AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. versus HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY NAMED HPEIF HOLDINGS 1 LIMITED)

Citation: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 971 · Decided: 04-03-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HRISHIKESH ROY, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 971 : 2024 INSC 242
Avitel Post Studioz Limited & Ors. 
v. 
HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Limited 
(Previously Named Hpeif Holdings 1 Limited)
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3835 – 3836 of 2024)
04 March 2024
[Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The High Court facilitated the enforcement of the final Award dated 
27.09.2014 issued at Singapore International Arbitration Centre 
(SIAC). The appellants’ objection to enforcement of the foreign 
Award, in terms of s.48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 
was rejected and the High Court had also directed that the order of 
attachment against the Award Debtors-appellants shall continue to 
operate during the execution proceedings to be undertaken by the 
respondent-Award Holder. Whether the High Court was correct in 
its decision to reject the objection u/s. 48(2)(b) of Indian Arbitration 
Act against enforcement of the foreign Award on the grounds of 
arbitral bias and violation of public policy. Further, whether the 
ground of bias could be raised at the enforcement stage u/s. 48(2)
(b) for being violative of the “public policy of India” and the “most 
basic notions of morality or justice”.
Headnotes
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.48 – Chapter 1 
Part II – Foreign Award – According to the appellants-Award 
Debtors , the Presiding Arbitrator, CL, one of the three-
member Arbitral Tribunal, had failed to make a full and frank 
disclosure of material facts and circumstances concerning 
conflict of interest and therefore the Award rendered by the 
Tribunal presided by CL cannot be enforced as it is against 
public policy in terms of s.48(2) (b)of the Indian Arbitration 
Act – Propriety:
Held: The Award in the instant matter was passed in Singapore, 
a New York Convention Country and notified as a reciprocating 
territory by India – Chapter 1 Part II of the Indian Arbitration Act 
is applicable in the present case – The parties had expressly 
chosen Singapore as the seat of Arbitration – It is the seat court 
972
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
which has exclusive supervisory jurisdiction to determine claims 
for a remedy relating to the existence or scope of arbitrator’s 
jurisdiction or the allegation of bias – A contrary approach would 
go against the scheme of the New York Convention which has 
been incorporated in India – The jurisdiction was therefore chosen 
based on the perceived neutrality by the parties aligning with the 
principle of party autonomy – In the instant case, no setting aside 
challenge based on bias was raised before the Singapore Courts 
by the appellants within the limitation period – None of the grounds, 
which are now being pressed, were raised during the arbitration 
or in the time period available to the appellants to apply, to set 
aside the Award in Singapore – Bonafide challenges to arbitral 
appointments have to be made in a timely fashion and should 
not be used strategically to delay the enforcement process – In 
other words, the Award Debtors should have applied for setting 
aside of the Award before the Singapore Courts at the earliest 
point of time – As far as allegations of bias against Presiding 
Arbitrator CL is concerned, the High Court after adverting to the 
IBA guidelines concluded that there was no identity or conflict of 
interest between CL and the award holder, or any of its affiliates 
including its holding company – In assessment of this Court, the 
High Court correctly suggested that CL neither had a duty to 
disclose nor did he fail to discharge his legal duty of disclosure 
in accepting the assignment as the Presiding Arbitrator – In the 
circumstances here, it cannot be inferred that there was a bias 
or likelihood of bias of the Presiding Arbitrator – Award Debtors 
therefore cannot claim that there is any violation of the public 
policy, which would render the foreign award unenforceable in 
India – The award debtors have failed to meet the high threshold 
for refusal of enforcement of a foreign award u/s. 48 of the Indian 
Arbitration Act – Accordingly, the decision given by the High Court 
for enforcement/execution of the foreign award stands approved. 
[Paras 27, 28, 29, 35.1, 36, 43]
Arbitration – Foreign Award – Bias – Standard of public policy 
in India:
Held: Embracing international standards in arbitration would foster 
trust, certainty, and effectiveness in the resolution of disputes on 
a global scale – In India, an internationally re

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.