronavirus, Moulder J considered whether or not the claimant had established its entitlement to enforce an award pursuant to the Arbitration Act 1996. The judgment provides a caution to all those seeking leave to enforce: make sure that the right has been established already or else prepare yourself for determination of outstanding issues by way of a hearing pursuant to the section 66 jurisdiction.
Petrochemical Logistics Limited & Ors v PSB Alpha AG & Ors  EWHC 975 (Comm) [England and Wales]
The High Court refuses the continuation of a freezing Injunction in circumstances where it was required to take into account the fact that the arbitration agreement between the parties provided for a seat outside England and Wales. The question that the court had to answer was whether there was a sufficient connection between the dispute and England for an injunction to be continued.
Enka Insaat VE Sanaya A.S. v (1) 000 ‘Insurance Company Chubb’ & Ors  EWCA Civ 574 [England and Wales]
One would have thought that the English courts had already provided clarity on the question of how to determine the proper law of an arbitration agreement. In this significant Court of Appeal judgment, concerned with an application for an anti-suit injunction restraining proceedings in Russia, Popplewell LJ disagrees and sets out to provide greater structure to the legal analysis of the relationship between the curial law and the law of the arbitration agreement. A succinct summary of this must-read judgment is provided in this edition of the Briefing.
The Arbitration Briefing is part of the Bloomsbury Law Online Service. The full briefing is available here.