Skip to content

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

A foreign tribunal seated in a notified territory decided two issues: a price dispute that the parties had referred, and a separate claim for a trademark licence that was never referred to arbitration. The two decisions can be separated. Mehta Industries resists enforcement in India. What is the correct position under Section 48(1)(c)?

Only the price-dispute part may be enforced. Section 48(1)(c) lets enforcement be refused for matters beyond the submission, but its proviso permits enforcing the separable part that deals with matters actually submitted to arbitration, so the whole award is not automatically refused.

  1. AThe whole award must be refused enforcement because part is beyond the submission
  2. BThe whole award must be enforced because the tribunal had jurisdiction over the price dispute
  3. COnly the part dealing with the price dispute may be enforced, as it can be separated from the part beyond the submissionCorrect
  4. DThe court must send the whole award back to the tribunal for a fresh decision

Explanation

Section 48(1)(c) allows refusal where the award goes beyond the submission, but its proviso says that if decisions on matters submitted can be separated from those not submitted, the part on submitted matters may be enforced. Refusing the whole award ignores this proviso.

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