Foreign award enforcement: third-party intervention refused, illegality objections rejected, and lawful settlement recorded at execution stage.

In enforcement of a foreign award, a non-party such as the Reserve Bank of India had no locus standi to intervene or resist enforcement, because statutory objections under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are available to the party against whom the award is invoked. The shareholders' agreement and award were not held unenforceable merely because performance engaged foreign exchange controls, as the arrangement was not shown to be prohibited under FEMA, the regulations, or the Contract Act, and no ground under Section 48 was established. The Court also accepted voluntary consent terms at the execution stage, finding them lawful and recording them for implementation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Reserve Bank of India had locus standi to intervene and object to enforcement of the foreign award; (ii) Whether the shareholders' agreement and the arbitral award were unenforceable as being contrary to Indian law or public policy; (iii) Whether the consent terms entered into by the parties could be recorded and acted upon in the execution/enforcement proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the Reserve Bank of India had locus standi to intervene and object to enforcement of the foreign award.

Analysis: The enforcement scheme under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 permits refusal of enforcement at the request of the party against whom the award is invoked. The Reserve Bank of India was not a party to the arbitration agreement or the award. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 did not confer any independent right on a third party to intervene in such enforcement proceedings merely because the award referred to foreign exchange regulations. The statutory context did not contemplate intervention by a non-party to the award.

Conclusion: The Reserve Bank of India had no locus standi to intervene or resist enforcement.

Issue (ii): Whether the shareholders' agreement and the arbitral award were unenforceable as being contrary to Indian law or public policy.

Analysis: The contractual clause in question was construed as creating an enforceable obligation to secure the agreed exit, with alternative modes of performance. The Court held that the arrangement was not void merely because performance might implicate foreign exchange controls, since the regulatory framework contemplated general or special permission and did not impose an absolute prohibition. The arbitral award, which characterised the relief as damages and not a prohibited transfer price, was not shown to be perverse or contrary to the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, the regulations made thereunder, or the Indian Contract Act, 1872. No ground under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was made out.

Conclusion: The shareholders' agreement and the award were not unenforceable on the ground of illegality or public policy.

Issue (iii): Whether the consent terms entered into by the parties could be recorded and acted upon in the execution/enforcement proceedings.

Analysis: The settlement was entered into voluntarily, addressed the outstanding dispute, and did not disclose any illegality or infirmity under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Court accepted that settlement could be recorded even at the execution stage in aid of final resolution. The compromise was found to be lawful and consistent with the enforcement proceedings.

Conclusion: The consent terms were valid and were taken on record.

Final Conclusion: The award was held enforceable in India, the third-party intervention was rejected, and the enforcement proceedings were disposed of in terms of the parties' settlement with consequential directions for implementation.

Ratio Decidendi: In enforcement proceedings for a foreign award, only a party to the award may invoke statutory objections to enforcement, and a foreign award and the underlying agreement are enforceable unless a specific ground under the Act is established; a lawful settlement between the parties may also be recorded even at the execution stage.

---