The National Thermal Power Corporation of India (NTPC) entered into a contract with The Singer Company (Singer), a British concern, to supply equipment and erect certain projects in India. A dispute arose and Singer sought arbitration under International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) rules in London, as provided in the contract. Singer won the arbitration and was granted an award by the ICC tribunal. Singer then sought to enforce the award in India under the Indian Foreign Awards Act, which limits the role of Indian courts to recognition and enforcement of the foreign arbitral award. NTPC argued against enforcement, claiming that because Indian law governed the contract, it was not a "foreign award" under the Act. Therefore, despite the contract's clear submission to ICC arbitration, the whole case should be retried in India under the Indian Arbitration Act. The Delhi High Court dismissed NTPC's application, and NTPC appealed to the Supreme Court of India.
1. Does this decision mean that foreign investors doing business in India cannot choose international arbitration?
2. What would the result have been if the parties had chosen to have the contract governed by the laws of England and Wales instead of the laws of India?
3. Does this result suggest that arbitration leads to faster results than courtroom litigation?