JUDGMENT
S.A. Bobde, J.
1. Mr. Bharucha, learned counsel for the petitioner, tenders affidavit of 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 Nicholas 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”. Section 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 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 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 inferior to such principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes,”
In the present case, the said requirements are complied 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 Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd, v. Jindal Exports Ltd. , 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 Sections 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, Sections 47 to 49 and Scheme of the Act that every final arbitral award is to be enforced as if it were a decree of the Court. The submission that the execution petition could not be permitted to convert as an application under Section 47 is technical and is of no consequence in the view we have taken. In our opinion, for enforcement of foreign award there is no need to take separate proceedings, one for deciding the enforceability of the award to make rule of the Court or decree and the other to take up execution thereafter. In one proceeding, as already stated above, the Court enforcing a foreign award can deal with the entire matter. Even otherwise, this procedure does not prejudice a party in the light of what is stated (in para 40 of SCC): (Para 49 of AIR: CLC) of the Thyssen judgment.”
In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled to put the award in execution directly without taking out these proceedings for a determination that the award is enforceable.
5. In view of the observations of the Supreme Court, it is clear that the Supreme Court intended that the holder of a foreign award need not take out two proceedings, one for deciding the enforceability of the award and the other for its execution. Therefore, such an award can be directly put in execution and the executing Court would be entitled to execute it upon considering whether the award complies with the provisions of Part II Chapter I in relation to New York Convention Awards and Chapter II in relation to Geneva Convention Awards as may be applicable. It may be noted that when foreign decrees are put in execution under Section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure also the procedure does not contemplate two separate proceedings, one for deciding the enforceability of the foreign decree and the other for its execution.
6. In the circumstances, the petitioner is directed to put the award in execution in accordance with the rules of this Court.