Written by George Jacob, Incoming Associate, Bombay Law Chambers
Globalisation has led to a rise in cross-border disputes, making international service of summons increasingly relevant. While domestic service in India is straightforward, sending summons to foreign defendants involves complex legal procedures. Proper service ensures that the defendant is duly notified and can respond, embodying the principle of audi alteram partem. Until recently, the procedure for international service in India was unclear. This ambiguity was addressed by the Kerala High Court in Charuvila Philippose v. P.V. Sivadasan.[1] This blog outlines the legal frameworks for international service, revisits the earlier Mollykutty[2] decision, and analyses the broader implications of Charuvila Philippose. Read more
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png00Saloni Khanderiahttps://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.pngSaloni Khanderia2025-05-27 10:54:272025-05-28 07:43:39Charuvila Philippose v. P.V. Sivadasan: Harmonizing India’s Civil Procedure Code and the Hague Service Convention
In 2024, the Dubai Supreme Court rendered a significant decision on the issue of indirect jurisdiction under UAE law. Commenting on that decision (see here), I noted that it offered “a welcome, and a much-awaited clarification regarding what can be considered one of the most controversial requirements in the UAE enforcement system” (italic in the original).
The decision commented on here touches on the same issue. Yet rather than confirming the direction suggested in the above-mentioned decision, the Court regrettably reverted to its prior, more restrictive approach. This shift raises doubts about whether a consistent jurisprudence on indirect jurisdiction is taking shape, or whether the legal framework remains fragmented and unpredictable.
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png00Béligh Elbaltihttps://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.pngBéligh Elbalti2025-05-26 04:19:202025-05-26 23:21:06Foreign Judgments and Indirect Jurisdiction in Dubai (UAE): One Step Forward, One Step Back?
Written by Tarasha Gupta, BALLB (Hons), Jindal Global Law School, and Saloni Khanderia, Professor, Jindal Global Law School (India)
The Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC”) has become a preferred hub for hearing litigation and arbitration of international commercial disputes. Accordingly, many decisions from the SICC require recognition and enforcement in India.
In this light, a recent judgment from the Delhi High Court (“HC”) is a significant development providing relief to those wishing to enforce the SICC’s judgments in India. In Discovery Drilling Pte Ltd v. Parmod Kumar & Anr,[1] the HC has held that the SICC is a superior court under Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”). As a result, its judgments can be directly executed in India. That said, the HC ultimately held the judgment in question to be unenforceable, as it failed to meet the tests in Section 13 of the CPC.
This article breaks down the arguments and legal context behind the HC’s judgment. It also highlights how the case demonstrates flaws in India’s regime, which create difficulties not just for creditors trying to enforce foreign judgments in India, but also in enforcing India’s judgments abroad. Read more
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png00Saloni Khanderiahttps://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.pngSaloni Khanderia2025-05-23 04:34:592025-05-23 10:06:07Enforceability Denied! When the SICC’s Authority Stopped at India’s Gate
Written by Samhith Malladi, Dual-qualified lawyer (India and England & Wales), and Senior Associate, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas [Bombay office]; and Niyati Gandhi, Partner, Dispute Resolution, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas [Bombay office]
The Recalibration of Enforcement Doctrine
The global campaign to enforce arbitral awards against the Republic of India arising from its long-running dispute with Devas Multimedia has witnessed a significant doctrinal shift in the treatment of sovereign immunity within the enforcement of investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) awards.
To recall, the dispute arises from a contract entered in 2005 between Devas Multimedia Private Limited (Devas) and the Indian state-owned Antrix Corporation (Antrix), which was the commercial arm of the Indian Space Research Organisation. Antrix had agreed to lease S-band spectrum to Devas to broadcast its multimedia services in India. Antrix terminated this contract in 2011 citing national security concerns. In a nutshell, the dispute spawned three concluded arbitrations – a commercial ICC arbitration between Devas and Antrix and two investor-state arbitrations between Devas’ shareholders and India under the India-Mauritius Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) 1998 and the India-Germany BIT 1995. In 2022, Devas’ Mauritian shareholders commenced another investor-state arbitration against India under the India-Mauritius BIT in relation to India’s efforts to thwart the award against Antrix in the ICC arbitration, which currently remains pending before the Permanent Court of Arbitration. An overview of the various proceedings arising from this dispute has been previously discussed on this blog here. Read more
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png00Saloni Khanderiahttps://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.pngSaloni Khanderia2025-05-21 11:38:012025-05-22 08:14:39Sovereign Immunity and the Enforcement of Investor–State Arbitration Awards: Lessons from Devas V. India in Australia, The United Kingdom and India
Guest post by Bebizuh Mulugeta Menkir, former Lecturer of Laws in University of Gondar, currently working as a Lawyer and Senior National Consultant for a legal reform project. E-mail: babimulugeta@gmail.com
The Ethiopian legal system is characterized by the absence of codified rules on conflict of laws. Though it cannot be considered as the exact period in which conflict of laws have emerged in Ethiopia, some elements of such rules can be found even in the early 1900s, which is long before the modern codes were developed in 1950s and 1960s.
A book written by Mersehazen Woledekirkos titled “Ye Hayagenawe Keflezemen Mebacha:Ye Zemen Tarik Tezetaye Kayehute ena Kesemahute 1896–1922”[1] is a record of historical events that happened in 20th century Ethiopia. One of the records is the “Trade Agreement (1908)” that was signed between Ethiopia and France. This agreement, among others, regulates the adjudication of disputes between Ethiopian and French nationals/dependents. This short piece aims to briefly discuss the salient conflict of laws rules that are incorporated in this trade agreement. Read more
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2025/05/pexels-photo-30177512.webp14182520Tobias Lutzihttps://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.pngTobias Lutzi2025-05-11 16:52:552025-05-12 06:43:33Conflict of Law Rules in the Early 20th Century Ethiopia: A Brief Legal History
As previously indicated, this is a much-politicized case brought by Mexico against US gun manufacturers. Mexico alleges inter alia that defendants actively assist and facilitate trafficking of their guns to drug cartels in Mexico. Among the claims for relief are: Negligence, public nuisance, defective condition – unreasonably dangerous, negligence per se, gross negligence, unjust enrichment and restitution, violation of CUTPA [Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act], Violation of Mass. G.L. c. 93A [Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act] and punitive damages.
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png00Mayela Celishttps://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.pngMayela Celis2025-05-09 08:19:212025-05-10 08:06:14US Supreme Court: Hearing in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Mexico). Selling guns comparable to selling beer to teenagers?
As many readers will be aware, a controversy exists regarding the temporal scope of the Convention. It applies to exclusive choice of court agreements concluded after its entry into force for the State of the chosen court and to disputes initiated after its entry into force for the State of the seized court. EU Member States have been bound by the Hague Convention since its approval by the European Union on 1 October 2015, but what about the UK after its withdrawal from the EU?
According to a first viewpoint, reflected in the UK’s instrument of accession, ” In accordance with Article 30 of the 2005 Hague Convention, the United Kingdom became bound by the Convention on 1 October 2015 by virtue of its membership of the European Union, which approved the Convention on that date.”
Conversely, under a second viewpoint (apparently shared by the European Commission in its ‘Notice to stakeholders – Withdrawal of the United Kingdom and EU rules in the field of civil justice and private international law’ dated 27 August 2020, p. 9), the Convention could only apply after the United Kingdom’s ‘independent’ ratification, which occurred on 1 January 2021. If this second perspective were accepted, jurisdiction agreements concluded before this date would not benefit from the mutual recognition system established by the Convention.
In a judgment (in French) dated 27 March 2025 (C.24.0012.F), the Belgian Supreme Court (Court de Cassation/Hof van Cassatie) ruled in favour of the first viewpoint, holding that “The Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 has been applicable to the United Kingdom as a bound State, owing to the European Union’s approval of the Convention, from 1 October 2015 until 31 December 2020, and as a contracting party from 1 January 2021. The argument, in this regard, that the United Kingdom ceased to be bound by the Convention following its withdrawal from the European Union on 1 February 2020, is without legal basis.”
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png00Tobias Lutzihttps://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.pngTobias Lutzi2025-05-06 15:54:332025-05-06 15:54:33Brexit and PIL – Belgian Supreme Court confirms the application of the 2005 Hague Convention to jurisdiction clauses designating UK courts concluded after 1 October 2015
By Livia Solaro, PhD candidate at Maastricht University, working on the transnational restitution of Nazi-looted art
On 21 February 2025, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling in Republic of Hungary v. Simon,[1] a Holocaust restitution case with a lengthy procedural history. Delivering this unanimous decision, Justice Sotomayor confirmed the restrictive approach to cases involving foreign states inaugurated in 2021 by Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp.[2] In light of the importance of US practice for the development of customary law around sovereign immunity,[3] and its impact on questions of historical justice and transnational accountability, the Simon development deserves particular attention. Read more
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png00Mayela Celishttps://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.pngMayela Celis2025-05-04 08:39:342025-05-04 10:26:48Foreign Sovereign Immunity and Historical Justice: Inside the US Supreme Court’s Restrictive Turn in Holocaust-Related Cases
This post was written by Rose Wijeyesekera, Professor of Private and Comparative Law, Chair / Department of Private and Comparative Law – Faculty of Law, University of Colombo
Introduction
Sri Lanka (formerly known as ‘Ceylon’) is an island in the Indian Ocean, and is home to a total population of 21,763,170, consisting of Sinhalese 74.9%, Tamils 15.4%, Muslims 9.3%, and 0.5% consisting of others such as Veddhas, Burghers, and gypsies.The legal system of this island nation is a unique blend of native laws and the laws that were placed by the colonial powers from 1505 to 1947, when the country gained independence. Since then, Sri Lanka has been a democratic republic and a Unitary State governed by a constitution. The Sri Lankan legal system is primarily based on Roman-Dutch law, inherited from its colonial past under the Dutch, and English common law introduced by the British colonial rulers. Apart from these two, the legal system incorporates elements of Kandyan law (representing indigenous customs of the Sinhalese), Tesawalamai(customary laws of the Tamils of the Northern province of the country) and Muslim law. These personal laws apply in matters of personal law, such as marriage, divorce, and inheritance, depending on the community to which an individual belongs. All Muslims including the sub-categories such as Moors and Malays, are governed by Muslim Law in their personal matters, while Kandyan Sinhalese (a minority of the Sinhalese who hail from “Kandyan Provinces” / the hill country, are governed by Kandyan Law. These customary laws bear a territorial and/or a religious nature. Most of these laws are enacted, but some remain open leaving room for judicial interpretation. The court system in Sri Lanka is structured hierarchically and is designed to ensure justice through a combination of traditional and modern legal principles. The system comprises the Supreme Court at the apex, the Court of Appeal, Provincial High Courts, District Courts, Magistrate Courts, and tribunals such as Labour Tribunals, Quazi Courts, and Mediation Boards. Read more
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png00Béligh Elbaltihttps://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.pngBéligh Elbalti2025-05-03 06:18:282025-05-04 08:53:31Legislative direction for recognition of foreign judgments in Sri Lanka: A new sign-post in the private international law landscape
By Jason Mitchell, barrister at Maitland Chambers in London and at Group 621 in Johannesburg.
The Supreme Court of Appeal delivered judgment today in East Asian Consortium v MTN Group. The judgment is available here.
East Asian Consortium, a Dutch company, was part of the Turkcell consortium. The consortium bid on an Iranian telecommunications licence. The consortium won the bid. East Asian Consortium alleged that it was later ousted as a shareholder of the ultimate license holder, the Irancell Telecommunications Services Company. East Asian Consortium sued, amongst others, several subsidiaries of the MTN Group, a South African telecommunications company, in South Africa. East Asian Consortium alleged that the defendants unlawfully induced the Iranian government to replace East Asian Consortium with one of the MTN subsidiaries. Read more
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png00Tobias Lutzihttps://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.pngTobias Lutzi2025-04-29 21:29:072025-04-30 09:09:54South Africa Grapples with the Act of State Doctrine and Choice of Law in Delict
