The enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is upheld unless specific procedural or public policy violations are proven, which was not established in this case.

ORDER :

S VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking for the following reliefs:-

"1. Issue an appropriate writ or order, setting aside the impugned order dated 16.09.2022 passed in Execution Case No.15180/2005 by the XIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, which is produced at Annexure-A to the writ petition;

2. Issue an appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of declaration by declaring to the effect that the impugned arbitral award presented for recognition and execution in the said case Ex. Case No.15180/2005 is unenforceable vide Annexure-A.

3. And pass such other orders or directions deems fit to be passed in favour of the petitioner under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. Facts leading to filing of this writ petition as revealed from the records are, the respondent herein (decree-holder) under a Charter Party dated 12.05.2004 had given a ship/vessel on charter to the petitioner/judgment-debtor for transporting certain goods. The decree-holder had laid claim for freight and demurrage charges to the tune of US $ 2,75,479.90 (US dollars), and accordingly had submitted an invoice. Since, the judgment-debtor had failed to pay the claim made, in terms of the arbitration clause found in the Charter Party, the decree- holder had appointed Mr. Jayaprakash as the Arbitrator and accordingly, intimated the judgment-debtor to appoint its arbitrator. Since the judgment-debtor did not come forward to appoint its arbitrator, Mr. Jayaprakash as a Sole Arbitrator had entered upon the reference and issued notice to the judgment-debtor. However, the judgment-debtor had not appeared before the Sole Arbitrator and therefore, the proceedings in the arbitration case was proceeded ex-parte against the judgment- debtor. The sole arbitrator had passed an award against the judgment-debtor on 21.02.2005 allowing the claim of the decree-holder with simple interest thereof at the rate of 4% for the period from 07.08.2004 upto the date of the award, with costs for arbitration payable by the judgment-debtor and other costs.

4. Execution Petition No.15180/2005 was filed before the Court of XIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall unit, Bengaluru, by the decree-holder with a prayer to recognize and declare that the aforesaid award under execution is a foreign award in accordance with Section 44 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act of 1996'), and thereafter, to proceed to execute the said award by attachment and sale of the property of the judgment-debtor or in the alternative by arrest of the judgment-debtor and detention in civil prison.

5. In the said proceedings, the judgment-debtor had appeared and had filed IA.no.5 under Section 48 of the Act of 1996, to suspend the operation of the foreign award and IA.no.6 to condone the delay in filing the application under of the Act of 1996. Simultaneously, the judgment- debtor also had filed objections challenging the validity and enforceability of the foreign award which was sought to be executed.

6. The decree-holder had filed rejoinder to the said objection.

7. The Executing Court vide the order impugned passed in Execution Petition No.15180/2005, having dismissed