https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784246 The Bombay HC held that a prior inter partes limitation ruling in the same enforcement proceedings, having attained finality, operated as res judicata and barred a fresh limitation objection; the petition was therefore within time. It further held that the public policy defence under Section 48 must be construed narrowly and cannot be used to reopen the merits or resist enforcement on asserted FEMA breaches or evidentiary complaints, so enforcement of the foreign awards could not be refused. The Court also held that a composite petition for recognition, enforcement and execution supported an appeal against all respondents, and upheld limited impleadment and execution only to the extent of award debtor assets diverted to associated entities. en-us Tue, 30 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Jan 2026 08:17:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784246 The Bombay HC held that a prior inter partes limitation ruling in the same enforcement proceedings, having attained finality, operated as res judicata and barred a fresh limitation objection; the petition was therefore within time. It further held that the public policy defence under Section 48 must be construed narrowly and cannot be used to reopen the merits or resist enforcement on asserted FEMA breaches or evidentiary complaints, so enforcement of the foreign awards could not be refused. The Court also held that a composite petition for recognition, enforcement and execution supported an appeal against all respondents, and upheld limited impleadment and execution only to the extent of award debtor assets diverted to associated entities. Case-Laws FEMA Tue, 30 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784246