JUDGMENT

1. The award holder – Mercator Ltd., has filed these proceedings for enforcement of three awards [all dated 15.03.2018], against the judgment debtor - Dredging Corporation of India Ltd. By this common judgment, I propose to dispose of the objections raised by the judgment debtor, to the enforcement proceedings.

I. Factual Background

2. The arbitral proceedings arose under three charterparty agreements - dated 23.08.2007, 12.10.2007 and 24.04.2008, in respect of dredgers Triloki Prem, Banwari (Darshani) Prem and Bhagwati Prem [respectively], owned by the award holder, which were taken on hire by the judgment debtor. Although the arbitral proceedings culminated in three separate awards, it is undisputed that the issues raised in the judgment debtor’s objections are similar in these cases. They have, therefore, been heard together.

3. At an earlier stage, there was some controversy as to whether the awards under enforcement fall within Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“the Arbitration Act”] (applicable to India-seated arbitral proceedings) or under Part II of the Arbitration Act (applicable to foreign-seated arbitral proceedings), the issue has been settled in an earlier round of proceedings in this Court. The awards under enforcement were first challenged by the judgment debtor before this Court.1 The challenges were rejected by a common judgment dated 10.10.2018, on the ground of jurisdiction, holding that the seat of arbitration was in London and that this Court, therefore, lacked jurisdiction to entertain proceedings for setting aside the awards. The judgment debtor thereafter filed petitions for setting aside of the awards under Section 68 of the English Arbitration Act, 1996, before the High Court of Justice of England and Wales [“the seat Court”], which were dismissed by a judgment dated 25.01.2019.

4. The enforcement proceedings have, therefore, proceeded on the basis that the seat of the arbitral proceedings in each of the three cases was in London.

5. In the course of these proceedings, the judgment debtor was directed to deposit certain amounts into Court. These directions have been partially complied with, and an amount of Rs.21 crores has been deposited, out of the total awarded sum.2 Although the judgment debtor had undertaken to make a further deposit of Rs.8 crores by 30.11.2023,3 it failed to make the deposit and instead filed applications4 seeking deferment of further deposits until disposal of the objections.

II. Submissions and Preliminary Points

6. I have heard Mr. Adhish Rajvanshi, learned counsel for the judgment debtor/objector and Mr. Amitava Majumdar, learned counsel for the award holder, on the objections. They have also filed written submissions, albeit belatedly.

1InO.M.P.(COMM.)334/2018,O.M.P.(COMM.)335/2018andO.M.P.(COMM.)336/2018.

2 Inthe order dated 09.02.2024, the awarded sum wasrecorded as Rs. 72 crores, inclusive of interest untilthen.

3Asrecordedintheorderdated11.09.2023.

4 Ex. Appl. (OS) 1620/2023 in OMP (EFA) (COMM) 2/2019, Ex. Appl. (OS) 1622/2023 in OMP (EFA)(COMM)3/2019andEx.Appl.(OS)1621/2023inOMP(EFA)(COMM)4/2019.

7. During oral arguments, it was contended by Mr. Raghuvanshi that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. This contention has not been pressed in the judgment debtor’s written submissions. In any event, it is the admitted position that the judgment debtor’s registered office is located within the jurisdiction of this Court. In an affidavit dated 01.12.2022, filed by the judgment debtor, it has disclosed property at “1st Floor, “SCOPE MINAR” Plot No. 2A & 2B, Laxminagar District Centre, Delhi” as part of its immovable properties. The enforcement of an award can be sought in any jurisdiction where the judgment debtor has assets. The objection is, therefore, unmerited.

8. In the written submissions filed by the judgment debtor, only three objections have been pressed:

A. The composition of the arbitral tribunal was not in accordance with