Swipe to navigate through the chapters of this book
In this age, no one lives in an island. All are connected across the globe. This world is greatly premised on the free flow of trade, investment, knowledge, information and technology. Arbitration has been an important tool to expedite the process of international trade and investment by providing a speedy and, in some cases, a cost friendly method for dispute settlement. Arbitration has been successful in batting cross border jurisdictional and legal issues. However, the law and practice in some countries have shown that arbitration is again tied to the general mechanism of civil justice. This procedural intricacy makes arbitration a victim of delay, one of the evils of civil justice today. Recently, the World Bank has declared Bangladesh as a middle income country recognizing its sustained growth and resilient economy. In the context of current wave of economic transformation, international commercial arbitration has become a more relevant issue for Bangladesh. To progress and meet the demands of the international community, the Arbitration Act 2001 (the AA 2001) had been enacted in 2001 in line with the UNCITRAL Model Law on the International Commercial Arbitration. This includes provisions relating to the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. This chapter shall focus on the provisions of AA 2001 in respect of the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Bangladesh, the requirements to be addressed for enforcement and the challenges the parties may face in enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Bangladesh. The Author analyzes the provisions of AA 2001 regarding enforcement of foreign arbitral awards and identifies some definitional, jurisdictional, territorial and interpretational challenges that the AA 2001 may face.
Please log in to get access to this content
To get access to this content you need the following product:
ICC, “Statistics: ICC - International Chamber Of Commerce” (2015). http://www.iccwbo.org/Products-and-Services/Arbitration-and-ADR/Arbitration/Introduction-to-ICC-Arbitration/Statistics/, accessed 10 January 2016.
New York Arbitration Convention, “Contacting States: New York Convention” (2016). http://www.newyorkconvention.org/countries, accessed 08 January 2016.
For example, Chinese law prescribed an onerous procedure for refusing to recognize and enforce a foreign award. An ‘automatic appeal’ system that requires national courts to submit an arbitration matter to the High People’s Court for consideration if the former is of the view that the award should not be recognised and enforced. Even if the High People’s Court concurs with the lower court, it has to seek an opinion from the Supreme People’s Court—the highest court in China—before confirming the refusal of recognition and enforcement. See Xiahong Xia, ‘Implementation Of The New York Convention In China’ (2011) 1 Int’l Comm. Arbtn Brief 20, 21.
Choi Y Jin, Vishnu K Konoorayar and Jaya V Suseela, ‘International Commercial Arbitration in South Asia: A Comparative Study’ (2012) Korea Legislation Research Institute 35. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2359220, accessed 09 January 2016.
See, e.g. Mustafa Motiwala, Anupam Prakash, Ranjit Shetty, ‘India’ (2015) The Asia Pacific Arbitration Review. http://globalarbitrationreview.com/reviews/64/sections/224/chapters/2568/india/, accessed 10 January 2016.
Francis A. Mann, ‘Lex Facit Arbitrum’ in Martin Domke and Pieter Sanders (eds), International Arbitration: Liber Amicorum for Martin Domke (Martinus Nijhoff 1967) 159; Roy Goode, ‘The Role of Lex Loci Arbitri in International Commercial Arbitration’ (2001) 17 Arbtn. Int’l 19.
See, generally, Vera Korzun and Thomas H. Lee, ‘An Empirical Survey of International Commercial Arbitration Cases in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, 1970–2014’ (2015) 39 Fordham Int’l L. Jour. 2, 5.
Margaret L. Moses, The Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration (1st edn, CUP 2008) 85.
See, e.g., Noble Assurance Co. v Gerling- Konzen Generla Insurance Co., U.K. Branch  EWHC 253.
Sameer Sattar, ‘National Courts and International Arbitration: A Double-edged Sword?’ (2010) 27 J of Int’l Arbtn 53, 54.
 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 109 (HL).
Analytical Commentary on the Draft Text of a Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, UNCITRAL Yearbook, Vol. XVI (1988) 112.
“The courts, as we have emphasized in our decisions, have a limited role to play, in that they essentially assist rather than subvert the arbitral process. No international arbitration award has been set aside in Singapore in the course of the last decade and we hope this trend will continue” Justice VK Rajah, ‘Key Note Speech’ (Singapore Arbitration Forum, Singapore, 23 January 2010) (on file with author); See, for example Tjong Very Sumito v Antig Investments  4 SLR(R), 28.
Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v Soler Chrysler- Plymouth  473 US 614, 638.
 2 EGLR 14.
Ibid., 15; The court’s role in assisting arbitration was also affirmed in Lesotho Highlands v Impreglio SpA  UKHL 43, para 26–28 [Steyn LJ].
Nigel Blackaby and Constantine Partasides with Alan Redfern and Martin Hunter, Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (5th ed., Oxford 2009) 632.
This view was maintained by Singaporean courts in Mitsui Engineering & Shipbuilding Co. Ltd. v Easton Graham Rush (2004) 2 SLR 14,  SGHC 26.
M. A. Industries Inc. v Maritime Battery Ltd., (1991), 118 N.B.R. (2d) 127 (Q.B.), Aaff’dreflix (1991), 123 N.B.R. (2d) 305 (C.A.). Also see, e.g. Chromally Aeroservices Inc. (U.S.) v Arab Republic of Egypt (1997) 22 Yearbook Commercial Arbitration (US No. 230), 1001, Polytek Engg. Co. Ltd. (Hong Kong) v Hebei Import & Export Corp. (PR China, (1998) 23 Yearbook Commercial Arbitration (Hong Kong No. 12) 666; referred in RS Bachawat, Law of Arbitration & Conciliation, vol 2 (5th ed., LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur 2012) 2350.
Richard Garnett and Michael Pryles, ‘Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Awards under the New York Convention in Australia and New Zealand’ (2008) 25(6) Jour. of Int’l Arbtn 899, 904; Albert J van den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958: Towards a Uniform Judicial Interpretation, (Kluwer 1981) 265.
NYC, Article V(1)(a).
Court of Appeal of Paris, Decision of July 12, 1984 referred in R S Bachawat (n 21) 2363.
Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Company v The Ministry of Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan  UKSC 46.
Ibid., 160 [Saville, LJ].
Ibid., para 104.
Ibid., para 22.
Shaanxi Provincial Medical Health Products I/E Corporation v Olpesa, S.A., (2005) YBCA, XXX, Spain No. 40, 617 referred in R S Bachawat (n 21) 2364.
NYC, Article V(1)(b).
 All ER 290, paras 15, 32, 34.
NYC, Article V(1)(c).
R S Bachawat, (n 21) 2377.
SC Appeal No. 38-39/2006, 25 June 2013.
See, for example ONGC Ltd. v Western Geco International Ltd. (2014) 9 SCC 263, an Indian decision discussed elsewhere in the chapter.
NYC, Article V(1)(d).
E20, Supplier v State Enterprise (Belarus)  XXXIII YBCA 510.
NYC, Article V(1)(e).
The Guide to the New York Convention, 4. http://newyorkconvention1958.org/pdf/NYC1958-GuideV1e-20151015.pdf, accessed 05 September, 2016.
Ibid., 5, 6: See, Linda Silberman, ‘The New York Convention After Fifty Years: Some Reflections on the Role of National Law’ (2009) 38 Ga. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 25, 27.
See, for example, AB Götaverken v. General National Maritime Transport Company (GMTC), Libya and others, Supreme Court, Sweden, 13 August 1979, SO 1462.
Joseph Müller AG v. Bergesen und Obergericht (II. Zivilkammer) des Kantons Zürich, Court of First Instance, Switzerland, 26 February 1982 stating that “[t]he requirement of a declaration of enforcement in the country of the arbitral award’s origin would go squarely against the New York Convention’s aim of avoiding the double exequatur”.
 22 YBCA 643.
Ibid., 660, 661.
Inter- Arab Investment Guarantee Corporation v. Banque Arabe et Internationale d’Investissements, Cour de Cassation, Belgium, 5 June 1998, (1998) XXIV YBCA 603–614.
NYC, Article V(2)(a).
Ilya Kokorin, ‘Arbitrability of Corporate Disputes in Russia: Current and Future Regulation’ (CIS Arbitration Forum, 18 January 2016). http://www.cisarbitration.com/2016/01/18/arbitrability-of-corporate-disputes-in-russia-current-and-future-regulation/, accessed 20 January 2016.
R S Bachawat (n 21) 2398.
NYC, Article V(2)(b).
O. Ozumba, ‘Enforcement of Arbitral Awards: Does the Public Policy Exception Create Inconsistency?’. http://www.dundee.ac.uk/cepmlp/gateway/files.php?file=cepmlp_car13_8_127246631.pdf, accessed 07 January 2016.
Renusagar v General Electric  AIR 860 (SC).
 5 SCC 705.
Sameer Sattar, ‘Enforcement of Arbitral Awards and Public Policy: Same Concept, Different Approach?’ (2011) 8 Transnational Dispute Management Journal 1, 10.
Albert J van den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958: Towards a Uniform Judicial Interpretation, (Kluwer 1981) 269.
AIR 2008 SC 1061.
(2011) 10 SCC 300 In Phulchand Exports Limited v OOO Patriot it was clarified that this broader interpretation of public policy applied to both domestic and foreign arbitration.
 4 SCC 105.
 9 SCC 552.
 8 SCALE 489.
2014 (9) SCC 263. http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=41878.
Kristley (Pty.) Ltd. v State Timber Corporation  1 Sri L.R. 225.
 BALR 10 (SC).
(SC Appeal 30-31/2005, 22 February 2013) 1, 6.
 CLD 153.
See, for example, Sections 15 and 16 of the 1940 Act.
See, for example, M/s. HajiAzam v Singleton Binda & Co. Ltd.  27 DLR 583.
AA 2001, s 45.
AA 2001, s 45(1)(b). This was strictly interpreted in the cases of Canada Shipping and Trading SAv TT Katikaayu and another (2002) 54 DLR (HCD) 93, 7.
AA 2001, s 46 The grounds stated in Sect. 46 are materially the same as enumerated in Article 36 of UNCITRAL ML and in NYC, Article V.
Uzbekistan Airways and another v Air Spain Ltd.  10 BLC 614, para 5.
(2010)15 BLC (HCD) 704, para 24.
 33 BLD 340.
Ibid., paras 15, 16.
 2 SCOB 15 (AD).
Ibid., para 24.
Ibid., para 27.
Sameer Sattar, ‘Bangladeshi courts at odds in respect of its powers in relation to arbitrations seated outside of Bangladesh’  1 International Arbitration Law Review 20.
 12 MLR 265.
Ibid., para 32.
STX Corporation Ltd. v Meghna Group of Industries Ltd. & Ors.  32BLD 400.
Ibid., para 28.
56 DLR (AD) (2004).
Ibid., para 15.
Egyptian Fertilizer Trading Limited (Egyptian Fertilizer) v East West Property Development (Private) Ltd. (Arbitration Application No. 11 of 2010, 10 June 2014).
Tata Power Company (n 76).
Ibid., para 27.
Smith Corporation (n 73).
See Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2015 generally. (Sections 29A and 29B). These provisions prescribe a time-bound structure for domestic arbitration. Further the provisions also suggest that parties could agree upon a fast-track arbitration of their dispute. These provisions are, however, limited to the process of arbitration till the making of an award. There are no timelines that are attached to enforcement, the provisions suggested that the award would be deemed to be decree of the court and enforced accordingly.
Muhammad S Hossain and Mohammad I Hossain, ‘Causes of Delay in Administration of Civil Justice: A Look for Way Out in Bangladesh Perspective’ (2012) 6 ASA University Review 103, 107.
Bangladesh International Arbitration Centre. http://biac.org.bd/court-statistics/#, accessed 01 September, 2016.
Supreme Court of Bangladesh, Summary Report on Court Services Situation Analysis (2013). http://www.undp.org/content/dam/bangladesh/docs/Projects/JUST/Summary_Report_on%20Court%20Services%20Situation%20Analysis.pdf, accessed 03 September, 2016.
- Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Bangladesh: The Law, Its Implementation and Challenges
- Springer Singapore
- Sequence number
Pluta Logo/© Pluta, Rombach Rechtsanwälte/© Rombach Rechtsanwälte