Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The execution petition was filed on 23rd December, 2020, admittedly, within a period of 12 years of passing of the aforesaid partial award as well as the final award of the learned Arbitral Tribunal.

6. By virtue of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Government of India v. Vedanta Ltd.1, the limitation for filing of an application for execution/enforcement of a foreign award is required to be reckoned on the basis of Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. Under the said Article, an application for execution of the award is required to be moved within three years of passing of the award. The aforesaid period of three years would expire, in the case of the partial award, in November, 2012, and in the case of final award, in May, 2014.

73. On the other hand, a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Noy Vallesina 4, after a detailed discussion, held that when an application for enforcement and/or execution of a foreign award is filed, it will be governed by the provisions of Article 137 of the Limitation Act (i.e. the residuary provision) if, at that stage, the Court has not recorded its satisfaction that the award is enforceable.

(2001) 6 SCC 356 Noy Vallesina Engineer ing Spa v. J indal Dr ugs Ltd, (2006) 3 Ar b LR 510 "31. ... Now under the Act on the Court being satisfied that the Award is enforceable the Award itself operates as a decree. But it is clear from the provisions of section 49 of the Act which are quoted above, the Award operates as a decree only on the Court recording its satisfaction that it is enforceable and it is only at that point of time that the Award becomes a decree of that Court which has recorded its satisfaction that it is enforceable. As observed above Article 136 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act becomes applicable for execution of any decree or order of any Civil Court. Till the Court records satisfaction contemplated by section 49 of the Arbitration Act the foreign Award is not deemed to be a decree of that Court. Therefore, when an application is filed before the Court, before the Court has recorded its satisfaction that the foreign Award is enforceable, it will not to be an application for execution of any decree or order of any Civil Court. It will be an application for execution of an Award which is capable of being converted into a decree and obviously therefore, Article 136 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act would not apply to such an application. There is no period of limitation provided by any of the Article in the Schedule of the Limitation Act specifically for making an application for execution of a foreign Award which is capable of being converted into a decree of the Civil Court, and therefore, such an application would be governed by the residuary Article 137 and therefore, an application for execution of a foreign Award which has not become a decree, has to be made within a period of three years from the date on which the right to make such an application accrues. In my opinion, placing such interpretation would also be in favour of the persons who are holding foreign awards in their favour, because they can apply for recognition of the foreign award within a period of three years of the right to apply accruing to them and after the Court records satisfaction contemplated by section 49 of the Act, the Award becomes a decree and they get further period of 12 years under Article 136 to apply to the Court for execution of that Award. In any case, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Thyssen Stahlunion GMBH 5 or in the case of Furest Day Lawson Ltd3 cannot be taken to mean that it is compulsory for a person who is holding a foreign award in his favour to make an application for execution. All that the Supreme Court says is that such a person can make an application for execution even before the Court has recorded its satisfaction as contemplated by section 49 of the Act. It is always open to a person who is holding a foreign Award in his favour to make an application only for recognition of the foreign Award and thereafter to make a separate application for execution of the Award which has become a decree after the Court records its satisfaction. ...."

18. Though the ultimate decision in Cairn India2 was reversed in Vedanta1, a bare reading of the afore-extracted paras in Cairn India2 Thyssen Stahlunion GMBH v. Steel Authority of India Ltd, (1999) 9 SCC 334 2020 (1) ABR 82 M/s Compania Navier a v. Bhar at Refiner ies Ltd, AIR 2007 Mad 251 (2018) 18 SCC 313 reveal that there was, in fact, a state of flux and uncertainty, with respect to the law regarding the limitation which would apply, for applications for execution of foreign arbitral awards to be filed. One view was that the award would be treated as a decree and, therefore, the application for execution could be filed within 12 years of passing of the award. The second view - which ultimately came to endorsed in Vedanta1- was that the period of limitation which would apply would be three years under Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act.