Foreign arbitral award enforcement upheld despite contract and arbitration agreement objections, with prior tribunal findings treated as final.

A foreign arbitral award was enforced in India despite objections that there was no concluded contract, no valid arbitration agreement, and no original certified agreement. Certified hard copies of email correspondence, supported by an affidavit, were treated as sufficient compliance with Section 65B of the Evidence Act and as certified copies of the arbitration agreement. The Singapore tribunal had already determined jurisdiction, the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement, and the validity of the sole arbitrator; those findings had become final under Singapore law and could not be re-agitated in enforcement proceedings under Sections 45 to 48. No fraud, corruption, incapacity, or Indian public policy objection was established, so enforcement was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the foreign arbitral award was enforceable in India despite the objection that there was no concluded contract or valid arbitration agreement and despite the absence of an original certified arbitration agreement.

Analysis: The petition for enforcement was founded on Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the arbitration clause was supported by certified hard copies of email correspondence. The affidavit accompanying the printouts was treated as sufficient compliance with Section 65B of the Evidence Act, and the documents were accepted as certified copies of the arbitration agreement. The Tribunal in Singapore had already decided the preliminary questions of jurisdiction, existence of a concluded agreement, validity of the arbitration agreement, and validity of the sole arbitrator. Those findings were not challenged within time under the governing Singapore law and had attained finality. In proceedings for enforcement under Sections 45 to 48, the Court held that the respondents could not re-agitate issues already conclusively decided by the foreign Tribunal. No ground of fraud, corruption, incapacity, or conflict with Indian public policy was made out.

Conclusion: The foreign award was held enforceable in India and the objections to enforcement were rejected in favour of the petitioner.

---