Summary: IMAX Corporation and E-City Entertainment have been in a legal fight over the enforcement of foreign arbitration decisions. The Bombay High Court recently ruled in favor of IMAX, allowing them to enforce these decisions against E-City and its related companies.
Background of the Case
- Parties Involved: IMAX Corporation, based in Canada, and E-City Entertainment, located in Mumbai.
- Initial Agreement: On September 28, 2000, IMAX made a Master Agreement with E-City to lease six IMAX systems for 20 years.
- Disputes Arise: By 2003-2004, disagreements started, leading IMAX to claim $18.3 million against E-City, which was sent to arbitration in London.
The Arbitration Decisions
- Liability Decision (February 9, 2006): The panel found E-City had broken the agreement.
- Amount Decision (August 24, 2007): E-City was ordered to pay IMAX $9.4 million plus interest.
- Final Decision (March 27, 2008): Included additional costs and interest, totaling over $11 million.
Legal Proceedings
- E-City's Objections: E-City argued against the decisions, saying they were against Indian public policy and too late to be enforced.
- Supreme Court Involvement: E-City's challenges went to the Supreme Court, which ultimately supported the enforcement of the decisions.
High Court's Ruling
- Judges Involved: M.S. Sonak and Advait M. Sethna, JJ.
- Decision Date: December 30, 2025.
- Key Rulings:
- IMAX's request was made within the allowed time.
- The enforcement of the decisions did not go against public policy.
- IMAX could go after E-City's assets that were wrongly moved to related companies.
Adding Parties and Carrying Out the Decision
- Associated Companies: E-City's assets were moved to related companies during arbitration to avoid being taken.
- Court's Stance: The court allowed IMAX to enforce the decisions against these assets, looking through the companies to find the real situation due to wrongdoing.
Summary of the Verdict
The Bombay High Court's decision was a big win for IMAX, allowing them to finally collect the money owed after a long legal battle. The court's ruling supports the idea that foreign arbitration decisions should be enforceable, even if some try to hide assets.
