Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Mr. Anindya Kr. Mitra, the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/award-debtor submits that the said order is not conclusive with regard to the enforcement of the foreign award as at the stage of receiving an application for execution of a foreign award, the Court is only required to find out that the party applying for enforcement of a foreign award, has produced before this Court the original award or a copy thereof duly authenticated, the original agreement for arbitration or a duly certified copy thereof or such evidence, as may be necessary, to prove that the award is a foreign award. The Court on satisfaction that the requirements of Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are fulfilled permits an application to be filed for execution of the foreign award. However, the enforcement of the foreign award is a step subsequent to acceptance of the execution application and could be refused at the instance of the award debtor on the grounds enumerated in Section 48 of the said Act. The learned Senior Counsel submits that although in the order dated 4th December, 2014, some aspect of Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was considered but the said order is not conclusive as it has not decided various other points that are required to be taken into consideration under Section 48 of the 1996 Act. It is submitted that the earlier order has taken care of Sections 48(b) and 48(d) but other issues have not been touched and, accordingly, the said order cannot be treated to be a res judicata inasmuch as the said order is only interlocutory in nature and an interlocutory order cannot be treated as a res judicata when the matter now is required to be finally decided on merits.