<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2011 (1) TMI 1506 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191766</link>
    <description>Enforcement of a foreign award under Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is confined to the narrow grounds in section 48, and the court cannot undertake a merits review. Public policy is construed narrowly, permitting refusal only where the award offends the fundamental policy of Indian law, India&#039;s interests, or justice and morality. A plausible arbitral interpretation of a contractual clause could not be reopened in enforcement proceedings, especially where the contract was governed by Austrian law and no expert evidence of that law was led. The complaint of denial of a fair opportunity also failed, as the record showed adequate time and participation in the arbitral process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:30:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=466319" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (1) TMI 1506 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191766</link>
      <description>Enforcement of a foreign award under Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is confined to the narrow grounds in section 48, and the court cannot undertake a merits review. Public policy is construed narrowly, permitting refusal only where the award offends the fundamental policy of Indian law, India&#039;s interests, or justice and morality. A plausible arbitral interpretation of a contractual clause could not be reopened in enforcement proceedings, especially where the contract was governed by Austrian law and no expert evidence of that law was led. The complaint of denial of a fair opportunity also failed, as the record showed adequate time and participation in the arbitral process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191766</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>