TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a foreign award made after the commencement of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could be enforced under that Act even though the arbitral proceedings had commenced earlier and the question of the Act's commencement date had been challenged as per incuriam; (ii) Whether enforcement of such foreign award required separate proceedings for adjudicating enforceability and for execution.
Issue (i): Whether a foreign award made after the commencement of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could be enforced under that Act even though the arbitral proceedings had commenced earlier and the question of the Act's commencement date had been challenged as per incuriam.
Analysis: The legal position on enforcement of foreign awards was examined in the light of the scheme of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the saving and commencement provision, and the effect of the successive Ordinances preceding the Act. The Court accepted that the Act was notified to come into force on 22-8-1996, while also holding that the first Ordinance, having the same force and effect, operated from 25-1-1996. The Court further held that the earlier decision on the same point was not rendered per incuriam, since there was no glaring omission of a binding statutory provision or authority and the line of precedent had correctly treated the Ordinance and the Act as operating in the same legal field for the relevant period.
Conclusion: The foreign award made on 13-8-1996 was enforceable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the prior decisions were not per incuriam.
Issue (ii): Whether enforcement of such foreign award required separate proceedings for adjudicating enforceability and for execution.
Analysis: The Court construed Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, especially the provisions governing evidence, conditions for enforcement, and the deeming fiction that a foreign award enforceable under the Chapter is treated as a decree of the court. Reading the statutory scheme with the objects of the Act, the Court held that insisting on two separate proceedings would defeat the legislative intent of speedy enforcement and would unnecessarily multiply litigation. The court enforcing the award could decide enforceability and then proceed with execution in the same proceeding.
Conclusion: Separate proceedings were not required, and the award could be dealt with in one enforcement proceeding culminating in execution if found enforceable.
Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was set aside and the matter was remitted for enforcement of the foreign award in accordance with the Act, with the appellant obtaining substantive relief.
Ratio Decidendi: A foreign award made after the commencement of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is enforceable under that Act, and the enforcing court may determine enforceability and execution in the same proceeding without requiring a separate suit or separate stage for making the award a decree.
TaxTMI 
