Foreign award enforcement faces finality limits and narrow refusal grounds, with no merits review in execution proceedings.

Successive objections to the enforcement of foreign awards were barred once earlier challenges had attained finality, because the statutory scheme does not permit repeated re-litigation of the same enforceability objections. The Court also held that allegations of fraud, procedural irregularity, contractual interpretation, tribunal composition, notice and public policy did not establish any recognised ground to refuse enforcement under the limited scope of Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Enforcement proceedings are not a merits appeal, and the earlier view rejecting the objections was treated as a possible view on the record. The foreign awards therefore remained enforceable and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petitioners could reopen objections to the enforceability of the foreign awards after earlier objections and challenges had attained finality; (ii) whether the grounds urged fell within the narrow scope of refusal of enforcement under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Issue (i): whether the petitioners could reopen objections to the enforceability of the foreign awards after earlier objections and challenges had attained finality.

Analysis: The earlier round of objections before the High Court had covered the substance of enforceability, and the special leave petitions and review arising from those orders had already been rejected. The subsequent attempt to resurrect similar objections was held to be a piecemeal challenge to the same execution process. The statutory scheme governing enforcement of foreign awards does not contemplate repeated rounds of threshold objections once the matter has reached finality.

Conclusion: The objections were barred by constructive res judicata and could not be reopened.

Issue (ii): whether the grounds urged fell within the narrow scope of refusal of enforcement under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The grounds based on alleged fraud, procedural irregularity, contractual interpretation, composition of the tribunal, notice, and public policy were found to seek a reappraisal of the award rather than to show a recognised ground for refusal of enforcement. In a proceeding for enforcement of a foreign award, the court's role is limited and it cannot sit in appeal over the merits of the award. The High Court's view that the objections did not satisfy Section 48 was treated as a possible view on the record.

Conclusion: The grounds did not justify refusal of enforcement under Section 48.

Final Conclusion: The foreign awards remained enforceable, the challenge to execution failed, and the petitions were rejected with costs and consequential directions for release of the deposited amount.

Ratio Decidendi: A challenge to enforcement of a foreign award cannot be reopened in successive proceedings after the earlier objections have attained finality, and interference under Section 48 is confined to the limited statutory grounds without a merits review of the award.

---