An appeal under Section 50(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable against all respondents when the dismissal of the Arbitration Petition is intertwined with the Chamber Summons.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. Chandurkar, J.

1] This Commercial Arbitration Appeal has been filed under Section 50(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act of 1996) raising a challenge to the judgment dated 24/10/2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Commercial Arbitration Petition No.414 of 2018. The said proceedings had been filed under the provisions of Sections 47, 48 and 49 of the Act of 1996 for a declaration that three Foreign Awards passed in favour of the appellant – Imax Corporation were enforceable under the provisions of Part-II of the Act of 1996. By the impugned judgment, the learned Judge dismissed the Arbitration Petition holding the same to be barred by limitation with the further finding that the said Foreign Awards in favour of Imax Corporation did not deserve to be enforced and executed. It was also held that the impleadment of the 2^nd to 4^th respondents in the Arbitration Petition was unwarranted as they were not parties to the arbitration proceedings.

2] Mr. Aspi Chinoy, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submitted that the learned Judge erred in holding that the Arbitration Petition as filed was barred by limitation. A further error was committed by the learned Judge in holding that the Foreign Awards passed in favour of the appellant were not liable to be enforced under Part II of the Act of 1996. The finding that the petitioner in the Arbitration Petition could not have impleaded the 2^nd to 4^th respondents on the premise that the petitioner was seeking execution of the said awards against them was also incorrect. According to him, pursuant to the Partial Liability Award dated 09/02/2006, the Quantum and Jurisdiction Award dated 24/07/2007 and the Final Award passed by the International Court of Arbitration on 27/03/2008 were sought to be enforced against the 1^st respondent who was a signatory to the arbitration agreement. The execution of the Foreign Awards had also been sought against the 2^nd to 4^th respondents as it was the case of the appellant that the entire assets/properties of the 1^st respondent had been improperly diverted in their favour so as to defeat enforcement of the Foreign Awards against the 1^st respondent. It was well settled that a combined petition seeking recognition and enforcement of a foreign award as well as its execution was maintainable. Though proceedings for enforcement of a foreign award could be stated to comprise of two stages; the first stage being recognition of a foreign award and the second stage being its enforcement and execution as a deemed decree, it would not mean that two separate proceedings were required to be filed while seeking enforcement of a foreign award. Reference was made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in M/s Fuerst Day Lawson vs. Jindal Exports Ltd. (2001) 6 SCC 356 and Government of India vs. Vedanta Limited (Formerly Cairan India Ltd) and Others, (2010) 10 SCC 1 in that regard. Since various grounds of challenge on merits were raised by the appellant, it was submitted that the appeal deserved detailed consideration.

3] The admission of the appeal was strongly opposed by Mr. Prateek Seksaria, learned Senior Advocate for the 1^st respondent. It was submitted that after consideration of all relevant aspects, the learned Judge had rightly found that the Arbitration Petition was barred by limitation. On being further satisfied that the Foreign Awards did not deserve enforcement under Part-II of the Act of 1996, the Arbitration Petition had been rightly dismissed. No interference with the findings as recorded was called for.

4] The maintainability of the Commercial Arbitration Appeal was challenged by Mr. Navroz Seervai, learned Senior Advocate for the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents. It was urged that the said respondents were neither signatories to the arbitration agreement nor were parties to the Final Award proceedings. Despite aforesaid, the Foreign Awards were sought to be executed against said respondents on the ground that the 1