The dominant issues were whether enforcement of the foreign arbitral awards was time-barred and whether res judicata precluded re-agitation of limitation. Since jurisdiction to entertain enforcement was never challenged and limitation involved mixed questions of law and fact, the earlier ruling that the petition was within Article 137 bound the parties; enforcement was therefore not refused on limitation. The Court also rejected the public policy objection, holding it did not bar enforcement; the awards were recognised as deemed decrees. On lifting the corporate veil, associated entities could be impleaded and execution levied only against properties/assets diverted from the award-debtor to them, not against their independent assets; no execution lay against an entity receiving no diverted assets. Costs were imposed on the award-debtor. - HC
The dominant issues were whether enforcement of the foreign arbitral awards was time-barred and whether res judicata precluded re-agitation of limitation. Since jurisdiction to entertain enforcement was never challenged and limitation involved mixed questions of law and fact, the earlier ruling that the petition was within Article 137 bound the parties; enforcement was therefore not refused on limitation. The Court also rejected the public policy objection, holding it did not bar enforcement; the awards were recognised as deemed decrees. On lifting the corporate veil, associated entities could be impleaded and execution levied only against properties/assets diverted from the award-debtor to them, not against their independent assets; no execution lay against an entity receiving no diverted assets. Costs were imposed on the award-debtor. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
