Sentences with phrase «foreign arbitral awards under»

Not exact matches

By imposing stricter rules on recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, a Contracting State will breach its obligations under the Convention.

An overview of the history of the realisation of The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention) can be found under «History 1923 - 1958»

She adds that «Nigerian courts are eager to enforce arbitral awards and the regulatory framework under the New York Convention and Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcements) Act largely favours enforcement of foreign awards&Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcements) Act largely favours enforcement of foreign awards&foreign awards».

Represented a foreign sovereign before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to defend against efforts to have recognized and enforced, under the New York Convention, an approximately $ 1 billion ICSID Additional Facility arbitral award.

Represented a foreign sovereign in regard to recognition and enforcement under the New York Convention of an approximately $ 700 million ICSID Additional Facility arbitral award.

Represented a foreign company in defense of an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to have an approximately $ 200 million UNCITRAL Rules arbitral award recognized and enforced under the New York Convention.

Represented a foreign sovereign before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in seeking, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration, vacatur of an approximately $ 1.4 billion ICSID Additional Facility arbitral award, and in defending against an attempt to enforce the award under the New York Convention.

Canada acceded to the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in 1986 (the «UNCITRAL Model Law») declaring that it would apply the Convention only to differences arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, that were considered commercial under the laws of Canada, except in the case of the Province of Quebec where the law did not provide for such limitation.

While enforcement, a foreign arbitral award shall, on the application being made to the appropriate court by any party, be enforced by execution by the court under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, in the same manner as if it were a decree of the domestic Court.

However, it has been identified that under the Arbitration Act 1940, the national courts had an extensive supervisory role over the arbitral process and, most importantly, there were problems being faced by arbitration users in relation to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

The Supreme Court found that security can only be ordered where an application for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award is being adjourned due to challenges to the award in the courts of the country in, or under the law of which, it was made.

Based on the factums submitted to the SCC, the appellant (Yugraneft) is arguing that international arbitral awards should be considered, at least for enforcement purposes, equivalent to foreign judgments, and, as such, should benefit from the 10 - year limitation period under s. 11 of the Alberta Limitations Act.

After the appellants failed to appear at the German arbitration and the Ontario application to enforce the German arbitral award, the appellants finally responded by bringing this appeal based on a technical argument under Article 35 (2) of the International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 9, which required the party relying on the foreign arbitral award to supply a certified copy of the original award to the application judge.

The Convention on Recognition of Foreign Arbitral Awards Act 2001 which implements the New York Convention 1958 (acceded to by many African countries) applies to any award delivered under the International Arbitration Act.

The Convention was then implemented in Ontario under the Foreign Arbitral Awards Act («FAAA») that same year.

Relying upon these judgments, it is urged that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Sec. 34 challenging the validity of foreign arbitral award.

This Court shall now decide the effect of the order passed by this Court in the arbitration application filed under Section 9 by the claimant and also the effect of the order passed by the appeal court in the appeal filed by the respondent in view of the submissions made by the respondent that in view of such petition filed in this Court, Part - I of the Act including Section 34 for impugning the foreign arbitral award would apply.