Skip to content

CS Professional · Arbitration, Mediation and Conciliation · International Law of Arbitration

A foreign award was made in Singapore between Rao Infra Ltd and Pacific Marine Pte Ltd. Rao Infra resists enforcement in India, proving the Singapore court annulled the award at the seat. The other conditions of section 57(1) are met and no public policy issue exists. What is the position?

The Indian court must refuse enforcement. Section 57(2)(a) provides that even if the section 57(1) conditions are met, enforcement shall be refused where the award has been annulled in the country in which it was made. The discretion in section 57(3) covers different grounds.

  1. AThe Indian court may still enforce it, as annulment abroad is irrelevant
  2. BThe Indian court may adjourn and enforce it after review on merits
  3. CThe Indian court must refuse enforcement, because under section 57(2)(a) an award annulled in the country where it was made is not enforcedCorrect
  4. DThe Indian court decides on its discretion under section 57(3) whether to refuse

Explanation

Section 57(2) says that even where section 57(1) is satisfied, enforcement shall be refused if the Court is satisfied the award was annulled in the country in which it was made. This is mandatory. Section 57(3) deals with other grounds under the law governing the procedure and is discretionary, so option D is wrong.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on International Law of Arbitration shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise International Law of ArbitrationFree diagnostic mock

More International Law of Arbitration questions