### Enforcement of Foreign Awards Cannot Be Denied Through Merits-Based Review or Challenges to Deemed Contractual Acceptance

The Petitioner (Trammo), a Dubai-based judgment creditor, sought the recognition and enforcement of five foreign arbitral awards (two interim awards and three cost awards) passed by an ad-hoc tribunal seated in London.

The dispute arose from alleged contracts for the supply of fertilizers (DAP and NPS) discussed in a Dubai meeting (May 2013) and subsequent email confirmations.

The Respondent (Nagarjuna) denied the existence of these contracts.

On January 21, 2014, the parties executed an ad-hoc Arbitration Agreement governed by English Law, which specifically empowered the Tribunal to first determine the existence of the underlying contracts and arbitration agreements before deciding the substantive merits.

The Tribunal found in favor of Trammo, awarding damages for breach of contract.

Nagarjuna resisted enforcement under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, primarily arguing the invalidity of the agreement and violations of public policy.

Whether the Arbitration Agreement was invalid under English Law due to the "deemed acceptance" of terms via email.

Whether the Foreign Awards dealt with matters beyond the scope of submission or were passed by an improperly constituted tribunal under Section 48(1)(c) and (d).

Whether the enforcement of the awards violated the public policy of India under Section 48(2)(b).

The court primarily applied Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which exhaustive lists grounds for refusing enforcement of foreign awards.

It relied on the "narrow-scope" interpretation of Section 48 established by the Supreme Court in *Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. v. Progetto Grano SPA*, which prohibits a "second look" at the merits or procedural defects like inadmissible evidence at the enforcement stage.

It further applied the principles from *Vijay Karia v. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL*, holding that "public policy" grounds do not permit a review on merits and that "permissive" language ("may") in Section 48 grants limited residual discretion.

Additionally, it applied *Enercon (India) Ltd. v. Enercon Gmbh*, emphasizing a pragmatic, common-sense approach to making "unworkable" arbitration clauses functional.

The court rejected Nagarjuna’s challenge to the contract's validity, noting that the Tribunal—comprising three former English judges—had appreciated evidence of past conduct to find a valid contract under English Law; a finding this court cannot re-evaluate under Section 48.

Regarding jurisdiction, the court found that the parties' January 2014 ad-hoc agreement superseded any conflicting institutional rules (LCIA/LMAA) mentioned in emails, as the parties explicitly authorized this specific Tribunal to decide both the existence of the agreement and the merits.

On the public policy front, the court noted that Nagarjuna withdrew its objections regarding FEMA (exchange controls).

The court dismissed the "shocks the conscience" argument regarding the award of damages without physical supply, stating that the Tribunal’s assessment of loss for a trading entity was a matter of evidence appreciation beyond the court’s purview.

The court recognized the awards as a decree of the court and directed Nagarjuna to pay/deposit the principal sums of USD 16,427,310.80 and GBP 606,628.29 plus interest.

A request for a stay of the judgment was rejected.