In Venture Global Engineering v Satyam Computer Services Ltd & Another, Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.9238 of 2010), VGE had appealed against the award of a sole arbitrator in 2006, which ordered it to transfer all of its shares in a joint venture agreement with SCS to the Indian company. They had entered into a Shareholders Agreement and Joint Venture Agreement in 1999 and disputes arose in 2000 that were referred to arbitration. After the award in 2006, VGE filed a suit to set it aside and get an injunction against the transfer of shares. This was initially rejected by the Indian court, following the argument that such foreign awards could not be challenged. However, on appeal, the Supreme Court held that a foreign award could, in fact, be challenged under the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, even though the arbitration took place in London, under the LCIA rules. This created a great deal of consternation in the international arbitration community, as it seemed to support judicial intervention by Indian courts in arbitration decisions made in other jurisdictions.

However, in January 2009, the chairman of SCS admitted that the company's balance sheet had been fraudulently inflated by almost US$1.5 billion, with the consequence that financial statements made by SCS with regard to the dispute with VGE could not be relied upon. VGE was given permission to amend its pleadings and include evidence of the fraud. SCS appealed against this decision and the High Court ruled that not only was the request of VGE time-barred, but that it had been incorrectly filed. VGE appealed and, in the ruling on 11 August, the Supreme Court criticised the High Court for being "hyper technical" and granted VGE leave to introduce the evidence of fraud into the proceedings. It ruled that "if a party is entitled to amend its pleadings, having regard to the justice of the case" then simple errors, such as the quoting of a wrong section in the pleadings, should not negate their rights.

The court went on to discuss the nature of fraud as a ground for a public policy challenge and held that, if facts are concealed in the arbitration proceedings, this can amount to fraud, but that they must have a "causative link" with the facts inducing the award. Fraud was described as being of "infinite variety" and, as such, the concept should not be narrowly construed.

The case will now move on to deal with the legality of the original award and the court stated that it hoped the issue would be decided quickly, "preferably within 4 months".