[ Hugo Neu Corporation v. M/s. Llyods Steel Inds. Ltd.,
AIR 2009 (NOC) 2483 (Bom.); 2009 (5) AIR Bom R. 158]
A petition was filed u/s.47 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking Enforcement of an Award dated 10th October
1999, made in United States of America.
The question raised for consideration was whether the party
viz., the petitioner applying for enforcement of a Foreign Award has at
the time of the application produced before the Court the documents stipulated
by S. 47(1)(a) to (c) and whether the petitioner has produced a copy of the 26
Award duly authenticated in the manner required by the law of U.S.A.
There was no dispute that the Award is a foreign Award. To
that extent the evidence had also been produced. There was no dispute that
there was an agreement for Arbitration.
It was held that the petition should be accompanied by the
Award or a duly authenticated copy thereof. As per Rule 803-C of the Bombay
High Court O.S. Rules. Reading S. 47(1) so also Rule 803(C)(c) together, all
that was required was that the party applying for enforcement of Foreign Award
shall at the time of the application produce before the Court, the original
Award or copy thereof.
In facts of present case admittedly, the petitioner had
produced a copy of the Award duly authenticated under the law prevailing in
U.S.A.
The petitioner had also filed the affidavit to satisfy the
Court that the copy of the Award accompanying the Arbitration petition was
duly authenticated in the manner required by the law of the country in which
it was made. Respondent does not dispute the manner in which the
authentication has been done.
The Court held that a duly authenticated copy of the Award
was already filed and what was lacking was proof of the manner in which it was
authenticated but even that aspect has now been clarified by the affidavit and
the objection raised was overruled.
