https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105427 A foreign award made after the 1996 Act commenced was held enforceable under that Act, even though the arbitral proceedings had begun earlier; the Court treated the earlier Ordinance and the Act as operating in the same legal field and rejected the contention that prior precedent was per incuriam. The Court also held that Part II permits the enforcing court to determine enforceability and then execute the award in the same proceeding, because requiring separate proceedings would frustrate speedy enforcement and multiply litigation. The impugned judgment was set aside and the matter remitted for enforcement under the Act. en-us Fri, 04 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Dec 2025 13:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105427 A foreign award made after the 1996 Act commenced was held enforceable under that Act, even though the arbitral proceedings had begun earlier; the Court treated the earlier Ordinance and the Act as operating in the same legal field and rejected the contention that prior precedent was per incuriam. The Court also held that Part II permits the enforcing court to determine enforceability and then execute the award in the same proceeding, because requiring separate proceedings would frustrate speedy enforcement and multiply litigation. The impugned judgment was set aside and the matter remitted for enforcement under the Act. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 04 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105427