https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375661 Successive objections to the enforcement of foreign awards were barred once earlier challenges had attained finality, because the statutory scheme does not permit repeated re-litigation of the same enforceability objections. The Court also held that allegations of fraud, procedural irregularity, contractual interpretation, tribunal composition, notice and public policy did not establish any recognised ground to refuse enforcement under the limited scope of Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Enforcement proceedings are not a merits appeal, and the earlier view rejecting the objections was treated as a possible view on the record. The foreign awards therefore remained enforceable and the challenge failed. en-us Wed, 20 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Feb 2020 13:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375661 Successive objections to the enforcement of foreign awards were barred once earlier challenges had attained finality, because the statutory scheme does not permit repeated re-litigation of the same enforceability objections. The Court also held that allegations of fraud, procedural irregularity, contractual interpretation, tribunal composition, notice and public policy did not establish any recognised ground to refuse enforcement under the limited scope of Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Enforcement proceedings are not a merits appeal, and the earlier view rejecting the objections was treated as a possible view on the record. The foreign awards therefore remained enforceable and the challenge failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 20 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375661