Foreign award enforcement is subject to Article 137, with only severable unlawful components refused on public policy grounds.

A foreign-award enforcement application under Section 47 was treated as governed by the Limitation Act, with Article 137 applying because the award becomes a decree only after the court records enforceability under Section 49; delay was condoned on sufficient cause. An objection based on breach of a Section 9 injunction failed because the injunction order was held without jurisdiction and could not invalidate enforcement or support a public policy challenge. The Court also held that only the severable component representing loss said to be suffered by a non-party subcontractor was unenforceable as contrary to Indian indemnity principles and public policy, while the balance of the award remained enforceable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application under Section 47 for enforcement of a foreign award is governed by the Limitation Act and, if so, whether Article 136 or Article 137 applies; (ii) whether the foreign award was unenforceable because it was made in breach of an injunction order passed in Section 9 proceedings or because its enforcement would offend public policy; (iii) whether the award could be refused enforcement on the ground that the sum awarded as loss suffered by a non-party subcontractor was outside the scope of the arbitration and contrary to Indian law of indemnity.

Issue (i): Whether an application under Section 47 for enforcement of a foreign award is governed by the Limitation Act and, if so, whether Article 136 or Article 137 applies.

Analysis: Section 43(1) makes the Limitation Act applicable to arbitrations as it applies to proceedings in court, and a petition under Section 47 is an application to a principal civil court of original jurisdiction. The Court held that a foreign award becomes a decree only when the court records satisfaction under Section 49 that it is enforceable. Until that stage, the proceeding is not an execution of a decree of a civil court, so Article 136 does not apply. Since no specific article governs such an application, the residuary Article 137 applies. The delay in filing was treated as explained by sufficient cause and condoned under Section 5.

Conclusion: The Limitation Act applies, Article 137 governs, and the delay was condoned in favour of the Petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the foreign award was unenforceable because it was made in breach of an injunction order passed in Section 9 proceedings or because its enforcement would offend public policy.

Analysis: The injunction order passed in the Section 9 proceedings was held to be without jurisdiction because Section 9 does not authorise directions against the arbitral tribunal. An order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and cannot found a challenge to the award. Since the order was void ab initio, the final award made after it could not be treated as unenforceable on that basis, nor could enforcement be denied on the ground of public policy on that footing.

Conclusion: The objection based on the injunction order and alleged public policy violation was rejected in favour of the Petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether the award could be refused enforcement on the ground that the sum awarded as loss suffered by a non-party subcontractor was outside the scope of the arbitration and contrary to Indian law of indemnity.

Analysis: The Court found no material to show that the non-party had actually suffered loss or had claimed the amount, and held that under Indian law of indemnity a decree for such loss could not be made in the absence of proof of actual loss or liability. The award directing payment of that component was therefore contrary to the public policy of India. However, the objection was severable, and the remainder of the award was not affected.

Conclusion: Enforcement was refused only for the specific sum of Swiss Fr. 1,453,316, and the balance of the award was upheld in favour of the Petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The foreign award was held enforceable in substance, with only one severable monetary component excluded from enforcement, and the petition was allowed to that limited extent.

Ratio Decidendi: A foreign award becomes a decree for limitation purposes only after the court records enforceability under Section 49, so an application made before that stage is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act; an order passed without jurisdiction cannot invalidate enforcement, and only those portions of a foreign award that are contrary to public policy or otherwise unenforceable may be refused while the balance is enforced.

---