Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2002 (9) TMI HC This
Issues Involved:
1. Enforceability of the foreign arbitration award. 2. Conversion of the awarded amount from American Dollars to Indian Currency. 3. Grant of interest from the date of the award till the date of its realization. 4. Requirement for the respondent to disclose assets. 5. Separate execution petition requirement. 6. Validity of the primary agreement under Shari'a law. 7. Denial of reasonable opportunity to defend before the arbitrator. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Enforceability of the Foreign Arbitration Award: The court held that the foreign award dated 1-3-1999 should be enforced as a decree of the court, rejecting the respondent's claim that the award could not be enforced. The court referred to sections 44 and 48 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, which align with the New York Convention. The respondent's argument that the primary agreement was void under Shari'a law was dismissed as the court determined that the "agreement" in section 48(1)(a) refers to the arbitration agreement, not the primary contract. The court also noted that the respondent failed to prove the specific Shari'a law that invalidates the agreement. 2. Conversion of the Awarded Amount: The court found that the District Judge erred in converting the awarded amount from American Dollars to Indian Currency. The petitioner argued successfully that since the amount was received in American Dollars, it should be repaid in the same currency. 3. Grant of Interest: The court noted that the District Judge did not provide a specific finding on the interest claim. Referencing section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court held that the awarded sum should carry interest at 18% per annum from the date of the award until payment unless the award directs otherwise. The respondent's argument against interest based on Shari'a law was rejected due to lack of proof. 4. Requirement for the Respondent to Disclose Assets: The court found the District Judge's refusal to direct the respondent to disclose assets contrary to Order 21 Rule 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner is entitled to an order requiring the respondent to disclose assets for satisfying the decree. 5. Separate Execution Petition Requirement: The court ruled that the District Judge was wrong in requiring a separate execution petition for the enforcement of the award. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd., the court stated that there is no need for separate proceedings to enforce a foreign award; the enforcement and execution can proceed in the same proceedings. 6. Validity of the Primary Agreement under Shari'a Law: The respondent argued that the primary agreement was void under Shari'a law, making the award unenforceable under section 48(1)(a). The court dismissed this argument, stating that the agreement referred to in section 48(1)(a) is the arbitration agreement, not the primary contract. Furthermore, the respondent failed to prove the specific Shari'a law and how it invalidates the agreement. 7. Denial of Reasonable Opportunity to Defend: The respondent claimed that they were denied a reasonable opportunity to defend before the arbitrator, making the award unenforceable under section 48(1)(b). The court dismissed this claim, noting that the issue was already raised and rejected by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, London, UK. The court held that the principle of res judicata prevents the respondent from raising the same issue again. Conclusion: The court allowed the civil revision petition filed by the petitioner and dismissed the one filed by the respondent. The foreign arbitration award was deemed enforceable, the awarded amount was to be paid in American Dollars, interest was granted from the date of the award until payment, and the respondent was required to disclose assets. The court also directed that the enforcement and execution could proceed in the same proceedings without requiring a separate execution petition. The interim order preventing the respondent from alienating the petition schedule property was continued pending a final decision in O.P. No. 437 of 2000.
|