https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277891 Objections to enforcement of a foreign award could not be reopened after the earlier order and subsequent appellate and review proceedings had already rejected the same challenge; the Court applied constructive res judicata, issue estoppel and cause of action estoppel. On enforceability under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court reaffirmed the narrow scope of refusal and held that alleged suppression of documents, contractual interpretation disputes, reliance on GAFTA rules, and objections to the tribunal's reasoning were not grounds for merits review. No fraud, public policy, natural justice, jurisdictional excess, or procedural defect sufficient to defeat enforcement was shown, so the award remained enforceable. en-us Tue, 22 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Dec 2018 07:01:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277891 Objections to enforcement of a foreign award could not be reopened after the earlier order and subsequent appellate and review proceedings had already rejected the same challenge; the Court applied constructive res judicata, issue estoppel and cause of action estoppel. On enforceability under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court reaffirmed the narrow scope of refusal and held that alleged suppression of documents, contractual interpretation disputes, reliance on GAFTA rules, and objections to the tribunal's reasoning were not grounds for merits review. No fraud, public policy, natural justice, jurisdictional excess, or procedural defect sufficient to defeat enforcement was shown, so the award remained enforceable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 22 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277891