The enforcement of foreign arbitral awards may only be refused on specific grounds as outlined in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act; violations of procedural norms do not themselves constitute a breach of public policy.

JUDGMENT :

M. S. Sonak, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

PRELIMINARIES

2. This Commercial Arbitration Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated October 24, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 414 of 2018 along with Chamber Summons No. 99 of 2019, 100 of 2019 and 101 of 2019 under Sections 47 to 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (said Act), thereby refusing to recognise and enforce three foreign arbitral awards dated February 09, 2006, August 24, 2007 and March 27, 2008 [foreign awards] made by the ICC Arbitral Tribunal

3. The 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents objected to the maintainability of this Appeal. By order dated April 23, 2025, made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court comprising A. S. Chandurkar, J (as His Lordship then was) and M. M. Sathaye, J, rejected the objections regarding maintainability and admitted this Appeal qua all the Respondents.

4. This Court’s order dated April 23, 2025, rejecting the objections to maintainability and admitting this Appeal was challenged inter alia by the first Respondent by instituting Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. (s) 22422 of 2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

5. By order dated September 16, 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition by passing the following order: -

“1. Petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 23.04.2025 in Commercial Arbitration Appeal (L) No.38267/2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, titled "IMAX Corporation vs. E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt. Limited & Ors.".

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Having considered the contentions made across the Bar, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, clarifying that all contentions on merits and law, including that of the maintainability of enforcement or executability of the Foreign Award under Section 48 as envisaged under Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act, 1996), are left open qua the petitioner.

4. We further add that the issue of maintainability of the appeal, should the need so arise, shall be considered at an appropriate stage by this Court. We notice that the parties have been litigating for the last 20 years. As such, we request the High Court to decide the appeal expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months.

5. Accordingly, with the aforementioned observation, the present Special Leave Petition is disposed of.

6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

6. This Appeal was then mentioned before the first Court presided over by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice and taken up on October 10, 2025. On that date, an order was made not to place this Appeal before the Bench of which Gautam A. Ankhad, J was a member.

7. A praecipe was moved on the administrative side to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for the constitution of a Bench to take up this Appeal. Directions were issued on November 06, 2025, for listing this Appeal before the Division Bench presided over by M. S. Sonak, J, under the caption “expedited matters” on November 10, 2025.

8. Accordingly, this Appeal was placed before this Bench on November 10, 2025, and we were apprised of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s above-quoted order dated September 16, 2025, for expedited hearing of this Appeal.

9. In deference to the order, we requested the learned Counsel for the parties to commence the final arguments in this Appeal. At their request, however, we deferred the hearing to 03.00 pm and commenced the final argum