The enforcement of foreign awards may be executed directly without separate proceedings for enforceability as long as statutory requirements are met.

1. Mr. Bharucha, learned counsel for the petitioner, tenders affidavit or service dated 19-6-2002 on the respondent.

2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks in effect enforcement of a New York Convention award dated 16-12-2001 passed by Nicholos S. Swales, the sole Arbitrator at Singapore. The enforcement of such an award is covered by part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , hereinafter referred to as the _Act". S.47 requires the party to comply with certain requirements. It reads as follows:
"47. Evidence. - (1) The party applying for the enforcement of a foreign award shall, at the time of the application, produce 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 copy thereof; and
(c) such evidence as may be necessary to prove that the award is a foreign award.
(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 certifying 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 principal jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction over the subject - matter of the award if the same had been the subject - matter of a suit, but does not include any Civil Court of a grade interior to such principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes."
In the present case, the said requirements are complled with. The original award is at Exh. A to the petition. A certified copy of the agreement for arbitration i.e. clause 23 is tendered which is taken on record and marked X for identification. One Goh Soon Hock, a Notary Public duly enrolled and authorised in Singapore has certified and attested a copy of the final award. A certified true copy is sufficient evidence that the award is a foreign award.

3. In view of the above, I am satisfied that the award in question is enforceable under this Chapter as a decree of this Court.

4. In M/s. Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd. , AIR 2001 SC 2293 : 2001 CLC 746 the Supreme Court has made the following observations in para 29 while considering the difference between an award under the Foreign Award Act and the present Act:
"The only difference as found is that while under the Foreign Award Act a decree follows: Under the new Act the foreign award is already stamped as the decree. Thus, in our view, a party holding foreign award, can apply for enforcement of it but the Court before taking further effective steps for the execution of the award has to proceed in accordance with S.47 to 49. In one proceeding there may be different stages. In the first stage the Court may have to decide about the enforceability of the award having regard to the requirement of the said provisions. Once the Court decides that foreign award is enforceable, it can proceed to take further effective steps for execution of the same. There arises no question of making foreign award as a rule of Court / decree again. If the object and purpose can be served in the same proceedings, in our view, there is no need to take two separate proceedings resulting in multiplicity of litigation. It is also clear from objectives contained in para 4 of the Statement of Objects and Reasons, S.47 to 49 and Scheme of the Act that eve