Foreign award enforcement limited to narrow public policy grounds; merits-based contract interpretation challenges cannot reopen section 48 objections.

Enforcement of a foreign award under Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is confined to the narrow grounds in section 48, and the court cannot undertake a merits review. Public policy is construed narrowly, permitting refusal only where the award offends the fundamental policy of Indian law, India's interests, or justice and morality. A plausible arbitral interpretation of a contractual clause could not be reopened in enforcement proceedings, especially where the contract was governed by Austrian law and no expert evidence of that law was led. The complaint of denial of a fair opportunity also failed, as the record showed adequate time and participation in the arbitral process.

---

---

Issues: Whether the objections to enforcement of the foreign award under section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 were maintainable on the grounds of public policy, alleged patent illegality in the interpretation of the contract, and denial of a fair opportunity to present the case.

Analysis: Enforcement of a foreign award under Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is confined to the limited grounds specifically recognised by section 48, and the court cannot undertake a merits review of the award. The expression "public policy of India" in this context is to be construed narrowly, and refusal of enforcement is warranted only where the award offends the fundamental policy of Indian law, the interests of India, or justice and morality. The interpretation placed by the arbitral tribunal on the contractual clause was a plausible one and could not be reopened in enforcement proceedings, particularly where the contract was governed by Austrian law and no expert evidence of that law was produced. The record also showed that the judgment debtor had opportunity in the arbitral process, including time for defence and participation in the procedural timetable, and the complaint of inability to present the case was not made out.

Conclusion: The objections under section 48 failed, and the foreign award was held enforceable as a decree of the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A foreign award cannot be refused enforcement on the basis of a merits-based challenge to the tribunal's contractual interpretation, and public policy under section 48 permits interference only on narrowly defined grounds.

---