24 June 2025 Legal Updates

'NOC FOR INTER-COUNTRY ADOPTION HELD UP FOR OVER 4 YEARS': DELHI HIGH COURT DIRECTS CARA TO TAKE STEPS WITHIN 4 WEEKS

(a) Case Title:

• Jasleeniqbal Sidhu & Ors. v. Union of India Through Principal Secretary & Ors.

(b) Court:

• High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(c) Date of Decision:

• May 30, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sachin Datta

Key Facts:

The case involved a Sikh family where an Australian citizen couple (adoptive parents) sought to adopt their nephew from India and take him to Australia. The biological parents gave their son (born January 22, 2020) for adoption to the adoptive mother (petitioner no. 1) and her husband, who were Australian citizens. Adoption was performed according to Sikh rituals at a Gurudwara on February 27, 2020. An Adoption Deed was registered on September 15, 2020, under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA).

However, CARA (Central Adoption Resource Authority) refused to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) required for the child's visa to Australia.

Legal Issues:

• Whether CARA could impose retrospective requirements on adoptions completed before new regulations came into force
• Validity of adoption through Power of Attorney
• Requirements under Hague Convention for inter-country adoptions

CARA's Objections:

1. Lack of Documentation:

• Missing certification from Australian authorities as required under Hague Convention

2. Invalid Power of Attorney:

• Claimed the General Power of Attorney used for adoption was not valid under Queensland law

Court’s Analysis

Adoptions completed under HAMA before new regulations cannot be subjected to additional requirements retrospectively. Article 37 of the Hague Conventions recognizes different legal systems within a state and accepts HAMA adoptions.

The Court also observed that power of attorney arrangements are valid for adoptions under the HAMA. Australian authorities had already accepted the adoption as genuine and only required a support letter from CARA.

Court's Decision:

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition and directed CARA to issue the NOC within four weeks.

ARBITRATOR CAN'T BE IMPLEADED IN APPLICATION U/S 36(2) OF A&C ACT UNLESS PRIMA FACIE CASE OF FRAUD OR CORRUPTION IS ESTABLISHED: CALCUTTA HC

(a) Case Title:

• West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. Tata Motors Limited

(b) Court:

• High Court at Calcutta (Commercial Division)

(c) Date of Decision:

• June 19, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Hon'ble Justice Aniruddha Roy

Key Facts:

An arbitral award was passed on November 30, 2023, by a three-member arbitral tribunal in favor of Tata Motors. West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation filed applications under Section 34 (setting aside of arbitral award) and Section 36(2) (unconditional stay) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In the present application, the WBIDC sought to implead the Presiding Arbitrator as a party, alleging bias and fraud

WBIDC's Allegations:

The Presiding Arbitrator attended various car launch events organized by Tata Motors during the arbitration proceedings. The arbitrator failed to disclose his association/relationship with Tata Motors. Argued that bias constitutes an element of fraud under Section 36(3) of the Arbitration Act

TML's Counter-Arguments:

Application filed at the "fag end" of hearings as a delaying tactic. Bias is not covered under Section 36(3) - only fraud and corruption are grounds for unconditional stay. WBIDC had knowledge of the arbitrator's activities during proceedings but failed to object within 15 days as required under Section 13(2), therefore they waived their right to object. No clear case of fraud or corruption established

Legal Issues:

• Whether an arbitrator can be impleaded in Section 36(2) proceedings before establishing prima facie fraud/corruption
• Whether "bias" falls within the meaning of "fraud" under Section 36(3)
• Distinction between Section 34 (setting aside) and Section 36(2) (unconditional stay) proceedings

Court's Decision:

The Calcutta High Court dismissed the application for impleadment.

Key Legal Principles Established:

1. Premature Application:

• Cart cannot be placed before the horse - impleadment of arbitrator is only possible after establishing prima facie fraud/corruption

2. Different Scope of Proceedings:

• Section 34: Detailed review of award within permitted jurisdiction
• Section 36(2): Limited to prima facie finding of fraud/corruption for unconditional stay

3. Sequential Adjudication:

• Court must first decide whether prima facie case of fraud/corruption exists before considering impleadment