The two consolidated applications concern the request to recognize and execute in Mauritius a foreign Awards of the issued by a tribunal under London Court of Arbitration (LCIA). Respondent contends that enforcement would be in violation of (i) the Constitution of Mauritius; (ii) Article V (1) (c) of the New York Convention (Jurisdictional issue); and (iii) Article V (2) (b) of the New York Convention (public policy).
The matter came before this Court for the respondent and co-respondent to show cause why the interim order preventing the respondent from enforcing or exercising any rights or purported rights under or derived from the Share Pledge Agreement, subscribed by the applicants as pledgors, and/or the Notice of Enforcement should not be made interlocutory, enlarged, discharged or otherwise dealt with, pending the final determination of the arbitration proceedings before the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA).
In line with Section 23 (5) IAA, the court ordered an interim award from 26 July 2013 until 3 August 2013, after which the interim order will lapse and Applicant will have sufficient time to request the tribunal for an interim order.
This is an application under section 20(7) of the International Arbitration Act (No. 37 of 2008) for an order setting aside the ruling of an arbitrator and declaring the relevant arbitration agreement null and void for four reasons: (i) alleged wrongful recourse to domestic law; (ii) alleged failure to apply South African law; (iii) arbitration agreement was not lawfully ratified by the resolution of the Board of Directors of the Respondent No. 1.; (iv) applicants’ consent to the arbitration agreement had been vitiated by “dol”. This dispute arises from a “compromis” which referred for arbitration certain disputes in relation to an Integrated Resorts Scheme (IRS) project.
Mall of Mont Choisy Limited and Respondent 1 entered into an agreement to develop and lease a supermarket in a shopping center. Applicant argues that the parties are not bound by arbitration agreement, as the lease agreement which was signed by one of the directors and undated was not a formal agreement. Respondents contend that the applicant is bound by the arbitration agreement and moved the Commercial Court to refer to the designated judge of the supreme court, pursuant with section 5 of the International Arbitration Act 2013 (IAA).
Stayed Proceeding and referred to Arbitral tribunal to decide on its competence-competence.
This application was made to set aside the interim order given by the Arbitral tribunal not to sell, charge and dispose portion of land to Massila, pending the determination of the validity of the arbitration agreement by the Mauritius Supreme Court. This was following the tribunals decision to stay proceeding until the decision of the Supreme Court (Concurrent proceeding). Applicant contends that an interim order may be issued only by the court as per section 6 and 23 (1) (a) of the IAA.
Rejected (Arbitral tribunal is the natural forum, even if court gives its assistance).
The dispute arises out of an agreement entered between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 (UBS) the Singapore Branch of the defendant No. 2, a Swiss international banking Corporation. Under the agreement the plaintiff agreed to participate with UBS, the lender of record, in a USD 100M secured term loan facility to Ammalay International Pte Ltd (Ammalay). Defendant No. 2 has argued that ex facie the facts pleaded in the plaint, the plaintiff’s claim is in relation to contractual or pre-contractual rights, obligations or liabilities arising in connection with the Facility Agreement. It is therefore a dispute arising “out of or in connection with the Facility Agreement”. As such, the issue has to be resolved by arbitration in Singapore and the Supreme Court in Mauritius does not have jurisdiction to entertain the present matter. Plaintiff maintains that the present court is the proper forum and has jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter.
Stayed proceeding, pending the determination of the adjudicating court under Section 5 and 13 (1) (2) of IAA
This matter arose between a applicant – the investment adviser and Respondent, who is the promoter of two investment funds for investing in real property in India The dispute arose in a multi-jurisdictional real estate investment structure, where a parallel proceeding of winding up and arbitration was held in Mauritius and Singapore respectively. Applicant requested the Mauritius Court to determine that the on-going arbitration be declared null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed in accordance with section 5 (3) IAA.