FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W217194923> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W217194923 startingPage "381" @default.
• W217194923 abstract "Fali Nariman notes that India ratified New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention)1 quite early and, in 1996, adopted a new Arbitration and Conciliation Act2 that is, for most part, in conformity with United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law.3 He says that new Act limits court intervention in domestic and international arbitration, unlike in old days where the [Indian] courts frequently interfered with arbitration proceedings and awards, international and domestic, on judge-based notion that it was duty of courts to keep arbitrators within law.4 Moreover, Mr. Nariman argues that Indian courts have no anti-foreigner bias, and that if one has sufficient patience to await outcome of court challenges to enforcement of arbitral awards, the foreigner can justifiably rely upon arbitral process when dealing with India.5 The implication is that India now provides a suitable location for international commercial arbitration. But, experience of Dabhol project suggests otherwise.6 This project spawned a large number of arbitration cases in many venues, under multiple contracts and several bilateral investment treaties. Perhaps more significant than number of cases is fact that at every turn, despite 1996 Act and New York Convention, Indian government, Maharashtra state government, and both central and state governmental entities refused to honor payment guarantees and sought to avoid commitments in relevant agreements to settle disputes by international arbitration. Intervention by India's courts was not limited by new 1996 Act: Indian courts collaborated in effort by enjoining international arbitration of disputes at behest of Indian government entities. The series of events, which are described below, casts serious doubt as to whether one can rely on Indian government and Indian courts to comply with arbitration commitments. The facts underlying Dabhol matter are extremely complex.7 The brief summary here only skims surface of myriad entities, contracts, events, and arbitration and court cases that flowed from Dabhol investments. In 1990s, India had begun to encourage foreign investment and established a fast-track process for investment approval. In this environment, Dabhol Power Corporation (the Corporation), a local corporation owned by General Electric (10 percent), Bechtel (10 percent), and Enron (80 percent), entered into an agreement with Maharastra State Electricity Board (the Board) for a twophase project. The first phase was for construction of an approximately 700-megawatt distillate fuel power plant. The second was for an approximately 1400-megawatt gas-fired power plant, which would depend on import of liquid natural gas through Dabhol port and gasification of imported liquefied natural gas (LNG). The Dabhol project was India's largest investment project to date, with over $2 billion in secured loans. Under a late 1993 agreement, Board undertook to purchase power from Corporation. In early 1994, Board, government of Maharashtra state, and government of India each gave payment guarantees. The government of Maharashtra state also agreed to support project. Later, an escrow agreement was established to ensure availability of funds, and Canara Bank, an Indian bank, provided a letter of credit as a further guaranty. The U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) lent about $160 million for project and provided U.S. private corporations that owned Corporation political risk insurance. Both Indian financial institutions and offshore lenders, including Bank of America, made loans to project. The first series of disputes arose in 1995. After an election, a new Maharashtra state government, which had campaigned against project and alleged corruption was involved in contracting, ordered that newly initiated construction be terminated. …" @default.
• W217194923 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W217194923 creator A5060243170 @default.
• W217194923 date "2009-07-01" @default.
• W217194923 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W217194923 title "India and International Arbitration: The Dabhol Experience" @default.
• W217194923 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W217194923 type Work @default.
• W217194923 sameAs 217194923 @default.
• W217194923 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W217194923 countsByYear W2171949232013 @default.
• W217194923 countsByYear W2171949232017 @default.
• W217194923 countsByYear W2171949232021 @default.
• W217194923 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W217194923 hasAuthorship W217194923A5060243170 @default.
• W217194923 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W217194923 hasConcept C160151201 @default.
• W217194923 hasConcept C160786031 @default.
• W217194923 hasConcept C175762713 @default.
• W217194923 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W217194923 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W217194923 hasConcept C2776949292 @default.
• W217194923 hasConcept C2777438998 @default.
• W217194923 hasConcept C2779777834 @default.
• W217194923 hasConcept C2779848117 @default.
• W217194923 hasConcept C2780608745 @default.
• W217194923 hasConceptScore W217194923C144133560 @default.
• W217194923 hasConceptScore W217194923C160151201 @default.
• W217194923 hasConceptScore W217194923C160786031 @default.
• W217194923 hasConceptScore W217194923C175762713 @default.
• W217194923 hasConceptScore W217194923C17744445 @default.
• W217194923 hasConceptScore W217194923C199539241 @default.
• W217194923 hasConceptScore W217194923C2776949292 @default.
• W217194923 hasConceptScore W217194923C2777438998 @default.
• W217194923 hasConceptScore W217194923C2779777834 @default.
• W217194923 hasConceptScore W217194923C2779848117 @default.
• W217194923 hasConceptScore W217194923C2780608745 @default.
• W217194923 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W217194923 hasLocation W2171949231 @default.
• W217194923 hasOpenAccess W217194923 @default.
• W217194923 hasPrimaryLocation W2171949231 @default.
• W217194923 hasRelatedWork W175251972 @default.
• W217194923 hasRelatedWork W184700891 @default.
• W217194923 hasRelatedWork W2030017422 @default.
• W217194923 hasRelatedWork W2039005814 @default.
• W217194923 hasRelatedWork W2323346375 @default.
• W217194923 hasRelatedWork W2329703609 @default.
• W217194923 hasRelatedWork W2337892954 @default.
• W217194923 hasRelatedWork W2358361775 @default.
• W217194923 hasRelatedWork W24535780 @default.
• W217194923 hasRelatedWork W2487320854 @default.
• W217194923 hasRelatedWork W3048989661 @default.
• W217194923 hasRelatedWork W3125309396 @default.
• W217194923 hasRelatedWork W3125940724 @default.
• W217194923 hasRelatedWork W3140430944 @default.
• W217194923 hasRelatedWork W3151795342 @default.
• W217194923 hasRelatedWork W3196154003 @default.
• W217194923 hasRelatedWork W70862356 @default.
• W217194923 hasRelatedWork W2134438256 @default.
• W217194923 hasRelatedWork W2602096628 @default.
• W217194923 hasRelatedWork W3127705341 @default.
• W217194923 hasVolume "41" @default.
• W217194923 isParatext "false" @default.
• W217194923 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W217194923 magId "217194923" @default.
• W217194923 workType "article" @default.