TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether a foreign award sought to be enforced under Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could be resisted on the ground that it was unstamped or unregistered; and (ii) whether objections going to the merits of the arbitral award and allegations of violation of natural justice could defeat enforcement under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Issue (i): whether a foreign award sought to be enforced under Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could be resisted on the ground that it was unstamped or unregistered.
Analysis: The enforcement stage of a foreign award is governed by Sections 47 to 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the inquiry is limited to the statutory grounds under Section 48. The objection based on stamping and registration was held to be outside the permissible scope of such enforcement proceedings. The Court accepted the view that a foreign award, once otherwise enforceable, cannot be rejected merely because it is not stamped or registered in India.
Conclusion: The objection based on non-stamping and non-registration failed, and the foreign award was held enforceable on this ground.
Issue (ii): whether objections going to the merits of the arbitral award and allegations of violation of natural justice could defeat enforcement under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Analysis: The Court applied the settled distinction between setting aside a domestic award and resisting enforcement of a foreign award. Under Section 48, enforcement may be refused only if it is contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law, the interests of India, or justice or morality. The Court reiterated that there is no power of appellate review or a second look at the merits of a foreign award at the enforcement stage. Complaints regarding factual findings, absence of cross-examination, alleged changes in the claim, and similar merits-based objections were held to be outside the limited scope of Section 48.
Conclusion: The merits-based and natural justice objections were rejected, and no ground for refusing enforcement was made out.
Final Conclusion: The foreign award was held enforceable in India, and the petition for enforcement succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: Enforcement of a foreign award under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be refused only on the narrow grounds of conflict with the fundamental policy of Indian law, the interests of India, or justice or morality, and not on merits-based objections or defects such as unstamped or unregistered status.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
