Narrow public policy in foreign award enforcement limits limitation-based objections and rejects belated jurisdiction challenges.

For enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, public policy of India is construed narrowly, so a foreign limitation rule will not defeat enforcement merely because Indian limitation law may differ. Limitation was treated as procedural and, where Singapore was the seat and Singapore law governed, the limitation law followed the law of the seat. The court also noted that the arbitrator's reliance on Singapore limitation was a plausible view on the facts. A jurisdictional objection to claims for teleport and occasional services was rejected because it was not raised in the defence statement and was pressed only at the stage of closing submissions; the services were also treated as part of the contractual arrangement.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a foreign award based on Singapore law of limitation was unenforceable in India as being contrary to the public policy of India. (ii) Whether the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction by awarding claims relating to teleport and occasional services.

Issue (i): Whether a foreign award based on Singapore law of limitation was unenforceable in India as being contrary to the public policy of India.

Analysis: Limitation was treated as a matter of procedure, and the parties had chosen Singapore as the seat of arbitration and Singapore law as the governing law. The law of limitation therefore followed the curial law of the seat. In the context of enforcement of a foreign award, the expression public policy of India has a narrow content and refusal is justified only if the award offends the fundamental policy of Indian law, the interests of India, or justice and morality. A mere breach of Indian limitation law, even if assumed, would not by itself satisfy that test. The arbitrator's view that Singapore limitation applied was also found to be a plausible and correct view on the facts.

Conclusion: The objection based on limitation and public policy was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction by awarding claims relating to teleport and occasional services.

Analysis: The jurisdictional objection was not raised in the defence statement with respect to those services and was first pressed only at the stage of closing submissions before the arbitrator. The pleadings and evidence also showed that the additional services were treated as part of the contractual arrangement and were discussed in the meetings between the parties. A belated challenge to jurisdiction was therefore not maintainable, and the awarder's findings on the contractual scope of those services were upheld.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection was rejected.

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

Ratio Decidendi: For enforcement of a foreign award, the public policy defence is narrowly construed, and limitation, being procedural, is governed by the law of the arbitral seat unless the parties have agreed otherwise; a belated jurisdictional objection not raised in the statement of defence cannot defeat enforcement.

---