https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310330 An intra-court appeal against enforcement of a foreign award was held maintainable because Section 50 permits an appeal only from refusal to enforce, and the broader Section 37 restriction did not apply. The court also held that the award was not unenforceable on limitation or public policy grounds, since the arbitration was seated in Singapore and limitation was governed by the law of the seat; a longer Singapore limitation period did not offend India's narrow public policy standard for foreign awards. The jurisdictional objection concerning Teleport Services and Occasional Services was rejected as belated and not timely raised before the tribunal. The enforcement order was upheld. en-us Fri, 14 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Oct 2023 20:45:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310330 An intra-court appeal against enforcement of a foreign award was held maintainable because Section 50 permits an appeal only from refusal to enforce, and the broader Section 37 restriction did not apply. The court also held that the award was not unenforceable on limitation or public policy grounds, since the arbitration was seated in Singapore and limitation was governed by the law of the seat; a longer Singapore limitation period did not offend India's narrow public policy standard for foreign awards. The jurisdictional objection concerning Teleport Services and Occasional Services was rejected as belated and not timely raised before the tribunal. The enforcement order was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 14 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310330