Foreign arbitral award enforcement turns on a narrow public policy test; bias must meet a high threshold for refusal.

Enforcement of a foreign arbitral award may be refused under Section 48(2)(b) only on a narrow public policy ground, confined to the most basic notions of morality or justice. Allegations of arbitral bias, conflict of interest, or nondisclosure must meet a high threshold, and domestic standards of review cannot be imported at the enforcement stage. Where the seat is abroad, objections of this kind are generally expected to be raised before the supervisory court at the seat. Applying the IBA Guidelines and the facts, the Court found no credible conflict, no breach of disclosure duty, and no material impairment of independence or impartiality; enforcement was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether enforcement of a foreign arbitral award could be refused under Section 48(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the ground of arbitral bias, conflict of interest, or nondisclosure by the presiding arbitrator, so as to render the award contrary to the public policy of India.

Analysis: The relevant standard for resistance to enforcement of a foreign award is narrow and controlled by the pro-enforcement scheme of the New York Convention and Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Public policy in this context is confined to the most basic notions of morality or justice, and a domestic standard of review cannot be imported at the enforcement stage. Allegations of bias must therefore cross a high threshold and, where the seat of arbitration is abroad, the party resisting enforcement is expected to raise such objections in the supervisory jurisdiction of the seat court in the first instance. Applying the IBA Guidelines and the surrounding facts, the Court found no credible conflict of interest, no breach of disclosure duty, and no material indicating that the arbitrator's independence or impartiality was compromised.

Conclusion: The objection based on bias and public policy was rejected, and the foreign award remained enforceable in India.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the appellants did not establish any exceptional ground warranting refusal of enforcement of the foreign award.

Ratio Decidendi: A foreign arbitral award may be refused enforcement on the ground of bias only in exceptional cases where the alleged partiality reaches the level of violating the most basic notions of morality or justice, and domestic standards of arbitral scrutiny cannot be substituted for that narrow international standard.

---