Foreign award enforcement is limited to narrow public policy grounds; merits review and patent illegality are excluded.

Enforcement of a foreign award under Section 48(2)(b) is confined to the narrow Renusagar public policy grounds: fundamental policy of Indian law, interests of India, and justice or morality. The wider patent illegality standard under Section 34 does not apply, and enforcement proceedings do not permit a merits review or reappreciation of evidence. Allegations that the tribunal departed from the contract or relied on material outside the contractual matrix, even if assumed correct, do not by themselves justify refusal of enforcement. The foreign award was therefore enforceable, and the challenge to enforcement failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a foreign award can be refused enforcement under Section 48(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the ground that it is contrary to the contract or based on allegedly erroneous appreciation of evidence, and whether the scope of inquiry under Section 48 permits a merits review.

Analysis: The narrow construction placed in Renusagar governs enforcement of foreign awards under Section 48(2)(b). The expression "public policy of India" in this provision is confined to the three recognised heads: fundamental policy of Indian law, interests of India, and justice or morality. The wider "patent illegality" standard applicable to domestic awards under Section 34 does not apply to enforcement of foreign awards. The Court further held that enforcement proceedings do not permit a second look at the foreign award or a reassessment of evidence, and procedural or evidentiary objections, even if assumed to be correct, do not by themselves attract the public policy defence. The objections that the Board of Appeal departed from the contract or relied on material outside the contractual matrix therefore could not justify refusal of enforcement.

Conclusion: Enforcement of the foreign awards was not barred under Section 48(2)(b), and the challenge to enforcement failed.

Final Conclusion: The law on enforcement of foreign awards remains confined to the limited public policy grounds recognised for conflict-of-laws matters, and the court cannot reopen the merits of the arbitral determination at the enforcement stage.

Ratio Decidendi: A foreign award may be refused enforcement only on the narrow public policy grounds in Section 48(2)(b), and not on the basis of patent illegality, contractual error, or reappreciation of evidence.

---