Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable to challenge a foreign award made in Geneva under Swiss curial law, or whether such an award can be resisted only at the stage of enforcement under Part II of the Act.
Analysis: Section 34 is a Part I remedy for setting aside an arbitral award, while Section 44 defines a foreign award and Part II provides a separate scheme for its recognition and enforcement. The award in question was made outside India in arbitration governed by Swiss law and ICC Rules, and therefore fell within the category of a foreign award. The scheme of the Act distinguishes between a direct challenge to a domestic award and resistance to enforcement of a foreign award. The Court followed binding co-ordinate Bench decisions holding that a foreign award cannot be challenged by a Section 34 petition in India and that the aggrieved party may resist enforcement on the grounds available under Section 48, including Section 48(1)(e).
Conclusion: A petition under Section 34 was not maintainable against the foreign award, and the challenge could be pursued only in opposition to enforcement proceedings under Part II.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a foreign award is not amenable to a direct challenge under Section 34 in India; the statutory remedy is to resist its enforcement under Section 48 when enforcement is sought.