India: Enforcement Of Arbitration Awards In India (Part 2)

Last Updated: 24 July 2008
Article by Sumeet Kachwaha
This article is part of a series: Click Enforcement Of Arbitration Awards In India (Part 1) for the previous article.

1. Conditions for enforcement:

a. Foreign award defined:

In order to be considered as a foreign award, (for the purposes of the Act) the same must fulfil two requirements. First it must deal with differences arising out of a legal relationship (whether contractual or not) considered as commercial under the laws in force in India. The expression "commercial relationship" has been very widely interpreted by Indian courts. The Supreme Court in the case of R.M. Investments Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Boeing Co. & Anr.35 while construing the expression "commercial relationship" held:

"The term "commercial" should be given a wide interpretation so as to cover matters arising from all relationships of a commercial nature, whether contractual or not..."

The second requirement is more significant and that is that the country where the award has been issued must be a country notified by the Indian Government to be a country to which the New York Convention applies. 36Only a few countries have been notified so far and only awards rendered therein are recognised as foreign awards and enforceable as such in India. The countries which have been notified are:

Austria, Belgium, Botswana, Bulgaria, Central African Republic, Chile, Cuba, Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Arab Republic of Egypt, Finland, France, German Democratic Republic, Federal Republic of Germany, Ghana, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Republic of Korea, Malagasy Republic, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, The Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Romania, San Marino, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian, Arab Republic, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, and United States of America.

An interesting issue came up before the Supreme Court as to what would happen in a case where a Country has been notified but subsequently it divides or disintegrated into separate political entities. This came up for consideration in the case of Transocean Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Black Sea Shipping & Ors.37 Here the venue of arbitration was Ukraine which was then a part of the USSR a Country recognized and notified by the Government of India as one to which the New York Convention would apply. However by the time disputes arose between the parties the USSR had disintegrated and the dispute came to be arbitrated in Ukraine (which was not notified). The question arose whether an award rendered in Ukraine would be enforceable in India notwithstanding the fact it was not a notified country. Both the High Court of Bombay (where the matter came up initially) and the Supreme Court of India in appeal, held that the creation of a new political entity would not make any difference to the enforceability of the award rendered in a territory which was initially a part of a notified territory. On this basis the Court recognized and upheld the award. This decision is of considerable significance as it expands the lists of countries notified by the Government by bringing in a host of new political entities and giving them recognition in their new avtar also. At another level the judgment demonstrates the willingness of Indian courts to overcome technicalities and lean in favour of enforcement.

2. Comparison with domestic enforcement regime:

There are two fundamental differences between enforcement of a foreign award and a domestic award. As noted above, a domestic award does not require any application for enforcement. Once objections (if any) are rejected, the award is by itself capable of execution as a decree. A foreign award however, is required to go through an enforcement procedure. The party seeking enforcement has to make an application for the said purpose. Once the Court is satisfied that the foreign award is enforceable, the award becomes a decree of the Court and executable as such.

The other difference between the domestic and foreign regime is that (unlike for domestic awards) there is no provision to set aside a foreign award. In relation to a foreign award, the Indian Courts may only enforce it on refuse to enforce it - they cannot set it aside. This "lacuna" was sought to be plugged by the Supreme Court in the recent decision of Venture Global Engineering v. Satyam Computer Services38 (discussed further below) where the Court held that it is permissible to set aside a foreign award in India applying the provisions of Section 34 of Part I of the Act.

3. Conditions for enforcement:

The conditions for enforcement of a foreign award are as per the New York Convention. The only addition being an "Explanation" to the ground of public policy which states that an award shall be deemed to be in conflict with the public policy of India if it was induced or affected by fraud or corruption.39

Indian Courts have narrowly construed the ground of public policy in relation to foreign awards (unlike domestic awards where Saw Pipes (supra) 40has construed it widely). In Renusagar Power Co. v. General Electrical Corporation41 the Supreme Court construed the expression "public policy" in relation to foreign awards as follows:

"This would mean that "public policy" in Section 7 (1) (b) (ii) has been used in narrower sense and in order to attract to bar of public policy the enforcement of the award must invoke something more than the violation of the law of India..... Applying the said criteria it must be held that the enforcement of a foreign award would be refused on the ground that it is contrary to public policy if such enforcement would be contrary to (i) fundamental policy of Indian law; or (ii) the interests of India; or (iii) justice or morality."

4. Judicially created new procedure and new ground for challenge to foreign award.

As noticed above, there is no statutory provision to set aside a foreign award under the Act. Foreign awards may be set aside or suspended in the country in which or under the laws of the award was made (Section 48 (1) (e) of the Act, corresponding to Article V (e) of the New York Convention) but there is no provision to set aside a foreign award in India. This fundamental distinction between a foreign and a domestic award has been altered by the Supreme Court in the recent case of Venture Global Engineering v. Satyam Computer Services Ltd.42 (Venture Global). Here the Supreme Court was concerned with a situation where a foreign award rendered in London under the Rules of the LCIA was sought to be enforced by the successful party (an Indian company) in the District Court, Michigan, USA. The dispute arose out of a joint venture agreement between the parties. The respondent alleged that the appellant had committed an "event of default" under the shareholders agreement and as per the said agreement exercised its option to purchase the appellant's shares in the joint venture company at book value. The sole arbitrator appointed by the LCIA passed an award directing the appellant to transfer its shares to the respondent. The respondent sought to enforce this award in the USA.43 The appellant filed a civil suit in an Indian District Court seeking to set aside the award. The District Court, followed by the High Court, in appeal, dismissed the suit holding that there was no such procedure envisaged under Indian law. However, the Supreme Court in appeal, following its earlier decision in the case of Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading 44held that even though there was no provision in Part II of the Act providing for challenge to a foreign award, a petition to set aside the same would lie under Section 34 Part I of the Act (i.e. it applied the domestic award provisions to foreign awards). The Court held that the property in question (shares in an Indian company) are situated in India and necessarily Indian law would need to be followed to execute the award. In such a situation the award must be validated on the touchstone of public policy of India and the Indian public policy cannot be given a go by through the device of the award being enforced on foreign shores. Going further the Court held that a challenge to a foreign award in India would have to meet the expanded scope of public policy as laid down in Saw Pipes (supra) (i.e. meet a challenge on merits contending that the award is "patently illegal").

The Venture Global case is far reaching for it creates a new procedure and a new ground for challenge to a foreign award (not envisaged under the Act). The new procedure is that a person seeking to enforce a foreign award has not only to file an application for enforcement under Section 48 of the Act, it has to meet an application under Section 34 of the Act seeking to set aside the award. The new ground is that not only must the award pass the New York Convention grounds incorporated in Section 48, it must pass the expanded "public policy" ground created under Section 34 of the Act. In practice, the statutorily enacted procedure for enforcement of a foreign award would be rendered superfluous till the application for setting aside the same (under Section 34) is decided. The statutorily envisaged grounds for challenge to the award would also be rendered superfluous as notwithstanding the success of the applicant on the New York Convention grounds, the award would still have to meet the expanded "public policy" ground (and virtually have to meet a challenge to the award on merits). The Venture Global case thus largely renders superfluous the statutorily envisaged mechanism for enforcement of foreign awards and substitutes it with judge made law. The Judgement thus (in my respectful view) is erroneous. Moreover, in so far as the Judgment permits a challenge to a foreign award on the expanded interpretation of public policy is per incuriam as a larger, three Bench decision in the case of Renu Sagar (supra) holds to the contrary. Further Saw Pipes (on which Venture Global relies for this proposition) had clearly confined its expanded interpretation of public policy to domestic awards alone (lest it fall foul of the Renu Sagar case which had interpreted the expression narrowly). The Supreme Court in Venture Global did not notice this self-created limitation in Saw Pipes nor did it notice the narrower interpretation of public policy in Renu Sagar and therefore application of the expanded interpretation of public policy to foreign awards is clearly per incuriam.

Be that as it may, till the decision is clarified or modified, it has clearly muddied the waters and the enforcement mechanism of foreign awards has become clumsy, uncertain and inefficient.

5. Procedural requirements

A party applying for enforcement of a foreign award is required to produce before the Court:

(a) the original award or a copy thereof, duly authenticated in the manner required by the law of the country in which it was made;

(b) the original agreement for arbitration or a duly certified copy thereof; and

(c) such evidence as may be necessary to prove that the award is a foreign award. 45

a. The relevant court:

The Indian Supreme Court has accepted the principle that enforcement proceedings can be brought wherever the property of the losing party may be situated. This was in the case of Brace Transport Corporation of Monrovia v. Orient Middle East Lines Ltd.46 The Court here quoted a passage from Redfern and Hunter on Law & Practice of International Commercial Arbitration (1986 Edn.) inter alia as follows:

"A party seeking to enforce an award in an international commercial arbitration may have a choice of country in which to do so; as it is some times expressed, the party may be able to go forum shopping. This depends upon the location of the assets of the losing party. Since the purpose of enforcement proceedings is to try to ensure compliance with an award by the legal attachment or seizure of the defaulting party's assets, legal proceedings of some kind are necessary to obtain title to the assets seized or their proceeds of sale. These legal proceedings must be taken in the State or States in which the property or other assets of the losing party are located."

b. Time limit:

The Act does not prescribe any time limit within which a foreign award must be applied to be enforced. However various High Courts have held that the period of limitation would be governed by the residual provision under the Limitation Act i.e. the period would be three years from the date when the right to apply for enforcement accrues. The High Court of Bombay has held that the right to apply would accrue when the award is received by the applicant.47

6. Post enforcement formalities:

The Supreme Court has held that once the court determines that a foreign award is enforceable it can straight away be executed as a decree. In other words, no other application is required to convert the judgment into a decree. This was so held in the case of Fuerst Day Lawson ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd.48 where the Court stated:

"Once the Court decides that foreign award is enforceable, it can proceed to take further effective steps for execution of the same. There arises no question of making foreign award as a rule of Court / decree again. If the object and purpose can be served in the same proceedings, in our view, there is no need to take two separate proceedings resulting in multiplicity of litigation. It is also clear from objectives contained in para 4 of the Statement of Objects and Reasons, Sections 47 to 49 and Scheme of the Act that every final arbitral awards is to be enforced as if it were a decree of the Court.... In our opinion, for enforcement of foreign award there is no need to take separate proceedings, one for deciding the enforceability of the award to make rule of the Court or decree and the other to take up execution thereafter. In one proceeding, as already stated above, the Court enforcing a foreign award can deal with the entire matter."

One interesting feature of enforcement of a foreign award is that there is no statutory appeal provided against any decision of the court rejecting objections to the award. An appeal shall lie only if the court holds the award to be non-enforceable. Hence a decision upholding the award cannot be appealed against. However a discretionary appeal would lie to the Supreme Court of India under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Such appeals are entertained only if the Court feels that they raise a question of fundamental importance or public interest.

G: Enforcement Statistics:

Lastly, one may examine the enforcement statistics (including grounds for challenge) in relation to foreign awards. Here one would notice that the courts have distinctly leaned in favour of enforcement and save for a lone case, foreign awards have invariably been upheld and enforced. The statistics (on the basis of reported cases) are as follows:

High Court and Supreme Court (1996 to September 2007)

(Foreign Awards)

S.No.

Grounds

Total No. of Challenges

Allowed

Rejected

Modified

1.

Jurisdiction

5

29.41%

-

5

2.

Public Policy

3

17.64%

2

1

3

Technical Grounds

(Petition to be made under section 48 not under section 34)

3

17.64%

-

3

4.

Requirement of separate execution proceedings

2

-

2

5.

No grounds or reasons in award

1

-

1

6.

Petition filed for winding up on the basis of foreign award

1

-

1

7.

No Arbitration Agreement

1

1

-

8.

1996 Act does not apply

1

-

1



The Institution wise break up of challenges is as follows:

S.No.

Institutions

Total No. of Challenges

Allowed

Rejected

Modified

1.

Adhoc

10

-

10

2.

ICC

2

-

1

1

3.

LCIA

2

-

2

4.

IGPA (International General Produce Association)

1

-

1

5.

ICA

1

-

1

6

Korean Commercial Arbitration Board

1

1

-

-

Total

17

1

5.88%

15

88.23%

1

5.88%



H: Conclusion:

Viewed in its totality, India does not come across as a jurisdiction which carries an anti - arbitration bias or more significantly which carries an anti - foreigner bias. The figures show that notwithstanding the interventionist instincts and expanded judicial review, Indian courts do restrain themselves in interfering with arbitral awards.

Judged on this touchstone, India qualifies as an arbitration friendly jurisdiction.

Footnotes:

1 The Arbitration Act, 1940 (10 of 1940) (1940 Act)

2 The Arbitration (Protocol & Convention) Act, 1937 (6 of 1937) (1937 Act)

3 Geneva Convention on the Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1927. India became a signatory to this on 23rd October 1937 (one amongst six Asian nations to become a signatory).

4 Foreign Awards (Recognition &Enforcement) Act, 1961 (45 of 1961)

5 International Convention on Recognition & Enforcement of Foreign Awards done at New York on 10th June 1958. India became a signatory on 13th July, 1960.

6 Section 30 (a) of the 1940 Act.

7 (1994) 6 SCC 485

8 (2003) 7 SCC 396

9 The Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996)

10 Section 85 of the Act.

11 United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, General Assembly Resolution 40/72, adopted on 21st June 1985 (Model Law).

12 Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law 1976: General Assembly Resolution 31/98, adopted on 15th December 1976 (UNCITRAL Rules).

13 Section 13 (2)

14 Section 13 (4)

15 Article 13 (3) of the Model Law.

16 Section 16 (5) of the Act.

17 (2003) 5 SCC 705 (Saw Pipes)

18 (1994) Suppl (1) SCC 644

19 However see Supra, E' - A recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Venture Global Engineering v. Satyam Computer Services has held that the wider interpretation of "public policy" would apply to foreign awards as well.

20 See for instance, Chapter titled Judicial Supervision and Intervention by Mr. Fali S. Nariman; Asia Leading Arbitrators' Guide to International Arbitration, JurisNet 2007 at page 353.

21 (2006) 11 SCC 181 at 208

22 at 211

23 2004 (3) Arb LR 568

24 at 573 and 574

25 Daelim Industrial Co. v. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd (Arbitration Appeal No. 1 of 2002 dated 24th Aug 2006

26 Statement of Objects and Reasons to the Act para 4 (vii)

27 Section 36 of the Act

28 Section 2 (1) (e) of the Act

29 Section 34 (3)

30 (2005) 4 SCC 239

31 Section 17 and 49 of the Arbitration Act.

32 2003 (8) SCC 565

33 Venture Global Engineering v. Satyam Computer Services dated 10th January 2008, in C.A. No. 309 of 2008.

34 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, 1965 (Washington convention)

35 (1994) 4 SCC 541

36 Section 44 (b) of the Act.

37 (1998) 2 SCC 281

38 Judgment dated 10th January 2008, in C.A. No. 309 of 2008

39 Section 48 (2) of the Act

40 Supra

41 (1994) Suppl (1) SCC 644

42 decision dated 10th January 2008 in Civil Appeal No. 209 of 2008 (Venture Global)

43 A somewhat strange move considering that the shares were in an Indian company and various Indian regulatory steps and authorities would be involved for transfer of shares. The Respondents move was perhaps influenced by the fact that the governing law under the Agreement was the law of the State of Michigan and the appellant was situated in the USA. The Respondent thus attempted to bypass the natural forum (India) hoping to enforce the award through the contempt of court mechanism of the U.S. Courts. This did not go well with the Indian Supreme Court.

44 2002 4 SCC 105

45 Section 47 (1) of the Act

46 (1995) Supp (2) SCC 280

47 2007 (1) RAJ 339 (Bom) and AIR 1986 Gujarat 62

48 (2001) 6 SCC 356

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

This article is part of a series: Click Enforcement Of Arbitration Awards In India (Part 1) for the previous article.
Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions