Summary
The Court held that the London-seated ICC arbitration excluded Part I of the Arbitration Act, despite the contract’s choice of Indian substantive law and its pre-BALCO date. It set aside the judgment permitting a Section 34 challenge. It also distinguished the impermissible appeal against enforcement from the award-holder’s maintainable appeal against partial refusal of enforcement, leaving substantive enforcement objections and limitation open in appropriate proceedings.
Issues
- Whether Part I permitted a Section 34 challenge to these pre-BALCO foreign awards.
- Which appeals against the enforcement order were maintainable under Section 50.
Provisions considered
- Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996Held unavailable to challenge these awards because the parties’ London seat and applicable curial law excluded Part I. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23)
- Section 50, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996Applied its exhaustive appeal scheme: an appeal against refusal of enforcement was maintainable, whereas an appeal against granting enforcement was not. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26)
Held
- Even under the pre-BALCO framework, Part I could be excluded by necessary implication. The agreement’s unambiguous choice of London for ICC arbitration, where proceedings occurred and awards were rendered, excluded Part I; choosing Indian law for the substantive contract did not sustain a Section 34 challenge. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23)
- Section 50 exhaustively specifies appeals in foreign-award proceedings. Jindal’s appeal against rejection of its enforcement objections was not maintainable. NV Engineering’s appeal against the refusal to enforce part of the award was maintainable. General appellate provisions did not enlarge the statutory remedy. (¶¶ 24, 25)
- The merits of the enforcement objections were not decided because the parties had not been heard on them. Jindal could pursue appropriate proceedings, excluding remedies under the Code of Civil Procedure; limitation remained expressly open. (¶ 26)
Result
Appeal allowed and impugned judgment set aside in the stated terms. Respondent No.1 directed to pay costs of Rs.1.5 lakh; substantive enforcement merits and limitation were not determined.