COSID, Inc. (U.S.) v. Steel Authority of India, Ltd. (India)
Delhi High Court
[1985] 11 Y.B. Comm. Arb. 502 (1986)
- Written by Sara Adams, JD
Facts
Steel Authority of India, Ltd. (Steel Authority) (defendant), a company owned in part by the Indian government, exchanged letters with COSID, Inc., and reached an agreement that Steel Authority would sell steel sheet coils to COSID. The terms and conditions of the sale agreement contained a provision stating that disputes would be arbitrated by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in London, England. A dispute over delivery of the coils arose, and COSID initiated arbitration at the ICC in London. The ICC arbitration resulted in an award in favor of COSID. COSID then filed an action in the England and Wales High Court of Justice, seeking a court order holding that the award could be enforced as a judgment. The high court granted COSID’s request for an order of enforceability. COSID filed a subsequent case at the Delhi High Court seeking to enforce and collect on the English award. Steel Authority argued that the award was not subject to recognition and enforcement in India, because the English court had already granted an order establishing the enforceability of the award. Therefore, Steel Authority argued, the award had merged into the English judgment and was no longer actionable.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wadhwa, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.