https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410870 Foreign award enforcement under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is confined to the narrow refusal grounds in Section 48, and those grounds cannot be expanded into a merits review. Section 47 is procedural and does not require the award-holder to independently prove, at the enforcement stage, that a non-signatory is bound. Section 48(1)(a) and 48(1)(c) do not permit resistance merely because the respondent says it was never a party or that the tribunal wrongly applied alter ego findings. Section 48(1)(b) does not allow an attack on the adequacy of reasons, and a best-judgment damages assessment is not, by itself, contrary to public policy. en-us Tue, 10 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Dec 2025 12:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410870 Foreign award enforcement under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is confined to the narrow refusal grounds in Section 48, and those grounds cannot be expanded into a merits review. Section 47 is procedural and does not require the award-holder to independently prove, at the enforcement stage, that a non-signatory is bound. Section 48(1)(a) and 48(1)(c) do not permit resistance merely because the respondent says it was never a party or that the tribunal wrongly applied alter ego findings. Section 48(1)(b) does not allow an attack on the adequacy of reasons, and a best-judgment damages assessment is not, by itself, contrary to public policy. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 10 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410870