Parties can enforce arbitration awards against group companies if such companies provide security, binding them to obligations even if not direct parties to previous agreements.

JUDGMENT :

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.V.Karthikeyan J.)

This appeal had been filed questioning an order dated 16.10.2023 in Arb.O.P.No.(Comm. Div.).195 of 2022 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court.

2.The appellant herein was the petitioner in Arb.O.P.No.(Comm.Div.).195 of 2022.

3.Arb.O.P.No.(Comm. Div.).195 of 2022 had been filed taking advantage of Sections 47 to 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking a declaration that the award dated 26.03.2021 and the corrected award dated 17.05.2021 are decrees of this Court and for a direction against the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to jointly and severally to pay to the petitioner therein a sum of Rs.2,28,91,856.20/- and for a further direction against the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to jointly and severally pay to the petitioner a further sum of Rs.67,66,770.10/- and for a further direction against the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to jointly and severally pay to the petitioner a further sum of Rs.32,91,147.96/- and for a further direction against the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to pay the costs of the petition.

4.By order dated 16.10.2023, a learned Single Judge of this Court had partly allowed the petition by granting a decree in terms of the foreign arbitral award dated 26.03.2021 and the corrective award dated 17.05.2021 against the 1^st respondent alone, in accordance with Section 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petition was dismissed as against the 2^nd respondent. Costs were also not granted. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to execute the foreign arbitral award and the corrective award against the 1^st respondent by filing an execution petition seeking appropriate reliefs.

5.Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition, as against the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner had filed the present Appeal.

6.It is the contention of the appellant that by a voyage Charterparty dated 22.01.2018 entered into between the appellant and the 1^st respondent, the appellant as the disponent owner, agreed to carry a cargo of approximately 1,50,000 MT +/- 10% MOLOO (More or Less Owners Option) of coal on board a single Decker Bulk Carrier Capesize ship from Richards Bay Terminal, South Africa to Krishnapatnam Port, in this Country. The appellant then Chartered out a vessel MV Citrus for this purpose. The vessel arrived at Krishnapatnam Port on 30.01.2019 and proceeded to berth after discharge of 163,114 MT of coal. She left Krishnapatnam Port on 05.03.2019.

7.According to the terms of the Charterparty, the 1^st respondent was to ensure that 25,000 MT of cargo was discharged everyday after the vessel had tendered her notice of readiness at the port of discharge. Accordingly, cargo of quantity of 163,114 MT sh