Foreign award enforcement cannot reach strangers to arbitration, and veil piercing in execution needs strict proof of concealment.

A foreign award cannot be enforced against entities or individuals who were neither parties to the arbitration agreement nor to the award, because the executing court cannot go beyond the award or treat strangers as judgment debtors absent proof that they are legal representatives or authorised representatives. The corporate veil may be lifted in execution only on a strict showing of control coupled with impropriety, where the company structure is used as a device to conceal or evade liability. Common directors, related business activity, or allegations of fund diversion were held insufficient on the stated facts to fasten personal liability on associated companies and directors.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether entities and individuals who were neither parties to the arbitration agreement nor to the foreign award could be made personally liable in execution of the award. (ii) Whether the corporate veil could be lifted in execution to fasten the decretal liability on associated companies and directors.

Issue (i): Whether entities and individuals who were neither parties to the arbitration agreement nor to the foreign award could be made personally liable in execution of the award.

Analysis: Enforcement of a foreign award proceeds under the statutory scheme governing foreign awards, and the party against whom enforcement is sought must be given the opportunity contemplated by the enforcement provision. The executing court cannot travel beyond the award and impose liability on strangers to the arbitration agreement and the award. The companies and individuals sought to be added were not parties to the arbitral proceedings or the award, and were not shown to be legal representatives or representatives of the judgment debtor within the meaning of execution law.

Conclusion: The proposed additional respondents could not be proceeded against personally in execution of the foreign award.

Issue (ii): Whether the corporate veil could be lifted in execution to fasten the decretal liability on associated companies and directors.

Analysis: The doctrine of lifting the corporate veil applies only in a restricted manner, where there is control coupled with impropriety and the company structure is used as a device or facade to avoid or conceal liability. Mere common directors, common business field, related-party transactions, or allegations of siphoning of funds were held insufficient on the facts to justify imposition of the award debt on third-party companies and directors in execution. The material relied on by the award holder was treated as insufficient to convert the execution proceeding into a substitute suit for determination of personal liability.

Conclusion: The corporate veil was not required to be lifted for the purpose of making the additional respondents personally liable.

Final Conclusion: The execution attempt against the proposed additional respondents was held to be impermissible in law, and the chamber summons failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A foreign award cannot be executed against persons who were not parties to the arbitration agreement or the award, and the corporate veil may be pierced in execution only on a strict showing of control plus impropriety linked to concealment or evasion of liability.

---