Award rendered in the a settlement of disputes or differences through a two-tier arbitration procedure being a “foreign award” is liable to be enforced under the provisions of Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – M/s. Centrotrade Minerals and Metals Inc. Vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd. – Supreme Court

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that as has been held in paragraph 76 of Vijay Karia (supra), the context of Section 48 is recognition and enforcement of foreign awards under the New York Convention of 1958. Given the context of the New York Convention, and the fact that the expression “otherwise” is susceptible to  two  meanings,  it  is  clear  that  the  narrower  meaning  has  been preferred, which is in consonance with the pro-enforcement bias spoken  about by a large number of judgments referred to in Vijay Karia (supra). Kochuni’s case (supra) dealing with an entirely different Act with a different object cannot, therefore, possibly apply to construe this word in the setting in which it occurs.

Award rendered in the a settlement of disputes or differences through a two-tier arbitration procedure being a “foreign award” is liable to be enforced under the provisions of Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – M/s. Centrotrade Minerals and Metals Inc. Vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd. – Supreme Court Read Post »