Case Note & Summary
The appeal originated from a dispute between Imax Corporation (appellant) and E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt. Ltd. (first respondent) arising from a Master Agreement dated September 28, 2000 for lease of six IMAX systems. During 2003-2004, disputes led to arbitration before the ICC, London, which resulted in three foreign awards: a Liability Award (February 9, 2006), a Quantum Award (August 24, 2007), and a Final Award (March 27, 2008), collectively directing E-City to pay substantial sums exceeding USD 20 million including interest and costs. During the arbitration, the second and third respondents were incorporated, and the first respondent's assets were allegedly diverted through demerger schemes approved by the court, leaving minimal assets for execution. E-City filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to challenge the awards; the Single Judge held Part I applicable. Imax challenged this before the Supreme Court, which ruled on March 10, 2017 that Part II governed and dismissed the Section 34 petition. Imax then filed Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 414 of 2018 under Sections 47-49 for recognition and enforcement of the awards, impleading related respondent companies, and arguing for lifting corporate veil to enforce against assets allegedly diverted to frustrate execution. E-City opposed enforcement on grounds including limitation. The Single Judge disposed of the petition on October 24, 2024, refusing enforcement. Imax filed the present Commercial Arbitration Appeal. A coordinate bench rejected objections to maintainability on April 23, 2025, and admitted the appeal. The Supreme Court, by order dated September 16, 2025, declined to interfere while leaving contentions open and requesting expedited disposal. The Division Bench heard final arguments on November 10-19, 2025, and pronounced judgment on December 30, 2025. The excerpt of the judgment provided covers the procedural background and the parties' contentions but does not include the court's analysis or final decision.
Issue of Consideration
Correctness of Single Judge's order dated October 24, 2024 refusing to recognize and enforce three foreign arbitral awards under Sections 47-49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; maintainability of appeal; whether enforcement petition was barred by limitation; whether non-signatory related companies can be impleaded and corporate veil lifted to enforce awards against them.
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (12) 180
Commercial Arbitration Appeal (CARBA) (L) No. 38267 of 2024
M.S. Sonak, Advait M. Sethna
Appellant: Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shanay Shah, Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Mr. Amit Surve & Adv. Simran Gulabani; Respondent No.1: Mr. Vikram Nankani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sumeet Nankani, Ms. Pooja Tidke, Mr. Krushi N. Barfiwala, Mr. Shlok Bodas, Ms. Alisha Mohite and Ms. Ishika Lodha; Respondent Nos.2 & 3: Mr. Navroz Seervai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Saket Mone, Ms. Gulnar Mistry, Mr. Shrey Shah, Ms. Shrushti Thorat and Mr. Archit Rao; Respondent No.4: Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Saket Mone, Mr. Shrey Shah, Ms. Shrushti Thorat, Mr. Akshay Doctor, Mr. Siddharth Joshi, Ms. Avanti Divan, Ms. Samriddhi Lodha and Mr. Archit Rao
1. E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt. Limited; 2. E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt. Limited; 3. E-City Projects Constructions Private Limited; 4. E-City Investments And Holdings Company Private Limited
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and lifting corporate veil to proceed against assets of related non-signatory companies.
Remedy Sought
Appellant Imax Corporation sought setting aside the Single Judge's order dated October 24, 2024 and sought recognition and enforcement of three foreign arbitral awards under Sections 47-49, along with impleadment of respondent companies to enforce awards against assets diverted.
Filing Reason
Dispute arising from breach of Master Agreement for lease of IMAX systems; foreign awards went unpaid; alleged diversion of respondent's assets to related companies to frustrate enforcement.
Previous Decisions
Single Judge (Anup Mohta, J) on June 10, 2013 held Part I of the Act applicable and maintained Section 34 petition; Supreme Court on March 10, 2017 in SLP No.34009 of 2013 reversed, holding Part II applicable and dismissed Section 34 petition; Single Judge on October 24, 2024 dismissed Commercial Arbitration Petition No.414 of 2018 refusing enforcement; Coordinate Division Bench on April 23, 2025 rejected maintainability objections and admitted the present appeal; Supreme Court on September 16, 2025 in SLP (C) No.22422 of 2025 declined to interfere and ordered expedited hearing.
Issues
Whether the appeal is maintainable under Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Whether the Single Judge's order dated October 24, 2024 refusing to recognize and enforce three foreign arbitral awards is legally sustainable.
Whether the enforcement petition under Sections 47-49 was barred by limitation.
Whether non-signatory related companies (Respondents 2-4) can be impleaded and subjected to enforcement proceedings by lifting the corporate veil to recover assets allegedly diverted to defeat execution of foreign awards.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the awards were valid, the enforcement petition was not barred by limitation, and that due to improper divestment of substantial assets during pendency of arbitration, the corporate veil should be lifted to enforce awards against related companies as per Vedanta, Balwant Rai, and Bhatia Industries.
Respondent E-City objected to recognition/enforcement on grounds including limitation, and likely contended that non-signatories could not be impleaded in enforcement proceedings.
Judgment Excerpts
This Commercial Arbitration Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated October 24, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 414 of 2018 along with Chamber Summons No. 99 of 2019, 100 of 2019 and 101 of 2019 under Sections 47 to 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (said Act), thereby refusing to recognise and enforce three foreign arbitral awards dated February 09, 2006, August 24, 2007 and March 27, 2008 [foreign awards] made by the ICC Arbitral Tribunal
On March 10, 2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed IMAX’s Special Leave Petition, holding that Part II and not Part I of Chapter I of the said Act would govern the review of such foreign awards made in England by following the Singapore Law. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed E-City’s Arbitration Petition (L) No. 525 of 2008 filed under Section 34 of the said Act.
IMAX, while admitting that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents were not parties to the arbitration agreement or the arbitration proceedings before the Foreign Arbitral Tribunal, argued that in the execution of the foreign awards, IMAX was entitled to go against E-city’s substantial assets improperly divested and diverted to the related companies during the pendency of foreign arbitration proceedings solely to obstruct the execution of the foreign awards that were made or liable to be made against E-City.
Procedural History
Appellant Imax Corporation and Respondent No.1 E-City Entertainment entered into Master Agreement on September 28, 2000. Disputes arose; arbitration before ICC, London resulted in three awards (2006-2008). E-City filed Section 34 petition in 2008; Single Judge held Part I applicable on June 10, 2013. Imax challenged before Supreme Court; by order dated March 10, 2017, Supreme Court held Part II applicable and dismissed Section 34 petition. Imax filed Commercial Arbitration Petition No.414 of 2018 under Sections 47-49 for enforcement on April 2, 2018, impleading related companies. Single Judge dismissed petition on October 24, 2024, refusing enforcement. Imax filed Commercial Arbitration Appeal (L) No.38267 of 2024. Coordinate Bench on April 23, 2025 rejected maintainability objections and admitted appeal. Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.22422 of 2025 by order dated September 16, 2025 declined to interfere but left all contentions open and directed expedited disposal within six months. Division Bench heard final arguments from November 10 to 19, 2025, and pronounced judgment on December 30, 2025.
Acts & Sections
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: 34, 47, 48, 49, 50
