Bombay HC Enforces US Arbitration Award Against Indian Company, Director Over $632 Million Ruby Deal

In brief

The question

1. Whether the award met the requirements for recognition as a foreign award under Section 44 of the Act

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and granted relief in terms of prayer clause “(i),” thereby allowing enforcement of the award under Section 49 as a decree of the Court.

It also directed

It made no order as to costs.

01Facts

The Petitioner sought enforcement under Section 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) of an award dated 16 November 2022, made in arbitration arising from a Sale and Purchase and Project Funding Agreement for the sale of rough crystal rubies

p. 2

The Petitioner submitted that the Respondents had failed to pay amounts due under the agreement and that the award directed payment of damages, costs and a further sum with interest

pp. 2–3

The award was recognized by the High Court of Singapore and entered as a judgment there; subsequent attachment efforts were unsuccessful

pp. 3–4

The Respondents did not appear in the enforcement petition despite service

p. 5

The Petitioner applied for the award to be declared enforceable in India as a decree under Section 49

pp. 5–8

02Issues

i.1. Whether the award met the requirements for recognition as a foreign award under Section 44 of the Act

pp. 5–7

ii.2. Whether the Petitioner satisfied the documentary requirements for enforcement under Section 47, and whether any ground under Section 48 justified refusing enforcement

pp. 7–9

03Law Applied

Under Section 44 of the Act, an award is a foreign award where it concerns a commercial legal relationship, is made pursuant to a written arbitration agreement to which the New York Convention applies, and is made in a territory notified as a reciprocating territory.

pp. 5–8

Section 46 provides that an enforceable foreign award is binding on the persons between whom it was made.

pp. 5–8

Section 47 prescribes the documents to be produced by a party seeking enforcement, including the award and arbitration agreement.

pp. 5–8

Under Section 48, enforcement may be refused only on the specified grounds, including invalidity of the agreement, procedural unfairness, excess of jurisdiction, non-binding or set-aside award, non-arbitrability, or conflict with Indian public policy.

pp. 5–8

Once the Court is satisfied that the award is enforceable under Chapter I of Part II, Section 49 deems it a decree of that Court.

pp. 5–8

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 49 Section 44 Section 46 Section 47 Section 48

04Reasoning

The Court found that the Petitioner had sufficiently established that the award arose from a written agreement concerning a commercial transaction and was a foreign award within Section 44.

p. 9

It also found that the Petitioner had complied with Section 47 by producing the required award and arbitration-agreement documents.

p. 7, 9

The Respondents neither challenged the award nor opposed the petition, and the Court found no ground under Section 48 for refusing enforcement.

p. 9

It therefore concluded that the statutory conditions for enforcement were met.

p. 9

05Holding

The Court allowed the petition and granted relief in terms of prayer clause “(i),” thereby allowing enforcement of the award under Section 49 as a decree of the Court.

p. 9

It made no order as to costs.

p. 9

LawLens.Bombay High Court

Original Court PDF