Foreign award enforcement under Part II excludes section 34 challenge and is not barred by waived reasons.

A foreign award governed by Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not open to challenge under section 34, because the special enforcement regime excludes the general challenge provision. The award becomes enforceable under the statutory scheme and may be executed as a decree once the statutory conditions are met. On public policy, an award is not unenforceable merely because it contains reasons that the parties agreed could be dispensed with; section 31(3) permits such a contractual arrangement. In enforcement of foreign awards, public policy remains confined to the narrow grounds of fundamental policy, interests of India, or justice or morality, and no such ground was made out.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a foreign award could be challenged under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. (ii) Whether an award containing reasons, but accompanied by a contractual prohibition against reliance on those reasons, offended the public policy of India so as to bar enforcement.

Issue (i): Whether a foreign award could be challenged under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The applicable scheme distinguishes between the general provisions in Part I and the special enforcement provisions in Part II. Once the award is a foreign award governed by the enforcement chapter, the special regime applies and the general challenge provision in section 34 is excluded. The award, if enforceable under the special provisions, is to be treated as a decree after the statutory conditions are satisfied.

Conclusion: Section 34 was held inapplicable to the challenge against enforcement of the foreign award.

Issue (ii): Whether an award containing reasons, but accompanied by a contractual prohibition against reliance on those reasons, offended the public policy of India so as to bar enforcement.

Analysis: The contract allowed the parties to dispense with reasons unless a reasoned award was expressly required. Section 31(3) permits parties to agree that reasons need not be given, so a reasoned award is not an invariable requirement of Indian arbitral law. Public policy in the enforcement of foreign awards remains confined to the narrow sense of fundamental policy of Indian law, interests of India, or justice or morality. Since the parties had agreed to dispense with reasons and the enforcement challenge did not fall within the recognized public policy heads, the objection failed.

Conclusion: The absence of usable reasons did not render the foreign award unenforceable on public policy grounds.

Final Conclusion: The foreign award was declared enforceable, and the petitioners were permitted to execute it as a decree of the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A foreign award governed by Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not open to a section 34 challenge, and an award is not unenforceable merely because reasons are excluded from reliance where the parties have validly agreed to dispense with reasons and no recognized public policy ground is made out.

---