TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 1339
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ereafter, series of orders were passed. In fact, by an order dated 18th September 2014, I directed the judgment-debtor to file an affidavit in which the judgment debtor was directed to disclose the particulars of all bank accounts and the amounts lying to the credit of the judgment-debtor in each of such bank accounts with supporting documents mentioned in paragraph 26 of the affidavit in support of the Tabular Statement. Pursuant thereto, an affidavit affirmed by one Ranjit Kumar Das on 29th October 2014 has been filed. The affidavit gives a very bleak picture about financial condition of the judgment-debtor. Mr. Tilak Bose, learned senior counsel appearing with Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, submits that this award is enforceable in law. Mr. Bose has referred to Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and submitted that once the decree-holder has produced the original award and a duly certified copy of the agreement for arbitration, the said award becomes enforceable. The said documents, in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel, would be taken as evidence and on production of such evidence the award become enforceable. It is submitted that the preamble of the Act coup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 49 which states that where the Court is satisfied that the foreign award is enforceable under this Chapter namely part II, the award shall be deemed to be a decree of that Court. The objection to the maintainability of the award is oral. However, since the Court is required to be satisfied about the maintainability of the petition, in view of Section 47 of the said Act, I feel, irrespective of filing an objection as to the maintainability of the said petition insofar as it relates to a legal submission touching on the validity and enforceability of the award, a party is entitled to raise such objection and the Court is required to decide such objection. The first objection raised is that no prayer for declaration has been made in the application that the foreign award is enforceable. It is submitted that unless prayer is made seeking a declaration as to the enforcement of the award, the Court cannot assume jurisdiction. In this regard the learned Senior Counsel has referred to a Single Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Toepfer International Asia Pvt. Ltd. versus Thapar Ispat Ltd., reported in 2000 (1) Arb. LR 230 (Bombay) paragraph 19. The second objection....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The grounds are mentioned in Section 48, which states: "Section 48. 48. Conditions for enforcement of foreign awards.- (1) Enforcement of a foreign award may be refused, at the request of the party against whom it is invoked, only if that party furnishes to the court proof that - (a) the parties to the agreement referred to in section 44 were, under the law applicable to them, under some incapacity, or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law of the country where the award was made; or (b) the party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; or (c) the award deals with a difference not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration: Provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, that part of the award which contains decisions on matters submitted to arbitrati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reasons. The legislature has consciously done away with the various statutes regarding enforcement of a foreign award. The legislative intent underlying the Act is to minimize the supervisory role of the courts in the arbitral proceedings and very limited interference. The objection raised by the petitioner appears to be more in quagmire of despondency and a desperate attempt to resist execution of an enforceable award rather than a real challenge thrown to the maintainability of the said petition. There is no document disclosed by the respondent to show that any objection was raised either with regard to the initiation of proceeding or thereafter. The explanation offered was such proceeding is vexatious, harassive and involves probative costs. This argument was not accepted by the Division Bench. In any event, when the notice invoking the arbitration was issued there is no reply to the said notice. Mr. Mitra submits that the disputes shall be required to be submitted to GAFTA, London for arbitration and the decree-holder would not be entitled to invoke the clause unilaterally for appointment of an arbitrator. In my opinion, this submission cannot be accepted. It is an institution....