Summary
The London appellate arbitral award was directed to be enforced. Hindustan Copper had received repeated opportunities and extensions to submit its defence, and even its late legal submissions were considered. Its own failure to comply with procedural deadlines did not establish inability to present its case. The enforcement court could not remit the dispute to the arbitrator for a fresh award under section 48. Centrotrade’s appeal was allowed and Hindustan Copper’s appeal dismissed.
Issues
- When inability to present a case permits refusal to enforce a foreign award.
- Whether the larger-bench reference included the enforcement issue.
- Whether an enforcing court could remit the matter for a fresh award.
Provisions considered
- Section 48(1)(b), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996The narrowly construed natural justice defence was rejected because repeated opportunities had been afforded and the failure to present evidence arose from the respondent’s conduct. (¶¶ 14, 15, 18, 34, 35, 36)
Held
- The reference encompassed the entire matter, including enforcement, rather than merely the validity of the two-tier arbitration agreement. The earlier three-judge decision had expressly reserved enforcement for subsequent hearing. (¶¶ 7, 8, 29)
- Inability to present a case is a narrow natural justice ground. A useful test is whether factors outside the party’s control denied a fair hearing; failure to use an opportunity duly provided does not satisfy it. The construction accords with the Convention’s policy favouring enforcement. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 28)
- The arbitrator repeatedly extended time and considered the seventy-five pages of submissions received after the final deadline. The respondent’s choices to resist participation and submit material late did not establish unfairness; procedural time limits remained within the arbitrator’s control. The earlier contrary opinion rested on factual errors and conjecture. (¶¶ 11, 12, 32, 33, 34, 35)
- The objection that jurisdiction had to be decided separately at the outset was raised for the first time and was unsupported by the material relied on. The Rajasthan stay bound the parties, not the foreign arbitrator, and the procedural directions were reiterated after the Supreme Court vacated that stay. (¶¶ 30, 31)
- Remitting the matter to the ICC arbitrator to make a fresh award was beyond an enforcing court’s jurisdiction under section 48. (¶¶ 36, 37)
Result
Centrotrade’s Civil Appeal 2562 of 2006 allowed; the contrary judgment of Chatterjee J set aside. Hindustan Copper’s Civil Appeal 2564 of 2006 dismissed. Foreign award dated 29 September 2001 directed to be enforced.