Court enforces Foreign Award, allows petitions, and declares Award enforceable as court decree.

The court held jurisdiction over the matter, recognized and enforced the Foreign Award, determined the non-joinder of a company as a necessary party, found pending proceedings did not preclude the present case, and concluded that enforcing the Foreign Award did not violate public policy. The court allowed the petitions, declaring the Foreign Award as enforceable, granting the respective petitioner the right to enforce it as a decree of the court, without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court.
2. Recognition and enforcement of the Foreign Award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
3. Non-joinder of the Company as a necessary party.
4. Impact of the pending proceedings before the Delhi High Court and NCLT.
5. Public policy considerations in enforcement of the Foreign Award.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Court:
The court examined whether it had jurisdiction over the matter under the Explanation to Section 47 of the Arbitration Act. The test was whether the court would have original civil jurisdiction over the questions forming the subject matter of the Foreign Award if those questions were the subject matter of a suit, or whether it would have civil appellate jurisdiction over decrees of subordinate courts. The court concluded that it had jurisdiction as the assets of the Respondent were situated within its civil appellate jurisdiction.

2. Recognition and Enforcement of the Foreign Award:
The petitions sought recognition and enforcement of a final award dated January 24, 2018, from the SIAC. The court noted that the grounds for refusing enforcement under Section 48 of the Arbitration Act are exhaustive. The court found that the Foreign Award was not challenged before the courts in Singapore and was not vitiated by any circumstances set out in Section 48. Therefore, the court concluded that the Foreign Award should be recognized and enforced.

3. Non-joinder of the Company as a Necessary Party:
The court addressed the contention that the Company was not a necessary party to the petition. It concluded that the Company was not a necessary party to the petition by NCCIHL as the Foreign Award did not grant any relief to NCCIHL against the Company. However, in the petition by NCC, the Company could have been made a party since costs were directed to be paid by both the Company and TAQA to NCC.

4. Impact of Pending Proceedings Before the Delhi High Court and NCLT:
The court considered whether the pending proceedings before the Delhi High Court and NCLT precluded the institution of the present proceedings. It concluded that the NCLT's order did not preclude the present proceedings as the NCLT was only concerned with whether the amounts due to NCCIHL qualified as an operational debt under the IBC. The court also concluded that the pending proceedings before the Delhi High Court did not constitute a bar to the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court.

5. Public Policy Considerations:
The court examined whether recognizing and enforcing a part of the Foreign Award would be contrary to the public policy of India. It concluded that the institution of petitions for recognition and enforcement of a foreign award in more than one High Court is not per se contrary to public policy. The court also considered whether the recognition and enforcement of a part of the Foreign Award, without considering the part in favor of the Company, would be contrary to public policy. It concluded that it would not be contrary to public policy as the proceedings do not act as a deterrent to the continued prosecution of the petition before the Delhi High Court.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petitions, declaring that the Foreign Award is recognized and enforceable as a decree of this Court. The respective Petitioner is entitled to enforce the Foreign Award by taking recourse to measures in accordance with applicable provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Arbitration O.P.Nos.410 and 412 of 2021 were allowed on these terms without any order as to costs.

---