CHI COMMODITIES HANDLERS INC. Vs. NAJEEM CASHEW INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two original petitions are between the same parties. O.P.(C) No. 554 of 2015 was filed with following prayers:

(2.) The only point arising in this case is about the application of the principles in Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, "Act"). It deals with enforcement of a foreign awards. For clarity, the said Section is reproduced hereunder:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the court below is not in accordance with the mandate of Section 48 of the Act. I find that the order is not only terse, but also not conforming to the parameters of Section 48 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the courts having jurisdiction to enforce foreign awards are not doing it in a time bound manner causing much difficulties to the parties to arbitration and also thereby defeating the object of the Act. It is, therefore, requested that a general direction be issued to all the courts to expedite hearing and disposal of such matters. The provisions in the Act itself give out clear indications that the matters relating to enforcement of arbitration awards must be done as expeditiously as possible. Further, the object of the Act is to cut short the length of litigation and also to attain finality to the disputes between the parties wherein they agree to go for an arbitration. Considering the scheme of the Act as well as the object to be achieved, I am of the view that the courts, which are empowered to deal with enforcement of foreign awards, shall meticulously and scrupulously comply with the stipulations in the Act and dispose of the case within the time frame. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the observations in paragraph 4 of the decision in Konkan Railway Corpn. Ltd. v. Mehul Construction Co., 2000 7 SCC 201. It reads as follows: