The enforceability of a foreign arbitral award under the A&C Act requires specificity in the award; vague declarations cannot be executed until all pertinent elements are resolved.

JUDGMENT :

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'A&C Act'), challenging the order dated 02.06.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in OMP(EFA)(COMM) 1/2019, titledThe Union of India v. Reliance Industries Ltd. & Anr. (hereinafter referred to as, 'Impugned Order').

2. The respondents have taken a preliminary objection challenging the maintainability of the present appeal under Section 50 of the A&C Act. Mr. Harish Salve, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, and Mr. R. Venkataramani, the learned Attorney General of India appearing for the appellant, therefore, confined their submissions to the same issue and by the present judgment, we shall be considering only the said objection. We may herein itself clarify that any observation made by us in the subsequent part of our present judgment, would be only for the purposes of answering the objection raised by the respondents and shall not be considered as a reflection on the merits of the appeal.

BRIEF BACKGROUND OF FACTS:

3. To appreciate the objection raised, a brief background of facts in which the present appeal arises, would be necessary. The same are as under:

3.1It is the case of the appellant that the appellant, through Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC), entered into two Production Sharing Contracts, both dated 22.12.1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PSCs'), for development of Tapti and Panna Mukta Oil and Gas Fields, with the respondent no. 1 and Enron Oil and Gas India Limited (ENRON), having an Arbitration Clause governed by the laws of England.

3.2M/s B.G. Exploration and Production India Limited (respondent no.2) entered into the shoes of ENRON in 2004, and accordingly, on 10.01.2005, the PSCs were amended.

3.3In terms of the PSCs, the respondents together have 60% participating interest, while ONGC has 40% interest. The respondents were to extract the oil at their own costs, recoverable as 'Cost Petroleum' (hereinafter referred to as 'CP) from the appellant, however, subject to a specified upper 'Cost Recovery Limit' (hereinafter referred to as 'CRL'). Additionally, the appellant and the respondents were to be entitled to share in the profit earned by sale of the extracted petroleum, referred to as 'Petroleum Profit' (hereinafter referred to as 'PP'). These shares were to be determined on the basis of an 'Investment Multiple' (hereinafter referred to as 'IM').

3.4It is the case of the appellant that certain differences arose between the parties qua the above and various other provisions including royalties, cess, service tax, etc., of the PSCs, and the respondents invoked the Arbitration Clause in the PSCs.

3.5 The Arbitral Tribunal, vide its Partial Award dated 12.09.2012, rejected the preliminary objections raised by the appellant with respect to arbitrability of disputes raised by the respondents. This Award was called the Final Partial Award on Arbitrability.

3.6The Arbitral Tribunal passed a Partial Award dated 10.12.2012 on the interpretation of certain provisions of the PSCs. This Award is referred to as the 'CRL Award'.

3.7The Arbitral Tribunal, thereafter, gave the Final Partial Award dated 12.10.2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'FPA 2016)', by a majority of 2:1, rendering 63 findings. A Clarificatory Order dated 28.12.2016 was also passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal. The said Award is the subject matter of the Execution Application filed by the appellant which has resulted in the impugned order. To