Jaipur High Court: 17.09.2025
The Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) has declared GAFTA Appeal Award No. 4618A dated 28.09.2021—a London award in favour of Kingsroad Handelsges M.B.H.—to be a decree of this Court and directed enforcement under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The court rejected the respondent’s public-policy objections and ordered the respondent to disclose assets within six weeks for execution.
Background and prayers
Kingsroad Handelsges M.B.H. (petitioner) and Raj Grow Impex LLP (respondent) entered into three contracts dated 03.09.2018 for the supply of 4,188.740 MT of whole yellow peas with Kolkata as port of destination. After shipment in November 2018 a dispute arose and the parties referred the matter to GAFTA arbitration in London. GAFTA issued an award dated 03.08.2020 in favour of the sellers; the respondent’s appeal before GAFTA’s Board of Appeal (Appeal No. 4618A) was dismissed and the award was enhanced by the Appellate Award dated 28.09.2021. The petitioner filed an application in the Rajasthan High Court under Part II of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking that the foreign award be declared a decree of the Court and be executed.
Relief claimed under the award
The petitioner sought enforcement of sums awarded by GAFTA including the main sums, interest, demurrage, storage/handling, legal expenses and tribunal costs — a total reflected in the award (USD and specified components were set out in the GAFTA awards). The petitioner prayed that the award be declared a decree and that the respondent’s movable and immovable assets be attached and sold to satisfy the award.
Respondent’s objections
The respondent opposed enforcement primarily on the ground that the foreign award was contrary to Indian public policy. It argued, inter alia, that certain payments were made abroad (lending/shipping charges paid outside India) causing GST and other losses to the respondent and the Government of India — objections which the respondent says the foreign tribunals failed to appreciate. The respondent therefore sought dismissal of the enforcement petition.
Issues for the Court
The central legal issue was whether the High Court, under Section 48 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, could refuse enforcement of the GAFTA foreign award on the respondent’s public-policy / merit-based objections, or whether enforcement should be permitted in view of the narrow scope of interference with foreign awards recognized under the New York Convention and Indian precedent.
Analysis by the High Court
The Single Judge (Anup Kumar Dhand, J.) undertook a detailed review of authorities including Renusagar, Saw Pipes, Shri Lal Mahal, Vedanta, Eitzen Bulk, and Avitel, and followed the line of authority that the court’s power to refuse enforcement of a foreign award under Section 48 is narrow and does not permit a merits-based re-appraisal. The court emphasized the international and pro-enforcement character of the New York Convention and the limited, exhaustive grounds under Section 48(2)(b) — enforcement may be refused only if it is contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law, the interests of India, or justice or morality. The court observed that since the respondent had not availed itself of remedies under the English Arbitration Act in the prescribed time and had not participated meaningfully in the arbitration, it was estopped from reopening merits at the enforcement stage.
The judgment reiterates that procedural defects or alleged errors in appreciation of evidence by the foreign tribunal do not normally justify refusal of enforcement. The court also discussed global authority on bias and enforcement, and cautioned that allegations such as bias or irregularity require a high threshold when raised at enforcement stage.
Holding and directions
The Court rejected the respondent’s objections as unsustainable at the enforcement stage and held:
The GAFTA Appeal Award dated 28.09.2021 (Appeal Award No. 4618-A) is enforceable and is to be treated as a decree of the Rajasthan High Court under Section 49 of the Act.
The award is binding on the parties under Section 46 and liable to be executed under Section 48.
The respondent was directed to file an affidavit disclosing its assets within six weeks before the executing court to enable enforcement. The petitioner is at liberty to seek further directions for execution in accordance with law.
The application was disposed of accordingly and there were no orders as to costs.
Practical takeaways for practitioners
Enforcement stage is not an appeal on merits. Challenges under Section 48 are limited and courts apply a narrow “public policy” test in line with New York Convention jurisprudence; merits or factual disputes ordinarily do not block enforcement.
Timely challenge in the arbitration forum is essential. If a party fails to use available remedies (for example under the seat-law / English Arbitration Act where the seat is England), courts will treat the failure as estoppel against merit-based reopening.
High threshold for alleging bias or procedural irregularity. When raised at enforcement stage such allegations face a heightened standard of proof and careful, narrow scrutiny.
Exact operative lines quoted from the judgment (for citation)
“Thus, the objections raised by the respondent do not hold any substance, and the same are hereby rejected.”
“In view of the above factual situation, the Foreign Award dated 28.09.2021 passed by the Grain and Feed Trade Association (GAFTA) in Appeal Award No. 4618-A is accordingly treated as a decree of this Court.”
