Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2017 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 1278 - HC - Indian LawsArbitration and Conciliation - foreign award unenforceable on account of non stamping - Held that:- The contentions raised by the respondent that the foreign award is unenforceable on account of non stamping, stands rejected. Violation of the principles of natural justice - legality of foreign award - Held that:- On a perusal of the impugned award, factually it appears otherwise and the Arbitral Tribunal considered this objection and rendered its finding from paragraph 179 onwards and ultimately held that APL and CIAL are not parties to the arbitration agreement in Clause 17 of the arbitration agreement. This arbitration had commenced under the agreement and the agreement alone and accordingly, the Arbitral Tribunal held that it has no jurisdiction in respect of the claims against APL and CIAL. Admittedly, the award has become final and the respondent has not challenged the same. Any endeavour of this Court to go into the factual aspects would amount to sitting in judgment over the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. This has been frowned upon by the Courts in several decisions, some of which have been referred to above. The contention stating that there was no opportunity to cross examine and other related matters are all touching upon the merits of the award and in this petition under Section 47 of the Act, seeking enforcement of the award, all that is required to be seen is as to whether the award is (a) contrary to the fundamental policy of India. The respondent has not been able to substantiate such a plea while resisting the petition under Section 47 of the Act; (b) contrary to the interests of India. No arguments were advanced on this aspect; (c) contrary to justice or morality. The plea of violation of the principles of natural justice, the lack of opportunity, etc., are sought to be read into this aspect by stating that the fundamental policy of India as well as the public policy of India having not been defined, one of the pre-requisites is to have a judicial approach. When such judicial approach is lacking in a quasi judicial decision, the same can be interfered with. This Court would, once again, point out that the present proceeding is not a proceeding to set aside the award under Section 34 of the Act. The respondent cannot seek to import the principles of challenge to an award under Section 34 of the Act, into these proceedings where a foreign award is sought to be implemented.
|