Union of India v Reliance Industries Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 1407 (Comm) (09 June 2022)

Union of India v Reliance Industries Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 1407 (Comm) (09 June 2022)

The court held that the Henderson v Henderson principle is a procedural rule governed by the law of the seat of arbitration, which in this case is English law. The tribunal was correct to apply English procedural law to issues of res judicata, and the Government's threshold objections under Indian law should have been raised earlier. There was no serious irregularity or error of law in the tribunal's approach.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1407 (Comm)
Parties
Applicant/respondent in the Arbitration: Union of India; Respondent/claimant in the Arbitration: Reliance Industries Limited; Respondent/claimant in the Arbitration: BG Exploration and Production India Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Act 1996 Challenge (sections 68 and 69) / High Court Judgment on Challenge to Arbitral Award
Outcome
Application dismissed; leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Procedural Law Vs Substantive Law, Arbitral Procedure, Public Policy, Indian Constitutional Law, Cost Recovery Under Production Sharing Contracts
Arbitration Commercial Law Oil and Gas Law Res Judicata Procedural Law Vs Substantive Law Arbitral Procedure Public Policy Indian Constitutional Law +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Union of India

Applicant/respondent in the Arbitration

Reliance Industries Limited

Respondent/claimant in the Arbitration

BG Exploration and Production India Limited

Respondent/claimant in the Arbitration

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Act 1996 Challenge (sections 68 and 69) / High Court Judgment on Challenge to Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral tribunal correctly applied the doctrine of res judicata (Henderson v Henderson) as a matter of English law due to the seat of arbitration being London
  2. 2 Whether the Henderson v Henderson principle applies to all stages of the same arbitration, including defences not previously raised
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal's refusal to consider Indian constitutional threshold objections constituted a serious irregularity under section 68

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Henderson v Henderson principle is a procedural rule governed by the law of the seat of arbitration, which in this case is English law. The tribunal was correct to apply English procedural law to issues of res judicata, and the Government's threshold objections under Indian law should have been raised earlier. There was no serious irregularity or error of law in the tribunal's approach.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • The challenge under sections 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 is dismissed.
  • Permission to appeal is refused.