Foreign award enforcement turns on narrow Section 48 review; merits challenges, bias claims, and FEMA pricing objections failed.

Foreign award enforcement under Section 48 was held subject to a narrow review limited to the specified statutory grounds. The Court held that "unable to present his case" refers to denial of a fair hearing at the arbitral stage, not to a tribunal's rejection or brief treatment of arguments; the award, read as a whole, showed that the core disputes were addressed, so refusal under Section 48(1)(b) was unwarranted. It further held that the public policy exception under Section 48(2)(b) does not permit merits review, and that alleged perversity, bias, and a FEMA pricing breach did not justify non-enforcement. The foreign award remained enforceable in India.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refusal of enforcement of the foreign award was warranted under Section 48(1)(b) on the ground that the appellants were unable to present their case or that material claims and counter-claims had not been decided; (ii) Whether the award was unenforceable under Section 48(2)(b) as being contrary to the public policy of India, including on the grounds of perversity, bias, and alleged violation of FEMA pricing rules.

Issue: Whether refusal of enforcement of the foreign award was warranted under Section 48(1)(b) on the ground that the appellants were unable to present their case or that material claims and counter-claims had not been decided.

Analysis: The expression "unable to present his case" was held to be confined to denial of a fair hearing at the arbitral stage and not to a mere complaint that the tribunal rejected a contention or dealt with it briefly. Reading the award as a whole, the tribunal had addressed the core disputes, including the rival allegations of material breach, ouster, trademark issues, ACPL, direct sales, and valuation-related matters. The complaints that certain points were not separately dealt with were rejected because they were either raised late, were not pleaded, or were in substance answered by the findings recorded in the partial and final awards.

Conclusion: The challenge under Section 48(1)(b) failed and the award was not vitiated on that ground.

Issue: Whether the award was unenforceable under Section 48(2)(b) as being contrary to the public policy of India, including on the grounds of perversity, bias, and alleged violation of FEMA pricing rules.

Analysis: The public policy exception was applied narrowly. The tribunal's interpretation of the joint venture agreement and its factual findings on material breach, ACPL, direct sales, and valuation were not open to reappraisal as merits review in enforcement proceedings. The alleged bias was rejected as unsubstantiated, and the FEMA objection failed because a breach of the pricing guidelines under FEMA and the connected rules did not render the award void or establish contravention of the fundamental policy of Indian law. The award did not shock the conscience of the Court or offend the most basic notions of justice.

Conclusion: The award was not contrary to the public policy of India and remained enforceable.

Final Conclusion: The foreign award was upheld for enforcement in India, and the appeals were dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: In enforcement of a foreign award, Section 48 permits only a narrow review confined to the specified grounds, and neither reassessment of the merits nor a mere breach of a statutory pricing rule, without more, justifies refusal of enforcement.

---