Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Concept of Arbitral Award Under the New York Convention: A Comparative Study of English, French and Indian Approaches

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Indian Yearbook of Comparative Law 2019

Part of the book series: The Indian Yearbook of Comparative Law ((IYCL))

  • 222 Accesses

Abstract

An arbitral award is the most important instrument in any arbitration proceedings. Nevertheless, a precise conceptual definition of award is a rarity, whether it is international conventions, national laws or institutional rules. Even the New York Convention, the very object of which is the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, reflected in its very title, only tells as to when an award is a foreign award but is very much silent about the more fundamental issue as to what an award is. Since the New York Convention applies only to arbitral awards, it is indispensable to know what decisions can be considered awards? The present paper attempts to develop a conceptual understanding of award culled from judicial decisions in England, France and India.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Nigel Blackaby and others, Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration, (6th edn, OUP 2015) para 9.01; Gary Born, International Commercial Arbitration,(3rd edn, Wolters Kluwer 2021) 3139.

  2. 2.

    Philippe Fouchard, Emmanuel Gaillard and Berthold Goldman, Fouchard, Gaillard and Goldman on International Arbitration (Emmanuel Gaillard and John Savage eds, Kluwer Law International 1999)737.

  3. 3.

    See, e.g., The Geneva Convention of 1927; The New York Convention on The Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958; The European Convention 1961; The Paris Agreement 1962; The Moscow Convention 1972; Inter American Convention; Inter-Arab Convention; The OHADA Treaty 1993; The National Legislations and Various Institutional Rules constitute the network.

  4. 4.

    These Conventions do not define the term ‘award’. Same is the situation with most of the national arbitration laws. For example, there is no definition of the term award in the French Law, the English Law, the FAA and the Swiss Law to name a few and the national laws which include a definition are also not very informative. For example, Section 2(1) (c) of the Indian Arbitration Act says, ‘arbitral award’ includes an interim award.’ However, there are a very few exceptions like New Zealand and Croatia where the legislation provides a definition of the term. Most of the leading institutional rules are also silent on the issue, see Gary Born, International Commercial Arbitration, (3rd edn, Wolters Kluwer 2021) para 22.02 [B] 1.

  5. 5.

    Judith Gill, ‘The Definition of Award under the New York Convention’ (2008) 2 Dispute Resolution International 114, Ehle,‘Article I Scope of Application’ in Reinmar Wolff (ed), New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards—Commentary, (CH Beck, 2012) 32, The UNCITRAL Model Law proposed the following definition which could not be adopted due to lack of consensus:

    Award means a final award which disposes of all issues submitted to the arbitral tribunal and any other decision of the arbitral tribunal which finally determines any question of substance or the question of its competence or any other question of procedure but, in the latter case, only if the arbitral tribunal terms its decision an award.

    H.Holtzman and J.Neuhas, A Guide to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration: Legislative History and Commentary, (Wolters Kluwer, 1989) 154.

  6. 6.

    Bernd Ehle, ‘Article I Scope of Application’ in Reinmar Wolff (ed), New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards—Commentary, (CH Beck 2012) 32.

  7. 7.

    Domestic legislations providing a definition are a rare exception. See, Gary Born, International Commercial Arbitration,(3rd edn, Wolters Kluwer 2021) para 22.02 [B] 1.

  8. 8.

    Julian D M Lew and Giacomo Marichisio, The Notion of an Award in International Arbitration: A comparative Analysis of French Law, English Law and the UNCITRAL Model Law, (Kluwer Law International 2017) 1. See also Judith Gill, ‘The Definition of Award under the New York Convention’ (2008) 2 Dispute Resolution International 114; Domenico Di Pietro, ‘What Constitutes an Arbitral Award Under The New York Convention’ in Emmanuel Gaillard and Domenico Di Pietro (eds), Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements and International Arbitral Awards—The New York Convention in Practice (Cameron 2008) 139; Philipp Peters and Christian Koller, ‘The Award and the Courts—The Notion of Arbitral Award: An Attempt to Overcome a Babylonian Confusion’ in Gerold Zeiler and others (eds), Austrian Yearbook on International Arbitration (Manz’cheVerlags-Und Universitatsbuchhandlung 2010) 137; Jenifer Kirby, ‘What is an Award, Anyway?’ (2014) 31 Journal of International Arbitration 475.

  9. 9.

    The full title of the New York Convention is the ‘United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards’.

  10. 10.

    See e.g. Article I (1) of the Convention:

    This Convention shall apply to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards made in the territory of a State other than the state where the recognition and enforcement of such awards are sought, and arising out of differences between persons, whether physical or legal. It shall also apply to arbitral awards not considered as domestic awards in the State where their recognition and enforcement are sought.

  11. 11.

    Albert Jan van den Berg, The New York Convention of 1958, (T.M.C. Asser 1981) 44; Philippe Fouchard, Emmanuel Gaillard and Berthold Goldman, Fouchard, Gaillard and Goldman on International Arbitration (Emmanuel Gaillard and John Savage eds, Kluwer Law International 1999) 129; Judith Gill, ‘The Definition of Award under the New York Convention’, (2008) 2 Dispute Resolution International 114; Nigel Blackaby and others, Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration, (6th edn, OUP 2015) para 9.05;‘The nearest it comes to a definition is: The term arbitral award shall include not only awards made by arbitrators appointed for each case but also those made by permanent arbitral bodies to which the parties have submitted’; Gary Born, International Commercial Arbitration,(3rd edn, Wolters Kluwer 2021) para 22.02 [B] 1.

  12. 12.

    Christoph Liebscher, ‘Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 10 June 1958 Preliminary Remarks’ in Reinmar Wolf (ed.) New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards – Commentary (CH Beck 2012) 19.

  13. 13.

    ibid.

  14. 14.

    ibid.

  15. 15.

    ibid.

  16. 16.

    Albert Jan van den Berg, The New York Convention of 1958, (T.M.C. Asser 1981) 44.

  17. 17.

    Poudret and Besson, Comparative Law of International Arbitration, (Sweet and Maxwell 2007) 811.

  18. 18.

    Award means a final award which disposes of all issues submitted to the arbitral tribunal and any other decision of the arbitral tribunal which finally determines any question of substance or the question of its competence or any other question of procedure but, in the latter case, only if the arbitral tribunal terms its decision an award. H.Holtzman and J.Neuhas, A Guide to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration: Legislative History and Commentary, (Wolters Kluwer, 1989) 154.

  19. 19.

    Gary Born, International Commercial Arbitration, (3rd edn, Wolters Kluwer 2021) para 22.02 [B] 1.

  20. 20.

    Jean Francois Poudret and Sebastien Besson, Comparative Law of International Arbitration, (Sweet and Maxwell 2007) 811; Bernd Ehle, ‘Article I Scope of Application’ in Reinmar Wolff (ed), New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards—Commentary, (CH Beck, 2012) 33; Christoph Liebscher, ‘Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 10 June 1958 Preliminary Remarks’ in Reinmar Wolff (ed.) New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards – Commentary (CH Beck 2012) 19.

  21. 21.

    Domenico Di Pietro, ‘What Constitutes an Arbitral award Under The New York Convention’ in Emmanuel Gaillard and Domenico Di Pietro (eds), Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements and International Arbitral Awards—The New York Convention in Practice (Cameron 2008) 142, Christoph Liebscher, ‘Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 10 June 1958 Preliminary Remarks’in Reinmar Wolf (ed.) New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards – Commentary (CH Beck 2012) 20.

  22. 22.

    Christoph Liebscher (12) 20.

  23. 23.

    ibid 21.

  24. 24.

    Domenico Di Pietro, ‘What Constitutes an Arbitral award Under The New York Convention’ in Emmanuel Gaillard and Domenico Di Pietro (eds), Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements and International Arbitral Awards—The New York Convention in Practice (Cameron 2008) 142.

  25. 25.

    Bernd Ehle, ‘Article I Scope of Application’ in Reinmar Wolff (ed), New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards—Commentary, (CH Beck 2012) 33.

  26. 26.

    Jan Paulson, ‘Arbitration Unbound: Award Detached from the Law of its Country of Origin’ (1981) 30 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 358.

  27. 27.

    Emmanuel Gaillard, Legal Theory of International Arbitratio, (MartinusNijhoff Publishers 2010); Societe PT Putrabali Adyamuliya v Societe Rena Holding et Societe Mungotia Est Epices, Revue del’ Arbitrage 507.

  28. 28.

    Farncis Mann, ‘LexFacitArbitrum’ (1986) 2 Arbitration International 241.

  29. 29.

    For further discussion on this approach see, Farncis Mann, ‘LexFacitArbitrum’ (1986) 2 Arbitra- tion International 241; Jean Francois Poudret and Sebastien Besson, Comparative Law of International Arbitration, (Sweet and Maxwell 2007) 811.

  30. 30.

    Bernd Ehle, ‘Article I Scope of Application’ in Reinmar Wolff (ed), New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards—Commentary, (CH Beck, 2012) 33.

  31. 31.

    ibid 33.

  32. 32.

    Philippe Fouchard, Emmanuel Gaillard and Berthold Goldman, Fouchard, Gaillard and Goldman on International Arbitration (Emmanuel Gaillard and John Savage eds, Kluwer Law International 1999) 967.

  33. 33.

    ibid 967.

  34. 34.

    Bernd Ehle (n 28) 33.

  35. 35.

    ibid.

  36. 36.

    Christoph Liebscher, ‘Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 10 June 1958 Preliminary Remarks’ in Reinmar Wolf (ed), New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards—Commentary, (CH Beck 2012) 20.

  37. 37.

    Naviera Amazonica Peruana S.A. v Compania International de Segurosdal Peru, YBCA, XIII (1988) 156 at 159. The Court of Appeal said ‘ English Law does not recognize the concept of a ‘delocalised’ arbitration or of ‘arbitral procedures floating in the transnational firmament, unconnected with any municipal system of law’. Accordingly every arbitration must have a ‘seat’.

  38. 38.

    See Section 2(2) of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, Bharat Aluminium v Kaiser Aluminium (2012) 9 SCC 552.

  39. 39.

    Bernd Ehle, ‘Article I Scope of Application’ in Reinmar Wolff (ed), New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards—Commentary, (CH Beck 2012) 33. Since According to this approach an award is not passed in legal vacuum but is rooted in the legal order of the seat hence it must be an award according to the lexarbitri.

  40. 40.

    Raffle Design International v Educomp Professional Education Ltd. 2016 SCC Online Del 5521.

  41. 41.

    SIAC, ‘The Emergency Arbitrator and Expedited Procedure in SIAC: A New Direction for Arbitration in Asia’  https://www.siac.org.sg/2013-09-18-01-57-20/2013-09-22-00-27-02/articles/420-the-emergency-arbitrator-and-expedited-procedure-in-siac-a-new-direction-for-arbitration-in-asia last accessed on 20th June 2019.

  42. 42.

    Section 44 defines New York Convention award.

  43. 43.

    KC Ley and Samuel Leong, Emergency Arbitrators in Singapore The SIAC Rules, https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=efac76de-b020-4168-bf29-b70f7fff1943  last accessed on 5th November 2019.

  44. 44.

    Gary Born, International Commercial Arbitration, (3rd edn, Wolters Kluwer 2020) para 1.01 [B] [1].

  45. 45.

    David John Sutton, Judith Gill and Mathew Gearing, Russel on Arbitration, (23rd edn, Sweet and Maxwell 2007) 271.

  46. 46.

    ibid 271.

  47. 47.

    ibid.

  48. 48.

    Cargill SRL Milan v P. Kadinopolous S.A. [1992] 1Lloyd’s Rep. 1, HL.

  49. 49.

    ibid.

  50. 50.

    Exmar BV v National Iranian Tanker Co (The ‘Trade Fortitude’) [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 169.

  51. 51.

    ibid 175.

  52. 52.

    This is an unreported case quoted in Philipp Peters and Christian Koller, ‘The Award and the Courts—The Notion of Arbitral Award: An Attempt to Overcome a Babylonian Confusion’, in Gerold Zeiler and others (eds) Austrian Yearbook on International Arbitration (Manz’sche Verlags- und Universitätsbuchhandlung 2010) 137, see footnote 62.

  53. 53.

    [2008] EWCH 2684 (Com) England.

  54. 54.

    [2008] EWCH 2684 (Com) England.

  55. 55.

    Charles M Willie and Co (shipping) Ltd. V Ocean Laser Shipping Ltd. (‘The Smaro’) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 225.

  56. 56.

    David John Sutton, Judith Gill and Mathew Gearing, Russel on Arbitration, (23rd edn, Sweet and Maxwell 2007) 272.

  57. 57.

    David John Sutton, Judith Gill and Mathew Gearing Russel on Arbitration, (23rd edn, Sweet and Maxwell 2007) 271.

  58. 58.

    [1985] 1 WLR 490.

  59. 59.

    ibid.

  60. 60.

    ibid.

  61. 61.

    Cargill SRL Milan v P. Kadinopolous S.A. [1992] 1Lloyd’s Rep. 1, HL.

  62. 62.

    ibid.

  63. 63.

    Arbitration Act, 1996, Section 39: Power [of the tribunal] to make provisional awards.

    (1) The parties are free to agree that the tribunal shall have power to order on a provisional basis any relief which it would have power to grant in a final award.

    (2) This includes, for instance, making—(a) a provisional order for the payment of money or the disposition of property as between the parties, or (b) an order to make an interim payment on account of the costs of the arbitration.

    (3) Any such order shall be subject to the tribunal’s final adjudication; and the tribunal’s final award, on the merits or as to costs, shall take account of any such order.

    (4) Unless the parties agree to confer such power on the tribunal, the tribunal has no such power.

    This does not affect its powers under Section 47 (awards on different issues, etc.).

  64. 64.

    Ronly Holdings Ltd v JSC Zestafoni G Nickoladze Ferroalloy Plant (2004) EWCH 1354.

  65. 65.

    Section 31(4) reads: Where an objection is duly taken to the tribunal’s substantive jurisdiction and the tribunal has power to rule on its own jurisdiction, it may—(a) rule on the matter in an award as to jurisdiction, or (b) deal with the objection in its award on the merits.

  66. 66.

    Charles M Wille& Com. (Shipping) Limited and Ors v Ocean Laser Shipping Limited and Ors 1999 1 Lloyd’s Rep 225 QBD.

  67. 67.

    See Section 100.

  68. 68.

    See Section 100(1).

  69. 69.

    Philipp Peters and Christian Koller, ‘The Award and the Courts—The Notion of Arbitral Award: An Attempt to Overcome a Babylonian Confusion’ 149, in Gerold Zeiler, and others (eds) Austrian Yearbook on International Arbitration (Manz’sche Verlags-und Universitätsbuchhandlung 2010).

  70. 70.

    Societe Sardisud v Societe Technip[1994] Rev Arb 391.

  71. 71.

    ibid.

  72. 72.

    Group Antoine Tabet v Republique du Congo [2102] Rev Arb 88; Elie Kleiman and Claire Pauly, ‘Defining ‘Arbitral Awards’: Supreme Court Weighs in’, Lexology (29 November 2012)  www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ad516f19-3a48-419c-b142-48c0a6940913 accessed 23 April 2019.

  73. 73.

    ibid.

  74. 74.

    Philippe Fouchard, Emmanuel Gaillard and Berthold Goldman, Fouchard, Gaillard and Goldman on International Arbitration (Emmanuel Gaillard and John Savage eds, Kluwer Law International 1999)738.

  75. 75.

    ibid.

  76. 76.

    ElieKleiman and Claire Pauly (n 70); Philippe Fouchard, Emmanuel Gaillard and Berthold Goldman, Fouchard, Gaillard and Goldman on International Arbitration (Emmanuel Gaillard and John Savage eds, Kluwer Law International 1999) 738.

  77. 77.

    Elie Kleiman and Claire Pauly (n 70).

  78. 78.

    See Jean Rouche, Gerald H. Pointon and Jean –Louis Delvolve, FrenchArbitration Law and Practice: A Dynamic Civil Law Approach to International Arbitration, (Kluwer Law International 2009) para 348; Philippe Fouchard, Emmanuel Gaillard and Berthold Goldman, Fouchard, Gaillard and Goldman on International Arbitration (Emmanuel Gaillard and John Savage eds, Kluwer Law International 1999) 780.

  79. 79.

    Elie Kleiman and Claire Pauly (n 70).

  80. 80.

    Pia Investment Ltd. v L B Cassia [1988] Rev Arb 649.

  81. 81.

    Elie Kleiman and Claire Pauly (n 70).

  82. 82.

    Elie Kleiman and Claire Pauly (n 70).

  83. 83.

    ibid.

  84. 84.

    Section 2(1) (c).

  85. 85.

    See Section 2(2).

  86. 86.

    The Arbitration & Conciliation Act, Section 44: Definition.—In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires, ‘foreign award’ means an arbitral award on differences between persons arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, considered as commercial under the law in force in India, made on or after the 11th day of October, 1960—

    1. (a)

      in pursuance of an agreement in writing for arbitration to which the Convention set forth in the First Schedule applies, and

    2. (b)

      in one of such territories as the Central Government, being satisfied that reciprocal provisions have been made may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be territories to which the said Convention applies.

  87. 87.

    Société Sardisud v Société Technip[1994] Rev Arb 391.

  88. 88.

    Group Antoine Tabet v Republique du Congo Case No. 09–72.439, Cass. Civ. 1ere, 12 October 2011; Elie Kleiman and Claire Pauly (n 70).

  89. 89.

    Section 2(2) Provides that:

    This Part shall apply where the place of arbitration is in India: Provided that subject to an agreement to the contrary, the provisions of sections 9, 27 and clause (a) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (3) of section 37 shall also apply to international commercial arbitration, even if the place of arbitration is outside India, and an arbitral award made or to be made in such place is enforceable and recognized under the provisions of Part II of this Act.

  90. 90.

    Bharat Aluminium Company and Ors v Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc and Ors (2012) 9 SCC 552.

  91. 91.

    Bhatia International V Bulk Trade SA, AIR 2002 SC1432, MANU/SC/0185/2002.

  92. 92.

    See proviso to Section 2(2).

  93. 93.

    R S Bachawat, Justice R S Bachawat’s Law of Arbitration and Conciliation (Anirudh Krishanan and Anirudh Wadhwa eds, 5th edn, Lexis Nexis 2010) 2266, ‘For Commentary on the meaning of ‘arbitral award’ refer to commentary under Section 2(c)’.

  94. 94.

    Ashutosh Kumar and others, ‘Interpretation and Application of the New York Convention in India, International Council for commercial Arbitration National Report 2015’, quoted in Abhinav Bhushan, ‘The Applicability of the New York Convention in India’, in Nakul Dewan (ed), Enforcing Arbitral Awards in India, (Lexis Nexis 2017) 139.

  95. 95.

    2013 (2) Arb LR 270 (Bom).

  96. 96.

    See Section 100(2) (b) which reads ‘in this sub section ‘agreement in writing’ and seat of arbitration have the same meaning as in Part I.

  97. 97.

    G Baseler, ‘The Enforcement of Emergency Awards in the United States: or When Interim Means Final’ (2016) 32 Arbitration International, 559, 569.

  98. 98.

    M/S Centrotrade Minerals and Metal Inc v Hindustan Copper Ltd. AIR 2017 SC 185.

  99. 99.

    M/S. Centrotrade Minerals and Metal Inc v Hindustan Copper Ltd. AIR 2017 SC185 para 7.

  100. 100.

    [1994] Rev Arb 391.

  101. 101.

    M/S. Centrotrade Minerals and Metal Inc v Hindustan Copper Ltd. AIR 2017 SC185 para11.

  102. 102.

    The court referred to English Commentaries like, Julian D M Lew, Loukas Mistelis and Stephen M Kroll, Comparative international Commercial Arbitration, (Kluwer Law International, 2003), Nigel Blackaby and others, Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration, (5th edn, OUP 2009) and French commentaries like Philippe Fouchard, Emmanuel Gaillard and Berthold Goldman, Fouchard, Gaillard and Goldman on International Arbitration (Emmanuel Gaillard and John Savage eds, Kluwer Law International 1999), see paras 9-11 of the judgment.

  103. 103.

    According to Section 16 if the arbitration tribunal rejects the jurisdictional challenge the aggrieved party has to wait for the final award and raise the objection then only. More importantly if the tribunal accepts the challenge the decision is not considered an award but an order and can be challenged under Section 37(2) (b) as an appealable order.

  104. 104.

    M/S Anuptech Equipments Private Ltd. v M/S Ganapati Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. AIR 1999 Bom HC 219.

  105. 105.

    According to Section 32(1) ‘The arbitral proceedings shall be terminated by the final arbitral award or by an order of the arbitral tribunal…’.

  106. 106.

    M/S Anuptech Equipments Private Ltd. v M/S Ganapati Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. AIR 1999 Bom HC 219, para 10.

  107. 107.

    Section 35 provides that, ‘an arbitral award shall be final and binding on the parties and persons claiming under them respectively’.

  108. 108.

    O P Malhotra and Indu Malhotra, O P Malhotra on the Law and Practice of Arbitration and Conciliation, (3rd edn, Thomson Reuters 2014)1430.

  109. 109.

    [1991] 3 All ER. 641.

  110. 110.

    Philippe Fouchard, Emmanuel Gaillard and Berthold Goldman, Fouchard, Gaillard and Goldman on International Arbitration (Emmanuel Gaillard and John Savage eds, Kluwer Law International 1999) 887; Elie Kleiman and others, Enforcement France, at  globalarbitrationreview.com/jurisdiction/1004826/france accessed on 30th August 2019.

  111. 111.

    Jean Rouche, Gerald H Pointon and Jean-Louis Delvlve, French Arbitration Law and Practice: A Dynamic Civil Law Approach to International Arbitration, (Kluwer Law International 2011) para 297.

  112. 112.

    See Section 2(7) and Section 44(b).

  113. 113.

    (1992) 3 SCC 551, paras 37 and 41.

  114. 114.

    [1991] 3 All ER. 641.

  115. 115.

    AIR 2004 Cal. 142.

  116. 116.

    CentrotradeMinerals and Metalv HCL, (2006)11 SCC 245.

  117. 117.

    ibid, para161.

  118. 118.

    According to Section 2(7) an arbitral award made under Part I shall be considered a domestic award and according to Section 2(2) Part is applicable when the place of arbitration is in India.

  119. 119.

    See Alber Jan ven den Berg, ‘When is an Arbitral Award Nondomestic under the New York Convention of 1958?’ (1985) 6 Pace Law Review, 25.

  120. 120.

    See Section 2(7) and Section 44(b) of The Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.

  121. 121.

    Jennifer Kirby, ‘What is an Award Anyway’ (2014) 31 Journal of International Arbitration 475, 478.

  122. 122.

    ibid.

Acknowledgment

The author is grateful to Mr. Gary B. Born and Miss Jennifer Kirby for their valuable feedback on earlier drafts of this paper. However the views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and shall not be attributed to them.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NALSAR University of Law Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India

    Rajesh Kapoor

Authors
  1. Rajesh Kapoor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rajesh Kapoor .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Jindal Global Law School, O. P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, India

    Mathew John

  2. Jindal Global Law School, O. P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana, India

    Vishwas H. Devaiah

  3. BML Munjal Law School, Gurugram, Haryana, India

    Pritam Baruah

  4. Jindal Global Law School, O. P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, India

    Moiz Tundawala

  5. Centre for Comparative Law, National Law University, Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi, India

    Niraj Kumar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kapoor, R. (2021). The Concept of Arbitral Award Under the New York Convention: A Comparative Study of English, French and Indian Approaches. In: John, M., Devaiah, V.H., Baruah, P., Tundawala, M., Kumar, N. (eds) The Indian Yearbook of Comparative Law 2019. The Indian Yearbook of Comparative Law. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2175-8_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2175-8_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-16-2174-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-16-2175-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation