Point of Law :
Applying the criteria it must be held that the enforcement of a foreign award would be refused on the ground that it is contrary to public policy if such enforcement would be contrary to (i) fundamental policy of Indian law; or (ii) the interests of India; or (iii) justice or morality

ORDER :

A. Rajasekhar Reddy, J.

1. This execution petition has been filed under Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") read with Sections 2(1)(c), 7 and 10(1) of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015, seeking enforcement of foreign arbitral award dated 28.6.2018 passed by the Sole Arbitrator, in Arb. No. 285 of 2017 at Singapore.

2. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this petition are as under:

The petitioner is a foreign company viz., Avra Commodities Pte. Ltd., based at Singapore and it is represented by its Director. The instant petition has been necessitated by reason of the refusal of the respondent company viz., Meenakshi Energy Limited, having its Registered Office at Hyderabad, India, to satisfy the arbitral award dated 28.6.2018 passed by the Sole Arbitrator, in Arb. No. 285 of 2017 under the arbitration rules of Singapore International Arbitration Centre SIAC Rules (6th Edition, 1st August, 2016) (hereinafter referred to as "SIAC Rules") in respect of dispute and differences arose out of a coal supply contract dated 3.6.2016 (for short, "the contract") made and executed by and between the parties.

3. By dint of the contract, the petitioner agreed to sell and the respondent agreed to purchase 1,25,000 Metric Tones (MT) of stem (non-cooking) coal in bulk to be delivered FOB by ship in two shipments of 50,000 MT and 75,000 MT respectively on certain terms and conditions. The dispute between the parties in the arbitration essentially revolved around the quality, more particularly the Gross Calorific Value (GCV), of coal delivered by the petitioner. The petitioner relied upon the certificate of analysis of the Load Port Independent Inspection Agency (for short, "the LPILA") designated under the contract which certified the GCV of coal as being more than the rejection limit. That although the contract contained a mechanism for resolution of disputes pertaining to determination of quality of coal, at Clause 11 thereof, which, provided that it would be open for either party to insist on the third umpire sample or "split" of the coal to be tested by an internationally recognized laboratory located in a neutral country as may be mutually agreed upon by the parties in the event of any disagreement regarding the determination made by the LPHA, such mechanism was not resorted to or insisted upon by the respondent. That instead, the respondent choose to arbitrarily cancel the contract, but later agreed to take delivery of the first shipment of 55,000 MT of coal purportedly on the understanding that one Harshavardhan Sethi of PT Bina Insan Sukses Mandiri had negotiated a settlement with the respondent on behalf of the petitioner for a reduction in the unit price of the coal in departure from the rate specified in the agreement. While the respondent made part payment against the invoice raised apropos the first shipment, a sum of about 83,160 USD remained due and unpaid. That so far as the second shipment of 75,000 MT was concerned, the respondent outrightly refused to take delivery of coal. That such a refusal amounted to breach of contract thus entitling the petitioner to claim damages. That in the circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to invoke the arbitration agreement contained in Clause 26 of the contract and referred its claims to arbitration. That inasmuch as the arbitration agreement envisaged the dispute to be referred to and resolved by arbitration conducted by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, the petitioner filed a notice of arbitration with the Registrar, SIAC on 23.8.2017. That the respondent having received notice of arbitration, also made a counter-claim against the petitioner. The respondent further agreed to the arbitration being conducted in terms of the expedited procedure envisaged under Rule 5 of the SIAC Rules. That the parties filed their respective p