Foreign award enforcement is limited to statutory objections, with public policy construed narrowly as Indian public policy.

Enforcement of a foreign award is confined to the statutory grounds for refusal under the Foreign Awards Act; the court does not re-examine the award on merits, and objections based only on alleged legal or factual error are outside that narrow inquiry. The public policy defence is limited to Indian public policy, applied narrowly to fundamental policy of Indian law, the interests of India, or justice or morality. On the facts described, the award was not vitiated by inability to present the case, foreign exchange objections, alleged disregard of court orders, compound-interest complaints, or unjust enrichment. For conversion into Indian currency, the forum rule applied the date of decree or judgment, and future interest was directed on the outstanding balance.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether, in proceedings for enforcement of a foreign award, the court can examine the award on merits or is confined to the statutory grounds of refusal; (ii) whether the award was unenforceable because the appellant was unable to present its case before the arbitral tribunal; (iii) whether the expression "public policy" in the enforcement statute refers only to Indian public policy and, if so, what is the scope of that concept; (iv) whether the award was contrary to public policy of India because of alleged contravention of foreign exchange control law, alleged disregard of court orders, alleged award of interest on interest and damages on damages, and alleged unjust enrichment; and (v) which date governs conversion of the foreign currency award into Indian currency, and whether pendente lite and future interest were payable.

Issue (i): whether, in proceedings for enforcement of a foreign award, the court can examine the award on merits or is confined to the statutory grounds of refusal

Analysis: The enforcement scheme under the Foreign Awards Act makes the court's enquiry narrow and self-contained. The statutory grounds for refusal exhaust the permissible objections, and the court is not sitting in appeal over the arbitral tribunal. A party cannot impeach the award merely because it alleges error in law, error in fact, or excessive quantum, if the objection does not fall within the statutory refusal grounds.

Conclusion: The court cannot review the foreign award on merits; the challenge is confined to the statutory grounds of refusal, against the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether the award was unenforceable because the appellant was unable to present its case before the arbitral tribunal

Analysis: The record showed that the appellant had participated in earlier hearings, filed written submissions, and then deliberately chose not to appear after taking the position that the tribunal had become functus officio. The tribunal had notified the parties that the jurisdiction objection would be treated as a preliminary issue. In those circumstances, the later hearing on the merits without the appellant's appearance did not amount to denial of a real opportunity to present its case.

Conclusion: The award was not barred on the ground that the appellant was unable to present its case, against the appellant.

Issue (iii): whether the expression "public policy" in the enforcement statute refers only to Indian public policy and, if so, what is the scope of that concept

Analysis: The expression "public policy" in the foreign awards legislation was construed as the public policy of India, not of the foreign country whose law governed the contract or the place of arbitration. The concept was given a narrow and conflict-of-laws oriented meaning, suitable to enforcement of foreign awards. Enforcement may be refused only if it would violate the fundamental policy of Indian law, the interests of India, or justice or morality.

Conclusion: "Public policy" means Indian public policy and it is to be applied narrowly, in favour of the respondent.

Issue (iv): whether the award was contrary to public policy of India because of alleged contravention of foreign exchange control law, alleged disregard of court orders, alleged award of interest on interest and damages on damages, and alleged unjust enrichment

Analysis: The award was held not to offend Indian public policy. The original contractual and governmental approvals, together with the statutory saving for legal proceedings and enforcement of judgments, meant that enforcement did not involve a forbidden foreign exchange transaction. The interim orders of the Delhi High Court did not justify the appellant's retention of amounts otherwise payable. The award of compensatory damages in the form of interest on withheld sums was treated as a permissible remedial measure and not as a prohibited award of compound interest or damages on damages. The objection of unjust enrichment was also rejected, both because it went to the merits and because the amounts awarded were not shown to be unconscionable or excessive in the legal sense.

Conclusion: None of the public policy objections succeeded, against the appellant.

Issue (v): which date governs conversion of the foreign currency award into Indian currency, and whether pendente lite and future interest were payable

Analysis: Conversion of a foreign currency award for enforcement in India was treated as a matter of procedure governed by the lex fori. The date of the decree or judgment, not the date of breach or actual payment, remained the proper conversion point under the governing rule. As to interest, the court declined to interfere with the High Court's refusal to award pendente lite interest, but directed future interest on the unpaid balance after adjustment of the amount already deposited and withdrawn.

Conclusion: The conversion date rule in Forasol was applied and future interest was directed on the outstanding balance, in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The foreign award was enforceable in India, the statutory objections failed, the conversion principle of the forum was applied, and the decree in favour of the award-holder was substantially affirmed with directions on conversion, adjustment of deposits, and future interest.

Ratio Decidendi: In enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, the court's inquiry is confined to the statutory refusal grounds, and the public policy defence is limited to Indian public policy understood narrowly as fundamental policy of Indian law, the interests of India, or justice or morality.

---