JUDGMENT - F.I. REBELLO, J.:---The petitioner by the present petition has moved this Court for enforcement of the foreign Award dated 16-6-1997. The arbitral proceedings commenced and also were concluded in England. By the said Award claims as made by the petitioner herein and as set out in the Award had been allowed and the counter claims, by the respondent herein, have been rejected. The interest awarded it at commercial rate from 1-5-1996 to the date of the award. Similarly costs also have been awarded. From the award passed, respondents sought leave of the High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, London to appeal. The appeal filed was dismissed by order dated 10-10-1997. While dismissing the appeal filed by the respondents, it was ordered that the appellants do pay the respondent's cost of the application to be taxed on the standard basis if not agreed. After the petition was filed before this Court, additional affidavit has been filed. To that is annexed zerox copy of the award of taxed costs. It is also set out that the petitioners have prayed for leave to produce original of the award of taxed cost before Executing the decree in terms of the award.

2. Enforcement of the foreign award is covered by Part II of the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996. Chapter I deals with the New York Convention Awards. The present award is a New York Convention Award. While applying for enforcement of the award, the parties so applying, has to comply with the requirement of section 47 of the Act. The petitioners have complied with the said requirements. The enforcement must be sought before the Court. The Court in the explanation of section 47 and other sections of the chapter means the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district and includes the High Courts in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the award, if the same had been the subject matter of a suit. The subject matter of the award is a money decree. The respondents have their office and carrying on business within the jurisdiction of this Court, hence, the application for enforcement of the Award before this Court.

The enforcement of the foreign Award will be refused unless the party furnishes to the Court the proof as set out in section 48. Enforcement of a foreign award may also be refused under section 49(2) if the subject matter of the difference is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of India or the enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of India. If the Court is satisfied that the foreign Award is enforceable under this chapter, the Award shall be deemed to be decree of that Court under section 49. At the hearing of the petition on behalf of the petitioner it is firstly contended that there was no arbitral clause between the petitioners and respondents herein. This submission is based on the contention that on the fixture note, seal of the petitioners was put as "As Owner's Manager only". It is further contended that considering sections 230 and 231 of the Indian Contract Act, an agent could not have invoked the arbitral clauses and as such the contract is contrary to the public policy of India. The issue as to what is the public policy of India in so far as private International Law is concerned came up for consideration before the Apex Court in (Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co.)1, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 860. Before the Apex Court, however, what was in issue was the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act. Comparison of the provisions of the said Act with the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in so far as enforcement of the foreign award is concerned, it is clear, are more or less the same or similar. While considering the public policy under the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, the Apex Court held that the enforcement of the foreign Award would be refused on the ground that it is contr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document