https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465743 An appeal under s.50(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 lies from an order refusing recognition/enforcement of a foreign award under s.48, and "enforcement" encompasses execution since recognition/enforcement culminates in execution; a single petition seeking both recognition and execution is legally permissible. Where a composite order both (i) refuses recognition, enforcement and execution against all respondents on common and intertwined reasons, and (ii) allows deletion of some respondents from the party array, the award-holder need not institute separate proceedings to challenge the deletion to maintain an appeal, as that would cause multiplicity and risk inconsistent decisions. The HC rejected the maintainability objection and held the appeal maintainable against all respondents, admitting it without examining merits. en-us Wed, 23 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jan 2026 20:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465743 An appeal under s.50(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 lies from an order refusing recognition/enforcement of a foreign award under s.48, and "enforcement" encompasses execution since recognition/enforcement culminates in execution; a single petition seeking both recognition and execution is legally permissible. Where a composite order both (i) refuses recognition, enforcement and execution against all respondents on common and intertwined reasons, and (ii) allows deletion of some respondents from the party array, the award-holder need not institute separate proceedings to challenge the deletion to maintain an appeal, as that would cause multiplicity and risk inconsistent decisions. The HC rejected the maintainability objection and held the appeal maintainable against all respondents, admitting it without examining merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 23 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465743