Herbert Smith Freehills reviews a 2018 decision of the Delhi High Court, which agreed to enforce a China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) award against an Indian company, despite the award debtor’s arguments that the dispute should have been referred to and administrated by the now independent Shanghai International Arbitration Centre (SHIAC), which until mid-2012 was the Shanghai Sub-Commission of CIETAC.
The authors observe that the pro-arbitration approach adopted by the Court may serve as a helpful precedent for future disputes regarding the interpretation of arbitration agreements following reorganisations of arbitral institutions.
