Foreign award enforcement limited by narrow public policy review; merits reappraisal and domestic-law objections do not defeat execution.

Foreign award enforcement under Section 48 cannot be refused by reappraising evidence or reviewing the merits, and objections based on alleged perversity, non-consideration of documents, or contractual interpretation do not by themselves establish violation of fundamental policy or natural justice. The Court also held that specific performance and share transfer directions were not unenforceable merely because of an alleged lack of express readiness-and-willingness pleading or supposed FEMA pricing concerns, since a domestic-law breach alone is insufficient unless it offends the narrow public policy grounds. The foreign awards were therefore held enforceable in India.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether enforcement of the foreign awards could be refused on the ground that the arbitral tribunal's findings were contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law or principles of natural justice, and amounted to a review on merits. (ii) Whether the awards were unenforceable because they granted specific performance and directed transfer of shares allegedly in breach of Indian law and FEMA-based pricing norms.

Issue (i): Whether enforcement of the foreign awards could be refused on the ground that the arbitral tribunal's findings were contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law or principles of natural justice, and amounted to a review on merits.

Analysis: The scope of enquiry under Section 48 is narrow and does not permit a second look at the merits of a foreign award. Objections based on alleged inconsistency in the tribunal's appreciation of evidence, alleged non-consideration of material documents, or alleged perversity would require reappraisal of the merits, which is impermissible in enforcement proceedings. The respondents had participated in the arbitration, were heard on the issues, and the record did not establish that they were denied an opportunity to present their case. The tribunal's approach to the contractual provisions and evidence did not disclose such arbitrariness or unfairness as would attract the public policy exception.

Conclusion: The awards were not shown to be contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law or to have been rendered in breach of natural justice; enforcement could not be refused on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the awards were unenforceable because they granted specific performance and directed transfer of shares allegedly in breach of Indian law and FEMA-based pricing norms.

Analysis: The objection based on absence of an express pleading of readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act did not defeat enforcement in the facts, since the dispute before the tribunal was centred on competing claims under the JVA and the essential basis for relief had been placed before it. The alleged FEMA objection also did not bar enforcement because a mere contravention of domestic law is not enough to refuse recognition of a foreign award unless it offends the fundamental policy of Indian law, and the contractual transfer price was not shown to be impermissible on the material placed before the Court.

Conclusion: The awards were enforceable notwithstanding the specific performance and FEMA objections.

Final Conclusion: The foreign awards were held enforceable in India, and the petitioner was permitted to execute them.

Ratio Decidendi: Enforcement of a foreign award cannot be denied by re-examining the merits, and refusal is warranted only where the award is shown to offend the narrow public policy grounds under Section 48, not merely because a different view of the evidence or contract interpretation is possible.

---