- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- within Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Government, Public Sector and Strategy topic(s)
- with readers working within the Healthcare and Pharmaceuticals & BioTech industries
The High Court of Madras, through its judgment dated 17.10.2025 in M/s Viterra B.V. v. M/s SKT Textile Mills1, held that a party which deliberately chooses not to participate in the arbitral proceedings cannot use its own default as a ground to resist enforcement under Section 48(1)(b) of the A&C Act and upheld the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award rendered under the International Cotton Association, Liverpool ("ICA"),
The dispute arose from a contract dated 29.05.2019 between Viterra B.V. ("Viterra") and SKT Textile Mills ("SKT") for the sale of 200 MT of raw cotton governed by English law with arbitration seat at Liverpool. SKT deliberately declined to participate despite the due notice, therefore, Tribunal rendered an award dated 30.04.2020 in favour of Viterra which attained finality.
The High Court held that the issuance of a No Objection Certificate ("NOC") and the related communications have established a concluded contract. The High Court further clarified that Section 48(1)(b) of the A&C Act protects the parties against genuine procedural unfairness, not a deliberate abstention. Emphasising India's pro-enforcement approach under the New York Convention, the High Court allowed the Enforcement Petition, declaring the award enforceable as a decree and directed SKT to pay the awarded sum with accrued interest along with cost imposed by the High Court amounting to INR 2,50,000 to be paid to Viterra.
Footnote
1. Arbitration O.P.(Com. Div). No.423 of 2023.
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.
