Point of law : Section 34 of English Arbitration Act deals with procedural and evidential matters.

ORDER :

P Naveen Rao, J.

This revision is filed challenging the orders dated 24.9.2007 passed in E.P.No.54 of 2005 on the file of the XI Additional Chief Judge (FTC) City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Wide Ocean Shipping Service Limited of London, England(disponent), chartered ‘m.v.RIZCUN TRADERS’ to ITC Limited, Secunderabad, India (the charterers ) to carry a cargo of minimum 6250 mt of bagged soya bean meals extract with 5 % more at the option of charterers from Mumbai to Haichong. Charter-party (agreement) was made on 24.6.2000 in Dubai. Disputes arose between two contracting parties leading to appointment of arbitrators. The disponent owner set up claim for US $ 54,120.53 with interest and costs. The Charterers made counter claim for US $ 8,316.63 with interest and costs. The arbitrators passed award on 6.2.2003 holding that the charterers should pay the disponent owners US $ 52,153.53 together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum compounded by three monthly rests from 18.8.2000 to the date of payment. Arbitrator also awarded costs and interest on costs and fee and expenses payable to the arbitrators by the charterners.

3. On 11.6.2004, the arbitrators passed award of assessed costs quantifying the costs of NOK 94.262.33 together with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date of award. Arbitrator also awarded costs for passing this award.

4. Seeking enforcement of the said awards, E.P. 54 of 2005 was filed under Section 48 of Part II of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

5. The petitioner herein raised several objections for enforcement of foreign award. Brushing aside the objections, by order dated 24.9.2007 the Execution Court issued warrant of attachment against Execution Petition schedule properties. Aggrieved thereby, this revision is preferred.

6. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri G.V.S.Ganesh and learned counsel for respondent Sri A.Venkatesh.

7. It is contended that these foreign awards are not enforceable, therefore, Execution Petition ought to have been rejected at the threshold, as it was in utter violation of provisions of Section 48 (2) (b) of the Act, 1996. It is further contended that there was denial of principles of natural justice and fair hearing; that an award shall not be recognized or enforced if the person against whom it is sought to be enforced was unable to present his case; that even though petitioner requested for oral hearing, no oral hearing was held and award was passed based on written submissions. It was further contended that two independent awards cannot be passed as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Once an award is passed, the Arbitrator becomes functus officio and therefore cannot deal with the claims and pass additional/ another award, whereas, erroneously two awards are passed by the Arbitrators. It is further contended that Section 47, 47. Evidence.

1. The party applying for the enforcement of a foreign award shall, at the time of the application, produces before the court-

a. the original award or a copy thereof, duly authenticated in the manner required by the law of the country in which it was made;

b. the original agreement for arbitration or a duly certified thereof; and

c. such evidence as may he necessary to prove that the award is a foreign award.

1. …..

2. If the award or agreement to be produced under sub-section (1) is in a foreign language, the party seeking to enforce the award shall produce a translation into English certified as correct by a diplomatic or consular agent of the country to which that party belongs or certified as correct in such other manner as may be sufficient according to the law in force in India.

Explanation.- In this section and all the following sections of this Chapter, "Court" means the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction over t