The main legal point established in the judgment is the narrow interpretation of public policy as applied to the enforcement of foreign awards, and the requirement for a violation to fall within specific parameters to warrant refusal of enforcement.

1. The Applicant is the Award Holder. The applicant has sought execution of the award against the claimant who is the Award Debtor in the above arbitration. The name of the award debtor has been amended in the arbitration. The award debtor was one Bhatia International Ltd (BIL). The award debtor shall be referred to as BIL despite the amendment as it has been so referred to in the award. The applicant shall be referred to as Vitol as it has been referred as such in the award.

2. Vitol has sought to execute the award dated 17th January, 2011 as a Foreign award. The execution application has been taken out on 17th March, 2011, two months after the date of the award.

3. Vitol has taken out the above notice under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 22(b) of the CPC as the execution of the award is filed under the provisions of Section 44A of the CPC; the award having been passed by the arbitral tribunal in reciprocating territory being London, UK.

4. Vitol has taken out this application under the provisions of Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) for enforcement of the Foreign award (award) dated 17th January, 2011. BIL has applied for refusal of the enforcement of the award under Section 48 of the Act.

5. Vitol has filed a duly authenticated copy of the award as Exhibit-A to the Execution Application authenticated by the Notary Public City of London, England as a true copy of the original award. Vitol has also filed a certified copy of the arbitration agreement between the parties.

6. BIL would contend that the provisions contained in Section 47(1) (b) of the Act have not been complied since the certified copy of the entire arbitration agreement including what is called SCoTA is not annexed to the petition. Mr. Chinoy on behalf of the respondent drew the Court's attention to Clause 20 of the arbitration agreement between the parties under which not the agreement itself, which was termed a Master Confirmation, but individual confirmation was to be subject to the last published version of the SCoTA for matters not covered under the agreement between the parties. Hence he would contend that the Master Agreement was not subject to ScoTA, but individual deliveries / transactions required to be made by separate shipments under separate letters of credit (L/C) were to be so covered. He would argue that the parties went to arbitration under Clause 19 of the agreement between the parties dated 14th April, 2008 and that the question of SCoTA was never raised in the arbitration.

7. It may be mentioned that the requirement of Sub Clauses 9(a),(b) and (c ) of Section 47(1) of the Act is only for the convenience of the Court in seeing the Foreign award and the agreement under which the reference to the arbitral tribunal was made. That done, there is sufficient compliance with the provisions of the aforesaid section. In fact, once a certified copy of the award is filed and is accepted by both the parties as the award which has come to be passed between the parties, further evidence to prove the evidence as a Foreign award under Sub Section (c) would also not be required. Hence SCoTA need not be annexed to this petition.

8. Further BIL has contended that the execution application could not have been filed anywhere except in Indore, Madhya Pradesh where the registered office of the company is situate and where the arbitration agreement was executed. It is sought to be contended on behalf of BIL that the enforcement of the award would be required to be stamped in the case of Madhya Pradesh under the specific provisions contained in the Indian Stamp Act applicable to Madhya Pradesh and that if so done Court Fee of Rs. 4 million would be required to be paid. It is contended that the award is not stamped and no ad valorum court fee is paid in this petition and hence the award cannot be enforced.

9. The object of the Act is to consolidate and amend Indian Laws relating to domestic as well as international commercial