MANU/TN/8070/2007

Equivalent Citation: AIR2007Mad251, 2008(1)ARBLR344(Madras), (2007)3MLJ1062

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
O.P. No. 388 of 2005
Decided On: 05.03.2007
Appellants: Compania Naviera 'SODNOC'
Vs.
Respondent: Bharat Refineries Ltd. and Mr. Christopher J.W. Moss
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
S. Rajeswaran, J.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: R. Murari, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: V. Venkadasalam, Adv.
Subject: Arbitration
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 18, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 -
Section 46, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 47, Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 - Section 48, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 49; Arbitration Act,
1940 ;Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 ;Foreign Awards Recognition and
Enforcement) Act, 1961 ;Land Acquisition Act ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 21 Rules
16, Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 21 Rules 46
Cases Referred:
Fuerst Day lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd. AIR 2001 S.C. 2293; Austbulk Shipping Sdn Bhd v.
P.E.C. Limited 2005 (1) RAJ 597 (Del); Alcatel India Limited v. Koshika Telecom Limited 2004
(3) Arb.L.R. 107 (Del); Trusuns Chemical Industry Ltd. v. Tata International Ltd. 2004 (2) RAJ
552 (Guj); Force Shipping Limited v. Ashapura Minechem Limited 2003 (3) RAJ 418 (Bom);
Dhani Ram v. Sri Ram AIR 1980 SC 157; Ahmad Hossain v. Bibi Naeman AIR 1963 pat 30; Fargo
Freight Ltd. v. The Commodities Exchange Corporation 2004 (2) Arb L.R. 548 (SC)
Authorities Referred:
Commercial Arbitration
Disposition:
Petition allowed
Citing Reference:


8

Case Note:
Arbitration - Enforcement of award - Sections 47 and 49 of Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 - Petitioner prayed that Arbitral award be deemed to be a decree of Court
and to pronounce judgment according to award - Hence, this Petition - Held, once it
was held that Petitioner has complied with provisions contained in Section 47 of Act of
1996, then onus was on other side to prove that award was not enforceable as per
Section 48 of Act of 1996 - Further, once it was proved that there was a deed of
Discussed

2014-06-20 (Page 1 of 9 ) www.manupatra.com Phoenix Legal
assignment of award by Petitioner, there ended matter and award is was in hands of
assignee - Thus, Petitioner had proved that he was assignee of award by filing a copy
of deed of assignment - Therefore, Petitioner had satisfied requirements as
contemplated under Section 47 of Act of 1996 and award passed by 2nd respondent
Respondent was enforceable and should be deemed to be a decree of Court - Petition
allowed.
Ratio Decidendi:
"Award of Arbitrator shall be deemed to order of Court if it satisfy all requirement of
law."
Industry: Chemicals
ORDER
S. Rajeswaran, J.
1. This Original petition has been filed under Sections 47 and 49 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter called 'the Act', praying that the award dated 2.3.2000 be
deemed to be a decree of this Court and to pronounce judgment according to the award dated
2.3.2000, made and published by the 2nd respondent (the arbitrator) and direct the 1st
respondent to pay to the petitioners a sum of USD 63,923.98 as more particularly set out in
paragraph 6 of this petition and that the respondents be ordered and decreed to pay the
petitioners the costs of this petition.
2. Briefly stated, the facts are as under:
3. By a Charter Party, dated 24.8.1998, one Mutual Task Maritime Ltd., chartered m.v. SEA
MANA to the 1st respondent herein to carry a cargo of minimum 8000 m.t., bagged salt from
Kandla, India to Tanga, Tanzania on terms and conditions as set out in the Charter Party. The
above said Mutual Task Maritime Company claimed demurrage or damages for detention in the
sum of US$ 43,483.49 together with interest. 1st respondent denied that any more than US$
1,169.88 of the sum claimed was due, alleging that the balance of the claim for demurrage
related to a period during which the Master wrongfully refused to commence discharge.
4. The dispute was referred to the 2nd respondent arbitrator and the seat of the arbitration is
London. Both parties appeared before 2nd respondent and 2nd respondent by award dated
2.3.2000 directed 1st respondent to pay the claimant namely the Mutual Task Maritime
Company the sum of US$ 43,483.49 with interest at the rate of 8% compounded with 3 monthly
rests from 1.12.1998.
5. Thereafter a deed of assignment dated 3.12.2001 was executed by the Mutual Task Maritime
Company in favour of the petitioner assigning all rights arising out of the Charter Party dated
24.8.1998 including the claim of US$ 43,483.49. The petitioner sent a letter of demand dated
29.6.2002 to 1st respondent to make payment of the amount due under the award, but 1st
respondent replied that they were not liable to pay any amount to the petitioner. Another letter
dated 8.7.2002 was sent by the petitioner claiming the amount, but 1st respondent again
disowned their liability by their reply dated 31.7.2002. Hence the petitioner filed the above
petition under Sections 47 and 49 of the Act, 1996 for the above said reliefs.
6. The 1st respondent entered appearance through their counsel and filed a counter. 1st
respondent resisted the claim of the petitioner by contending that petitioner is a stranger, the
alleged assignment is not a valid one, no leave was obtained from the court in England under
Section 66 of the England Arbitration Act and the petition is barred by limitation.
7. A rejoinder was filed by the petitioner reiterating their earlier stand and denying the
contentions of 1st respondent.
2014-06-20 (Page 2 of 9 ) www.manupatra.com Phoenix Legal
8. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for 1st respondent. I
have also perused the documents filed and the judgments referred to by them in support of their
submissions.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the award is a foreign award within the
meaning of the Act, 1996 and as such it is straight away enforceable and executable before this
Court by the petitioner, who is an assignee of the award. He relied on the following decisions in
support of his submissions:
1) MANU/SC/0329/2001 : [2001]3SCR479 (Fuerst Day lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports
Ltd.)
2) 2005 (1) RAJ 597 Del (Austbulk Shipping Sdn Bhd v. P.E.C. Limited)
3) 2004 (3) Arb.L.R. 107 Del (Alcatel India Limited v. Koshika Telecom Limited)
4) 2004 (2) RAJ 552 (Guj) (Trusuns Chemical Industry Ltd. v. Tata International
Ltd.)
5) 2003 (3) RAJ 418 (Bom) (Force Shipping Limited v. Ashapura Minechem Limited)
6) MANU/SC/0407/1979 : [1980]2SCR469 (Dhani Ram v. Sri Ram)
7) MANU/BH/0007/1963 : AIR1963Pat30 (Ahmad Hossain v. Bibi Naeman)
10. Per contra, the learned Counsel for 1st respondent while reiterating the objections raised in
the counter contended that the petitioner is a 3rd party to the Charter Party dated 24.8.1998
and they cannot maintain the petition unless they prove the validity of the assignment deed in a
competent court in a manner known to law. He relied on the decision reported in 2004 (2) Arb
L.R. 548 (SC) (Fargo Freight Ltd. v. The Commodities Exchange Corporation) in this regard.
11. I have considered the rival submissions carefully and the citations referred to by them.
12. Part II of the Act, 1996 deals with enforcement of foreign awards. Sections 47, 48 and 49 of
the Act, 1996 are relevant for the purpose of deciding the above petition and they are extracted
below:
47. Evidence:- (l)The party applying for the enforcement of a foreign award shall, at
the time of the application, produce before the court-
(a) the original award or a copy thereof, duly authenticated in the
manner required by the law of the country in which it was made;
(b) the original agreement for arbitration or a duly certified copy thereof;
and
(c) such evidence as may be accessory to prove that the award is a
foreign award.
(2) If the award or agreement to be produced under Sub-section (1) is in a foreign
language, the party seeking to enforce the award shall produce a translation into
English certified as correct by a diplomatic or consular agent of the country to which
that party belongs or certified as correct in such other manner as may be sufficient
according to the law in force in India.
Explanation:- In this section and all the following sections of this Chapter, "Court"
means the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the
High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction
2014-06-20 (Page 3 of 9 ) www.manupatra.com Phoenix Legal
over the subject-matter of the award if the same had been the subject-matter of a
suit, but does not include any civil court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil
court, or any Court of Small Causes.
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 ward 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 nor 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 arbitration may be enforced;
or
(d) the composition of arbitral authority or the arbitral procedure was not
in accordance with the agreement of the parties, or, failing such
agreement, was not in accordance with the law of the country where the
arbitration took place; or
(e) the award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set
aside or suspended; by a competent authority of the country in which, or
under the law of which that award was made.
(2) Enforcement of an arbitral award may also be refused if the Court finds that-
(a) the subject-matter of the difference is not capable of settlement by
arbitration under the law of India; or
(b) the enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy
of India.
Explanation:- Without prejudice to the generality of Clause (b) of this section, it is
hereby declared, for the avoidance of any doubt, that an award is in conflict with the
public policy of India if the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or
corruption.
(3) If an application for the setting aside or suspension of the award has been made
to a competent authority referred to Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) the Court may, if
it considers it proper, adjourn the decision on the enforcement of the award and may
also, on the application of the party claiming enforcement of the award, order the
other party to give suitable security.
COMMENTS
For enforcement of a foreign award, there is no need to take separate proceedings
2014-06-20 (Page 4 of 9 ) www.manupatra.com Phoenix Legal
such as one for deciding enforceability of award to make rule of court or decree and
other to take up execution thereafter.
49. Enforcement of foreign awards:- Where the Court is satisfied that the foreign
award is enforceable under this Chapter, the award shall be deemed to be a decree
of that Court.
13. From the above, it is clear that a party who wants to enforce a foreign award has to comply
with Sub-clause (a) (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 47.
14. It is not in dispute that Section 47 has been complied with by the petitioner herein.
15. Section 48 of the Act deals with the conditions for enforcement of foreign awards and the
enforcement may be refused at the request of the other party only if that party furnishes to the
court proof that is mentioned in Sub-clause (a) (b) (c) (d) and (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section
48 and Sub-clause (a) and (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 48. As per Section 49, if the court is
satisfied that the foreign award is enforceable under this Chapter, the award shall be deemed to
be a decree of that court.
16. Once it is held that the petitioner has complied with the provisions contained in Section 47 of
the Act, then the onus is on the other side to prove that the award is not enforceable as per
Section 48 of the Act. Before dealing with the objections raised by the learned Counsel for 1st
respondent, let me consider the decisions relied on by both the parties to cull out the principles
enunciated thereon.
17. In AIR 2001 SC 2293 : MANU/SC/0329/2001 (cited supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
as follows:
29. Prior to the enforcement of the Act, the Law of Arbitration in this country was
substantially contained in three enactments namely (1) The Arbitration Act, 1940,
(2) The Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 and (3) The Foreign Awards
Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961. A party holding a foreign award was
required to take recourse to these enactments. Preamble of the Act makes it
abundantly clear that it aims at to consolidate and amend Indian laws relating to
domestic arbitration, international commercial arbitration and enforcement of foreign
arbitral awards. The object of the Act is to minimize supervisory role of Court and to
give speedy justice. In this view, the stage of approaching Court for making award a
rule of Court as required in Arbitration Act, 1940 is dispensed with in the present
Act. If the argument of the respondent is accepted, one of the objects of the Act will
be frustrated and defeated. Under the old Act, after making award and prior to
execution there was a procedure for filing and making an award a rule of court, i.e.,
a decree. Since the object of the Act is to provide speedy and alternative solution of
the dispute, the same procedure cannot be insisted under the new Act when it is
advisedly eliminated. If separate proceedings are to be taken, one for deciding the
enforceability of a foreign award and the other thereafter for execution, it would only
contribute to protracting the litigation and adding to the sufferings of a litigant in
terms of money, time and energy. Avoiding such difficulties is one of the objects of
the Act as can be gathered from the scheme of the Act and particularly looking to
the provisions contained in Sections 46 to 49 in relation to enforcement of foreign
award. (In para 40 of SCC): (Para 49 of AIR; CLC) of the Thyssen 1999 (9) SCC
334: 1999 AIR SCW 4016: AIR 1999 SC 3923: 2000 CLC 139) :
MANU/SC/0652/1999 judgment already extracted above, it is stated that as a matter
of fact, there is not much difference between the provisions of the 1961 Act and the
Act in the matter of enforcement of foreign award. The only difference as found is
that while under the Foreign Award Act a decree follows, under the new Act the
foreign award is already stamped as the decree. Thus, in our view, a party holding
foreign award can apply for enforcement of it but the Court before taking further
effective steps for the execution of the award has to proceed in accordance with
Sections 47 to 49. In one proceeding there may be different stages. In the first stage
2014-06-20 (Page 5 of 9 ) www.manupatra.com Phoenix Legal
the Court may have to decide about the enforceability of the award having regard to
the requirement of the said provisions. Once the Court decides that foreign award is
enforceable, it can proceed to take further effective steps for execution of the same.
There arises no question of making foreign award as a rule of court/decrees again. If
the object and purpose can be served in the same proceedings, in our view, there is
no need to take two separate proceedings resulting in multiplicity of litigation. It is
also clear from objectives contained in para 4 of the Statement of Objects and
Reasons, Sections 47 to 49 and Scheme of the Act that every final arbitral award is
to be enforced as if it were a decree of the Court. The submission that the execution
petition could not be permitted to convert as an application under Section 47 is
technical and is of no consequence in the view we have taken. In our opinion, for
enforcement of foreign award there is no need to take separate proceedings, one for
deciding the enforceability of the award to make rule of the Court or decree and the
other to take up execution thereafter. In one proceeding, as already stated above,
the court enforcing a foreign award can deal with the entire matter. Even otherwise,
this procedure does not prejudice a party in the light of what is stated (in para 40 of
SCC): (Para 49 of AIR; CLC) of the Thyssen judgment.
30. Part II of the Act relates to enforcement of certain foreign awards. Chapter I of
this Part deals with New York Convention Awards. Section 46 of the Act speaks as to
when a foreign award is binding. Section 47 states as to what evidence the party
applying for the enforcement of a foreign award should produce before the Court.
Section 48 states as to the conditions for enforcement of foreign awards. As per
Section 49, if the Court is satisfied that a foreign award is enforceable under this
Chapter, the award shall be deemed to be a decree of that Court and that Court has
to proceed further to execute the foreign award as a decree of that Court. If the
argument advanced on behalf of the respondents is accepted, the very purpose of
the Act in regard to the speedy and effective execution of foreign award will be
defeated. Thus none of the contentions urged on behalf of the respondent merit
acceptance so as to uphold the impugned judgment and order. We have no
hesitation or impediment in concluding that the impugned judgment and order
cannot be sustained.
18. In the above decision, the Supreme Court categorically held that for enforcement of foreign
award there is no need to take separate proceedings, one for deciding the enforceability of the
award to make rule of the court or decree and the other to take up execution thereafter. In one
proceeding, the court enforcing a foreign award can deal with the entire matter.
19. In 2005 (1) RAJ 597 Del (cited supra), the Delhi High court after following the above said
Supreme Court judgment in AIR 2001 SC 2293 : MANU/SC/0329/2001, further held that the
court may exercise the jurisdiction to refuse enforcement only when the party resisting the
enforcement of the award makes an application to the court for refusing its enforcement and
furnishes proof to it on existence of one or more of the grounds contained in Section 18 of the
Act.
20. In 2004 (3) Arb. LR 107 Del (cited supra), the Delhi High Court held that when none of the
grounds contained in Section 48 of the Act on the basis of which the court can refuse the
enforcement of the foreign award in question has been proved on record, the foreign award
stands satisfied and the award must be deemed to be decree of the court.
21. In 2004(2) RAJ 552 Guj (cited supra), the Gujarat High Court held that foreign awards are
required to be deals with as provided in Part II of the Act and as per the provisions of Sections
44 to 49 of the Act.
22. In 2003 (3) RAJ 418 Bom (cited supra), the Bombay High Court held that when the court
holds that a foreign award is enforceable, then it is deemed to be decree of the court to be
executed in terms of Order 21 of CPC.
23. In AIR 1980 SC 157 : MANU/SC/0407/1979 (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
2014-06-20 (Page 6 of 9 ) www.manupatra.com Phoenix Legal
that property in a decree passes to the transferee under a deed of assignment when the parties
to the deed of assignment intend such property to pass and it does not depend on the court's
recognition of the transfer. Thus where a decree is assigned and the notice of the application
under Order 21 Rule 16 had seen served on the assignor (original decree holder) and the
judgment-debtor, merely because the assignment of a decree is not recognised by the court, its
execution by the assignee will not be barred on the ground that the decree between the
judgment-debtor and the assignor decree-holder is already adjusted.
24. In AIR 1963 Patna 30 (cited supra), a Division Bench of the Patna High Court held that when
the deposit of compensation money made in court for land acquired under the Land Acquisition
Act, the assignee who got the decree transferred from the awardee by a deed of assignment is
entitled to withdraw the amount of compensation deposited into court.
25. Citing the above decisions, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has proved his case for enforcing the foreign award dated 2.3.2000 and therefore the
same may be executed straight away against 1st respondent.
26. In 2004 (2) Arb L.R. 548 (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
The enforcement petition was for enforcing the English Award. It was under Sections
46 to 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In such proceedings, the
enforcement has necessarily to be between the parties to the Award. In such
proceedings, serious disputes regarding the liability of third persons to pay up could
not be decided. Once the dispute arose, as to whether or not the documents were
discrepant, the Court should have directed the appellants to have that dispute
decided by a Competent court in an appropriate proceeding. Previsions contained in
part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 do not permit Courts to decide
such disputes with third parties in such proceedings. To that extent, the Division
Bench is right. Such a dispute could not have been decided in these proceedings. In
our view, however, the Division Bench was wrong in remitting the matter back for
following the procedure under Order 21, Rule 46, CPC, Order 21, Rule 46, CPC, deals
with garnishee proceedings. These apply when monies of the judgment-debtor are in
the hands of third parties. In cases of Letter of Credit the liability of the issuing bank
is an entirely independent liability. It cannot be said that the monies payable by the
issuing bank are monies belonging to the judgment-debtor. Thus, the claim, if any,
can only be decided in independent proceedings which should have been adopted by
the appellants.
26. Relying on the above passage, the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent contended that
the petitioner is not a party to the disputes and disputes regarding the liability of the petitioner
could not be decided in the above petition.
27. I am unable to accept the above submissions of the learned Counsel for 1st respondent.
28. In the above decision of the Supreme Court, the 3rd party is a bank and the bank is not an
assignee of any decree like the petitioner herein. In such circumstances, the above decision of
the Supreme court is not helpful to 1st respondent and the facts in the present case are totally
different.
29. The only question that arises for consideration; now is whether 1st respondent furnished
proof as enumerated under Section 48 of the Act so as to refuse the enforcement of the foreign
award dated 2.3.2000?
30. The main objection of 1st respondent is that unless the assignment of the award dated
2.3.2000 is favour of the petitioner is established in an independent proceeding, the same
cannot be acted upon and as such the petitioner is only a 3rd party and they cannot enforce this
foreign award.
31. It is settled law that the property is a decree passed to the transferee under a deed of
2014-06-20 (Page 7 of 9 ) www.manupatra.com Phoenix Legal
assignment when the parties to the deed of assignment intend such property to pass. Therefore
once it is proved that there is a deed of assignment of the award by the petitioner, there ends
the matter and the award is enforceable in the hands of the assignee.
30. The petitioner herein filed a copy of the deed of assignment dated 3.12.2001 in which in
Clause 7 it is specifically stated that the company, (i.e.) Mutual Task Maritime Ltd., Ellias S.
Condos and solon E. condos, who are the sole and exclusive legal and beneficial owners of all the
shares of the company by this agreement transfer to Compania Naviera 'SODNOC', S.A. Panama
and or Elias Condos all their rights which were arisen from C/P dated 24.8.1998, i.e., claim of
USD 43,483.49 against Bharat Salt Refineries, Ltd. the 1st respondent herein.
33. Thus the petitioner has proved that he is the assignee of the award by filing a copy of the
deed of assignment.
34. But the learned Counsel for 1st respondent by producing a notice of assignment sent to
them by the Mutual Task Maritime Ltd., and letter dated 12.2.2001 sent by the earlier assignee
of the award, submitted that in view of the earlier assignment of the award made by the Mutual
Task Maritime Ltd., in favour of other party, the subsequent assignment of award in favour of
the petitioner is not a valid assignment and as such the award is not enforceable at the hands of
the petitioner.
35. I do not find any merits in the above contentions of the learned Counsel for 1st respondent.
It is true that by notice of assignment, the Mutual Task Maritime Ltd., informed 1st respondent
that under an assignment dated 20.12.2000, they had assigned absolutely all rights of amounts
which may be recovered in respect of the arbitration award dated 2.3.2000 against 1st
respondent to the North of England P&I Association Ltd. North of England P&I Association Ltd.,
also sent a letter dated 12.1.2001 to 1st respondent enclosing the above said notice of
assignment.
36. But the learned Counsel for petitioner explained that the vessel 'SEA MANA' was entered
with the Association for P&I and FD&D Insurance and the number of claims of Mutual Task
Maritime Ltd., were being handled on their behalf by Association and only for the purpose of
court proceedings being handled by the Association, the earlier assignment was made and the
later assignment with the petitioner was made by the Mutual Task Maritime Ltd., after settling
their dues in favour of Worth of England P&I Association. To prove this, the learned Counsel for
the petitioner produced a copy of the deed of assignment dated 20.12.2000 and a copy of the E-
Mail sent by the Solicitor on behalf of the North of England P&I Association Ltd., wherein the
Solicitor has clearly made it known that he confirms, on behalf of the Association that neither
Mutual Task Maritime Ltd., nor Companies Naviera Sodnoc SA (the petitioner herein) own the
Association any money and therefore the deed of assignment dated 20.12.2000 has no effect as
the sum of Rs. US $55,676.79 referred to in the recitals has been paid.
37. Thus the learned Counsel for the petitioner is able to establish that as on today there is only
one enforceable, assignment deed and accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to enforce the
award as the assignee.
38. I am satisfied that the petitioner is a valid assignee and as an assignee of the award, they
are competent to maintain the above petition.
39. In fact another letter dated 20.12.2000 was produced by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner in which an associate director, on behalf of the North of England P&I Association Ltd.,
confirmed that neither Mutual Task Maritime Ltd., nor Compania Naviera Sodnoc, SA, the
petitioner herein owe the Association any premium or money whatsoever and they do not have
any claim against Bharat Salt Refineries Ltd. (1st respondent).
40. It is also not the case of 1st respondent that no other assignee raised any claim against
them by filing a petition to enforce the award. In such circumstances, all the objections of 1st
respondent as to competency of the petitioner to file the above petition and the validity of the
assignment deed assigned in favour of the petitioner are unsustainable and are rejected.
2014-06-20 (Page 8 of 9 ) www.manupatra.com Phoenix Legal
41. The next objection of the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent is that as the award was
passed on 2.3.2000, the petition to enforce the award should have been filed within 3 years and
as the same was filed only in 2005, the relief is barred by limitation.
42. I am unable to accept this submission also. Under the Act, 1996, the foreign award is
already stamped as a decree and the party having a foreign award can straight away apply for
enforcement of it and in such circumstances, the party having a foreign award has got 12 years
time like that of a decree holder. Therefore it cannot be said that the present petition is barred
by limitation.
43. It was lastly contended that as per Section 66 of the English Arbitration Act, the petitioner
should have obtained leave from the English court for enforcing the award.
44. This contention is only to be rejected because under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996, there is no requirement to obtain leave from the English courts to enforce an English
award in India. Such a leave is to be obtained only when an award is sought to be enforced in
courts of England and no such leave is necessary to enforce an English award in Indian courts.
45. In the result, the petitioner has satisfied the requirements as contemplated under Section 47
of the Act and 1st respondent has not furnished any proof as enumerated under the provisions
of Section 48 and in such circumstances the award dated 2.3.2000 passed by 2nd respondent is
enforceable and shall be deemed to be a decree of this Court.
46. In view of the fact that by this petition itself the petitioner can also execute the award, 1st
respondent is directed to make payments to the petitioner as per the award dated 2.3.2000
within 4 weeks, falling which the matter is to be posted before the Master for execution after 4
weeks.
47. In the result, this O.P., is allowed. No costs.

Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
2014-06-20 (Page 9 of 9 ) www.manupatra.com Phoenix Legal