https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277894 Enforcement of a foreign award under Section 48 could not be refused on the grounds that the tribunal allegedly acted beyond the contract, referred to GAFTA rules, or committed breach of public policy or natural justice. The HC held that the award-debtor had deliberately stayed away from the arbitration and could not use enforcement proceedings to reopen factual disputes or obtain a merits review. It found that the tribunal had considered the contract, letter of credit, and correspondence, and had taken a possible view on inspection responsibility and the seller's entitlement to the balance amount. The objections did not establish fraud, bias, patent illegality, or any violation of justice or morality, so the award was enforceable. en-us Mon, 09 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Dec 2018 07:01:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277894 Enforcement of a foreign award under Section 48 could not be refused on the grounds that the tribunal allegedly acted beyond the contract, referred to GAFTA rules, or committed breach of public policy or natural justice. The HC held that the award-debtor had deliberately stayed away from the arbitration and could not use enforcement proceedings to reopen factual disputes or obtain a merits review. It found that the tribunal had considered the contract, letter of credit, and correspondence, and had taken a possible view on inspection responsibility and the seller's entitlement to the balance amount. The objections did not establish fraud, bias, patent illegality, or any violation of justice or morality, so the award was enforceable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 09 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277894