Foreign award enforcement is confined to limited statutory objections, and procedural irregularity alone will not defeat maintainability.

Enforcement of a foreign award under Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is confined to the limited objections permitted by Sections 47, 48 and 49, and procedural complaints alone do not defeat maintainability. On the facts, notice invoking arbitration had been issued, the judgment-debtor was given an opportunity to appoint an arbitrator, and the applicable GAFTA procedure had been followed. Allegations of absence of amicable settlement, irregular appointment, and improper tribunal constitution were unsupported by material showing a sustainable bar to enforcement, so the execution application was held maintainable and the foreign award treated as enforceable for that purpose.

---

---

Issues: Whether the execution application for enforcement of the foreign award was maintainable in view of the objections to jurisdiction and alleged procedural irregularities in the arbitral process.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 requires the Court to consider enforceability of a foreign award in light of Sections 47, 48 and 49. Objections to enforcement may be entertained even if orally raised, but refusal is confined to the limited grounds specified in Section 48. On the facts, the objections centred on alleged absence of amicable settlement, alleged non-compliance with the appointment procedure, and alleged irregularity in the constitution of the tribunal. The materials showed that notice invoking arbitration had been issued, the judgment-debtor was given an opportunity to appoint an arbitrator, and the procedure under the applicable GAFTA rules had been followed. The Court also held that the contention of procedural irregularity did not displace the maintainability of the enforcement proceeding, and that the respondent's challenge was not supported by any material showing a sustainable bar to enforcement.

Conclusion: The objection to maintainability was rejected and the execution application was held to be maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The foreign award was treated as enforceable for the purpose of the execution proceeding, and the petitioning decree-holder succeeded on the maintainability issue, with ancillary protective directions continuing in aid of enforcement.

Ratio Decidendi: A foreign award may be resisted only on the limited grounds specified in Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and where notice and the agreed arbitral procedure are shown to have been followed, mere allegations of procedural irregularity or absence of prior objection will not defeat maintainability of enforcement proceedings.

---