Foreign award enforcement may proceed in the relevant High Court, with Section 48 objections and public policy narrowly confined.

Recognition and enforcement of a foreign award may be sought in the High Court that has territorial nexus through the judgment debtor or its assets for the subject matter of the award. Parallel proceedings in another forum did not bar a separate enforcement petition under Part II, and the non-joinder of the company was not fatal where enforcement was sought only against the relevant award debtor. Refusal under Section 48 is confined to exhaustive statutory grounds, and the public policy defence must be narrowly construed. Selective enforcement of part of an award was not contrary to public policy merely because other parts were pursued elsewhere. The award was recognised and declared enforceable as a decree.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether this Court had jurisdiction to recognise and enforce the relevant part of the foreign award, and whether the petitions were maintainable notwithstanding the pending proceedings before other forums and the non-joinder of the Company. (ii) Whether recognition and enforcement of the part of the foreign award in favour of the petitioners was barred by the grounds under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, including public policy.

Issue (i): Whether this Court had jurisdiction to recognise and enforce the relevant part of the foreign award, and whether the petitions were maintainable notwithstanding the pending proceedings before other forums and the non-joinder of the Company.

Analysis: The relevant inquiry under the Explanation to Section 47 is whether the High Court would have jurisdiction over the questions forming the subject-matter of the award, which in a money award turns on the location of the judgment debtor or its assets. The existence of proceedings in another High Court did not bar a separate petition in this Court, because Part II does not contain a restriction equivalent to Section 42 of Part I. The Company was not a necessary party to the petition seeking enforcement of the award in favour of one petitioner against TAQA, and the pendency of insolvency-related proceedings did not determine the enforceability of the foreign award under Section 48.

Conclusion: The Court had jurisdiction, and the petitions were maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether recognition and enforcement of the part of the foreign award in favour of the petitioners was barred by the grounds under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, including public policy.

Analysis: The grounds for refusing enforcement under Section 48 are exhaustive, and no independent ground of objection within clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) was established. As to public policy, the expression must receive a narrow construction in the case of a foreign award. The mere fact that the award holder sought enforcement in more than one High Court did not, by itself, offend public policy. Nor did the selective enforcement of a part of the award become contrary to public policy merely because other parts of the same award were being pursued elsewhere, particularly when the award contained no set-off and the relief sought here was confined to the petitioners' own entitlement.

Conclusion: Enforcement was not barred by Section 48, including on the ground of public policy.

Final Conclusion: The foreign award, to the extent claimed in these petitions, was recognised and declared enforceable as a decree of the Court, and the petitions were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: For enforcement of a foreign award, the jurisdictional court is determined by the location of the award debtor or its assets in relation to the award sought to be enforced, and the narrow public policy test under Section 48 does not prohibit parallel recognition and enforcement proceedings in different High Courts where different parts of the award are sought to be executed against different judgment debtors or assets.

---