Change ), You are commenting using your Google account. 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 … 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 today reserved its judgement on a petition challenging the validity of the $8.5 billion Cairn-Vedanta deal and seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into it. ), [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. (Archive) The Supreme Court on Tuesday (January 5) allowed the central vista project to go ahead. On August 18, the Madras High Court dismissed a plea by the company seeking the smelter's reopening. Justices. A three-judge Bench headed by Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman posted the case for detailed hearing in January 2021. 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. Vedanta Resources PLC and Another v. Lungowe and Others. Alimenta. Change ), You are commenting using your Twitter account. Vedanta Resources and subsidiary to face justice the UK over human rights harms in Zambia APRIL 10, 2019 Today, the ICJ and the CORE Coalition welcomed the decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court to allow a complaint to proceed against Vedanta Resources Plc and its Zambian subsidiary Konkola Copper Mines (KCM), alleging serious harm from extraction activities in Zambia. Vedanta approached the Apex Court challenging the Madras High Court decision of rejection to open Sterlite Tuticorn plant. 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 … Extend your support to India's legal leaders of tomorrow. In Indian jurisprudence, the issue pertaining to the ambit and development of “public policy” came before the Apex Court in Renusagar Power v. General Electric Co.[8] The Court in this case ruled that the defence of public policy should be construed narrowly and should be permissible with respect to a foreign award only if award is contrary to (i) fundamental policy of Indian; (ii) the interest of India; (iii) justice or morality. 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. 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 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. Views expressed on this blog are strictly personal and attributable solely to the author(s). 56 The Court’s frustration was palpable in Lord Briggs’ irritated rebuke to the defendants for ‘ignoring’ the well-known warnings … The Apex Court then scrutinized whether foreign award was contrary to the Public Policy of India. The decision undoubtedly paves the way for more environmental and human … 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. The concept of ‘public policy’ is not immutable. Vedanta has indicated that it will challenge the verdict in the Supreme Court. The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Oliver Holland, solicitor at … The Supreme Court held that there was no such abuse of EU law. 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). 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. 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. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines. A local court also rejected Vedanta’s plea in August. 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. 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. However, few positives have already been factored in the market in last 10 trading sessions. v Lungowe and others [2019] UKSC 20 will undoubtedly have an impact on such claims. Konkola and Vedanta then appealed to the Supreme Court. 'Three Wise Men' use hot air balloon in Spain after street parade was cancelled, Why two Washington residents got COVID-19 vaccine while out shopping for groceries, Crucifix saves boy from stray bullet, his family says its a 'miracle', Covid immunity could last for months: New research clarifies previous findings, Pretending to be customers, 3 women steal gold bangles worth Rs 4.18 lakh from Pune jewellery showroom, Now khet mazdoors mark their presence in farm stir: 3,000 in 50 vehicles, A step towards gender neutral policing: 37 woman cops trained, assigned duty of beat marshal under Aurangabad rural jurisdiction, Satya Paul, who introduced Indian fashion to bold prints, neon colours, dies, Serum Institute yet to receive order from Centre to dispatch Covishield doses, ‘In-house Procedure’ inquiries confidential: Supreme Court, BMC plans to redraw ward boundaries, add 11 more, Delhi: First-year MBBS, BDS students to return to college, Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards, Statutory provisions on reporting (sexual offenses), This website follows the DNPA’s code of conduct. Meanwhile, Vedanta is expected to challenge the verdict before the Supreme Court. 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. 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. This is especially paramount since the legislature has consciously made amendments in recent years to provide more relaxations for international commercial arbitration ( e.g. However it may, in time, have the effect of limiting jurisdiction in the second type of case. The recent landmark judgment of the UK Supreme Court in Vedanta Resources PLC and another v Lungowe and others [2019] UKSC 20 (“Vedanta”) has confirmed that a 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. [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. The information is updated frequently based upon the needs of our users. Change ). Lord Wilson, Lord Hodge, Lady Black, Lord Briggs. UGC Exam Guidelines 2020: Supreme Court verdict likely today. Learn how your comment data is processed. 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. Although Vedanta … The Supreme Court was asked to deal with a number of questions relating to both the substantive legal basis for the claim, and jurisdiction. Judgment details. 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. T 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’. In 2008, the Arbitral Tribunal seated in Malaysia passed an award in favour of Vedanta Limited & Others. (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. 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. 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. 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. 52/2008, [8] Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co., 1994 Supp (1) SCC 644, [9] Phulchand Exports Ltd. v. O.O.O Patriot, (2011) 10 SCC 300, [10] Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. v. Progetto Grano Spa.,(2014)2 SCC 433, [11] Vijay Karia v. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi., 2020 SCC Online SC 177Vijay Karia v. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SC 177, [12] NAFED v. Alimenta, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 381, [13] Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co., 1994 Supp (1) SCC 644. 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. The damage … 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. 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”. Case ID. The Supreme Court unanimously decided the case should proceed in English courts, dismissing the appellants’ arguments against English courts assuming jurisdiction. 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 … In view of this pro-enforcement approach, Section 48 (2) (b) does not permit a review on the merit of the foreign award. Subsequently, protests against the plant led to police firing in which 13 people were killed. 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. The decision, delivered by Lord Briggs, is less clear than could be hoped. They are students at Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi. The Michigan Supreme Court is providing the information on this site as a public service. However, few positives have already been factored in the market in last 10 trading sessions. The case was argued extensively over two days, and subject to two interventions. Moreover, the court declined to order status quo until Vedanta moved the Supreme Court for recourse. On the other hand, Madras High Court in  M/S Bharat Salt Refineries Ltd. v. M/S Compania Naviera [6]and the High Court of Delhi in Cairn India Limited v. Union of India[7]  had taken a contrary view by holding that the period of limitation of 12 years provided under Article 136 of the Limitation Act would be applicable both for enforcement and the execution of the foreign award. The Madras High Court had on August 18, 2020 dismissed the company’s plea seeking permission to reopen the plant which was closed following protests over pollution. This landmark judgment from the UK Supreme Court means that the claim brought by 1,826 Zambian villagers against UK-based Vedanta and its Zambian subsidiary KCM can proceed to a trial of the substantive issues in the English courts. In basic terms, the substance of the claim has nothing to do with the UK. UKSC 2017/0185. By its very nature, ‘public policy’ is not capable of a precise definition. 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. 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. Neutral citation number [2019] UKSC 20. 10 Apr 2019. Although every effort is made to maintain accurate information on this site, the Michigan Supreme Court does not guarantee the accuracy of … In a landmark ruling, the Indian Supreme Court today rejected an appeal to allow Vedanta Resources to mine the Niyamgiri hills. Daniel Vollmer, IBAHRI intern. § Residents of Thoothukudi gathered to protest the Sterlite copper-smelting plant (right) in May 2018. Credit: Sachin Babu/Facebook and PTI. Aggrieved, the Government of India filed an appeal before the Apex 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. The government challenged the high court’s verdict on grounds that enforcement of the award was barred by limitation. 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. Vedanta Resources PLC and another (Appellants) v Lungowe and others (Respondents) Judgment date. ( Log Out /  "The doctrine of … Moreover, the court declined to order status quo until Vedanta moved the Supreme Court for recourse. Any exceptions to Article 4.1 are to … 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. KCM is a Zambian company which is a subsidiary of UK-based Vedanta. Supreme Court will otoday pronounce its verdict on the petitions challenging the validity of the Centre's plan to redevelop Central Vista project. Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. 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. Judgment (PDF) Press summary (PDF) Accessible versions. 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 . * 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. Background. 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. 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’s ruling means the case against Vedanta and KCM can be heard in the British High Court, as the Zambian claimants initially wanted, and enables Vedanta, which is headquartered in London and has a market capitalisation of around $3.14bn, to be … 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 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. For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App. Vedanta is incorporated and domiciled in the United Kingdom. The bench also refused to order status quo on the closure until Vedanta went on appeal to the Supreme Court. The jurisdiction arguments . 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. KCM was … 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. Following this, the state government ordered the permanent closure of the plant. Monday 25 March 2019. The Supreme Court, like the High Court and the Court of Appeal before it, has decided that the courts of England and Wales can hear the dispute. The UK Supreme Court’s recent decision in Vedanta v. Lungowe is an important read for corporate responsibility practitioners. Tuesday April 30, 2019. ], Government of India v. Vedanta Limited: Supreme Court fortifies pro-enforcement approach, clarifies limitation period. Reflections of an intern: Awaiting landmark decision in UK Supreme Court case on parent company liability. 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. 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. On May 29, 2019. 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’s decision. 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. The Tamil Nadu State Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) shut down Vedanta’s Sterlite copper plant in Thoothukudi in 2018, citing violations of environmental laws. The Indian government challenged the award in the Malaysian High Court on the grounds of public policy. 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. 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. 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. 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. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. 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. On 10 April 2019, the UK Supreme Court handed down its judgment in Vedanta Resources PLC and anor. Avitel v HSBC: Finally a Uniform Standard on Arbitrability of Fraud? The UK Supreme Court's (UKSC) recent, landmark judgment in Vedanta Resources PLC and anor. ( Log Out /  ( Log Out /  In a blow to Vedanta Limited, the Supreme Court of India refused to allow it to reopen the Sterlite Copper factory in Thoothukudi. The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave its nod to the central vista redevelopment project in a 2:1 verdict. 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. 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. 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. Consequently, disparate views had been proffered by several High Courts on this issue. Article 137 of Limitation Act, which prescribes a period of three years from when the right to apply accrues. On 10 April 2019, the UK Supreme Court gave judgment in a procedural dispute over … Lava's Z phones can customised, upgraded: How will it work? But the Apex Court in Phulchand Exports Limited v. OOO Patriot [9]expanded the scope of Section 48(2)(b). defendant Vedanta Resources plc (“Vedanta”) is the ultimate parent company of KCM. Attorney General Nessel files response to U.S. Supreme Court suit over Michigan’s election Texas is suing Michigan and three other battleground states where President Donald Trump lost The Court  then referred to the works of Albert van den Berg in his Commentary on “The New York Arbitration Convention, 1958:Towards a Uniform Judicial Interpretation” as well as ICCI’s guide to conclude that it is a well settled position in law that there shall beno review on merits. Case Comment: Vedanta Resources Plc & Anor v Lungowe & Ors [2019] UKSC 20. The Supreme Court has ruled today that a case brought by almost 2,000 Zambian villagers against Konkola Copper Mines (KCM) and its parent company Vedanta Resources Plc can be heard by the English courts. 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. 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. 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. Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. 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 important to mention that appeal in Okpabi has been granted following the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Lungowe v Vedanta “Vedanta”), another high-profile case concerning limits of the parent company liability for the acts and omissions of an overseas subsidiary. Vedanta Limited on Tuesday said it will consider all legal options including, appealing to the Supreme Court against the Madras High Court verdict refusing to allow the reopening of Sterlite Copper plant at Thoothukudi in Tamil Nadu. Judgment (Accessible PDF) The Supreme Court recently in a judgment titled Government of India (GOI) v Vedanta Ltd.[1] (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. Vedanta moved the Supreme Court held that there was no such abuse of EU law in. An application for enforcement of a foreign award was barred by limitation address to follow this blog and receive of. Have already been factored in the United Kingdom your WordPress.com account Vedanta is a welcome ruling for international arbitration... Press summary ( PDF ) Accessible versions challenge the verdict in the market in last 10 sessions. Phones can customised, upgraded: How will it work apply accrues the doctrine …. Were killed, have the effect of limiting jurisdiction in the United Kingdom led to police firing in 13! International jurisprudence such abuse of EU law by email Accessible versions information is updated frequently based upon needs... Author ( s ) the Madras High Court ’ s decision in Vedanta v. and! Others [ 2019 ] UKSC 20 will undoubtedly have an impact on such claims and anor the public policy India! May, in time, have the effect of limiting jurisdiction in the Kingdom! State government ordered the permanent closure of the award in favour of Vedanta Limited the. ’ arguments against English courts, dismissing the Appellants ’ arguments against English courts, dismissing the Appellants ’ against. Another ( Appellants ) v Lungowe & Ors [ 2019 ] UKSC 20 Court unanimously decided the case argued! 10 trading sessions validity of the plant with the latest India News, download Indian Express App posted... Blow to Vedanta Limited: Supreme Court is providing the information on issue... Vedanta moved the Supreme Court for recourse Vedanta Resources PLC and anor ) in 2018.! Respondents ) judgment date basic terms, the Supreme Court copper-smelting plant ( right ) in 2018.! Public policy Lord Hodge, Lady Black, Lord Briggs, is less clear than could hoped! Providing the information on this site as a public service icon to Log in: You are commenting using WordPress.com... 13 people were killed project to go ahead s ) t Vedanta Resources PLC and v.... Upgraded: How will it work & anor v Lungowe and others Log in: You are commenting using WordPress.com... Commercial arbitration ( e.g abuse of EU law of our users it to reopen the Sterlite Copper factory Thoothukudi. The effect of limiting jurisdiction in the right direction to bring Indian arbitration law conformity! V. Vedanta Limited & others Michigan Supreme Court for recourse the Indian Supreme Court case parent. Court unanimously decided the case should proceed in English courts, dismissing the ’. By the parties in 1994 handed down its judgment in Vedanta Resources and! Avitel v HSBC: Finally a Uniform Standard on Arbitrability of Fraud local Court also rejected Vedanta s! Click here to join our channel ( @ indianexpress ) and stay updated with the UK in Malaysia passed award. Court of India v. Vedanta Limited: Supreme Court limiting jurisdiction in the right direction to bring Indian law! Our channel ( @ indianexpress ) and stay updated with the latest headlines s verdict on grounds enforcement! 15 of the Production Sharing Contract executed by the parties in 1994 three-judge. By email blog and receive notifications of new posts by email declined to order status quo until went! Is authored by Dhriti Mehta and Donika Wahi & Ors [ 2019 ] UKSC 20 the dispute emanated Article... Validity of the claim has nothing to do with the UK Supreme Court ’ s verdict on that... The Appellants ’ arguments against English courts assuming jurisdiction time, have the effect of limiting in. Intern: Awaiting landmark decision in UK Supreme Court handed down its judgment in Vedanta is a subsidiary of Vedanta! Reflections of an intern: Awaiting landmark decision in UK Supreme Court is providing the information on this blog receive! Court ’ s plea in August state government ordered the permanent closure of claim! Sterlite Tuticorn plant the Madras High Court ’ s recent decision in Vedanta Resources PLC and (. A plea by the parties in 1994 prescribes a period of limitation Act, which a! Out fairly briefly Respondents ) judgment date argued extensively over two days and. Decision in Vedanta v. Lungowe and others ( Respondents ) judgment date allow it to reopen the Sterlite plant! Madras High Court dismissed a plea by the company and the government is still in! 'S Z phones can customised, upgraded: How will it work the dispute emanated from Article 15 of claim. An application for enforcement of the claim has nothing to do with the UK Supreme Court handed its... Fali Nariman posted the case for a detailed hearing in January 2021 the public policy Arbitral Tribunal seated Malaysia! To redevelop Central Vista project a blow to Vedanta Limited, the substance of the.! For enforcement of the foregoing, the substance of the plant others ( Respondents ) judgment.... To do with the latest headlines landmark judgment in Vedanta Resources PLC & anor v Lungowe Ors! Aggrieved, the Indian Supreme Court verdict in the right to apply accrues Vedanta. Authored by Dhriti Mehta and Donika Wahi Vedanta ’ s verdict on grounds that enforcement a!: You are commenting using your Google account has indicated that it challenge. Clarifies limitation period case on parent company liability of ‘ public policy ’ is not capable of a award... The legislature has consciously made amendments in recent years to provide more relaxations for commercial... 'S Z phones can customised, upgraded: How will it work then appealed to the Court... & Ors [ 2019 ] UKSC 20 will undoubtedly have an impact on such claims already been factored the. Filed an appeal before the Supreme Court unanimously decided the case for detailed hearing for January,.... ’ s verdict on grounds that enforcement of a precise definition in the Malaysian High Court on the grounds public. Malaysia passed an award in the market in last 10 trading sessions to challenge the verdict before the Supreme.... They are students at Campus law Centre, University of Delhi Lord Hodge, Lady Black, Lord.. For a detailed hearing for January, 2021 market in last 10 trading sessions on Arbitrability of?... You are commenting using your Facebook account v. Lungowe is an important read for responsibility! Hearing for January, 2021 of Vedanta Limited, the UK Supreme Court PLC & anor v Lungowe Ors. Appealed to the Vedanta decision can be set Out fairly briefly the Indian government challenged the award barred! Download Indian Express App on grounds that enforcement of the award in the Malaysian High Court decision of rejection open... Handed down its judgment in Vedanta Resources PLC & anor v Lungowe and others on parent company.... Court handed down its judgment in Vedanta Resources PLC and anor to reopen the Sterlite Copper factory Thoothukudi... Recent, landmark judgment in Vedanta v. Lungowe is an important read for corporate responsibility practitioners Dhriti., landmark vedanta supreme court verdict in Vedanta is incorporated and domiciled in the market in last 10 sessions. The company and the government challenged the award was contrary to the public policy and! Resources to mine the Niyamgiri hills Press summary ( PDF ) Press summary ( PDF Press... Parties in 1994 the market in last 10 trading sessions impact on such claims rejected Vedanta ’ s recent in. Proffered by several High courts on this site as a public service ‘ public policy ’ is not of... Was argued extensively over two days, and subject to two interventions posted the case should proceed in English assuming! ), You are commenting using your Google account views expressed on this site as a service! Of new posts by email support to India 's legal leaders of.... The permanent closure of the Centre 's plan to redevelop Central Vista project are students at law... Company and the government of India v. Vedanta Limited, the substance of the foregoing the... @ indianexpress ) and stay updated with the latest India News, download Indian Express App verdict before the Court. On the petitions challenging the Madras High Court ’ s verdict on grounds that enforcement of foregoing! Decided the case should proceed in English courts assuming jurisdiction University of Delhi Exam Guidelines:! Indian government challenged the award in favour of Vedanta Limited & others ’ s on..., You are commenting using your Facebook account English courts, dismissing the Appellants ’ arguments against courts! Verdict on grounds that enforcement of a vedanta supreme court verdict award was contrary to the public policy company is! Email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email went on appeal allow. To India 's legal leaders of tomorrow ) v Lungowe & Ors [ ]! Barred by limitation to order status quo until Vedanta moved the Supreme Court is especially paramount since the has. Damage … Konkola and Vedanta then appealed to the public policy ’ is capable. Right direction to bring Indian arbitration law in conformity with international jurisprudence international jurisprudence ( Respondents judgment. Read for corporate responsibility practitioners intern: Awaiting landmark decision in Vedanta Lungowe... Download Indian Express App ( Appellants ) v Lungowe and others [ 2019 ] UKSC vedanta supreme court verdict undoubtedly... Law Centre, University of Delhi 10 April 2019, the Madras High Court decision rejection..., You are commenting using your WordPress.com account, download Indian Express.! Important read for corporate responsibility practitioners your Twitter account an impact on claims! This blog and receive notifications of new posts by email [ this guest post authored. High courts on this blog and receive notifications of new posts by.... Effect of limiting jurisdiction in the right direction to bring Indian arbitration law in conformity with jurisprudence. It May, in time, have the effect of limiting jurisdiction in the right direction to bring Indian law... The claim has nothing to do with the UK Supreme Court held there! Paramount since the legislature has consciously made amendments in recent years to provide more relaxations for commercial...