Delhi HC decision in SARR Freights v Argo Coral overlooks key conflict of laws issues despite London arbitration clause and English law choice, raising questions on comity and rectification.
A recent analysis of the Delhi High Court ruling in SARR Freights Corporation v. Argo Coral Maritime Ltd. argues the court missed an opportunity to clarify principles of conflict of laws and comity. The dispute arose over logistics for UN peacekeeping cargo from New Delhi to Port Sudan, governed by a Fixture Recap dated 4 April 2023 that designated English law and London arbitration under Clause 23.
Despite the clear choice of law and forum, the Delhi HC proceeded without adequately addressing jurisdictional deference or the enforceability of foreign-seated arbitration clauses under Indian law. The judgment failed to engage with Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which limits interference when disputes are subject to foreign arbitration.
"Respect for comity demands that Indian courts refrain from enmeshing themselves in matters expressly contracted to be resolved abroad."
Practitioners note the growing inconsistency in Indian courts’ treatment of foreign-seated clauses, particularly in commercial disputes. Future cases must reckon with international comity and the principle of pacta sunt servanda to maintain India’s credibility in cross-border dispute resolution.
Citations
- SARR Freights Corporation v. Argo Coral Maritime Ltd.
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 9
