Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. v Progetto Grano Spa
Rule established
For enforcement of foreign awards under S.48, 'public policy' does not include 'patent illegality'; scope is narrower than S.34 for domestic awards
Facts
- Shri Lal Mahal (Indian company) and Progetto Grano (Italian company) had a contract for export of durum wheat semolina
- Dispute arbitrated under GAFTA Rules in London
- Award made in favour of Progetto Grano
- Progetto sought enforcement in India under Part II (New York Convention)
- Shri Lal Mahal resisted enforcement arguing the award was "patently illegal" and contrary to public policy
Issue
- Whether "patent illegality appearing on the face of the award" (as expanded by ONGC v Saw Pipes) is a ground for refusing enforcement of a foreign award under S.48(2)(b).
Held
- Patent illegality is NOT a ground for refusing enforcement of foreign awards under S.48.
- For S.48, "public policy" is restricted to: (a) fundamental policy of Indian law; (b) interests of India; (c) justice or morality.
- The wider scope given by ONGC v Saw Pipes (2003) applies only to domestic awards under S.34.
- Courts must adopt a pro-enforcement approach for New York Convention awards.
- Mere contravention of Indian statutory provisions is insufficient to refuse enforcement.
Ratio Decidendi
The public policy ground for foreign awards (S.48) is narrower than for domestic awards (S.34). Patent illegality cannot be imported into S.48. India's obligations under the New York Convention require a pro-enforcement bias. Foreign awards can be refused only on the most fundamental public policy grounds.
How to use it in an exam
Key line: "For foreign awards under S.48, public policy does NOT include patent illegality. Only fundamental policy of Indian law and basic notions of morality/justice apply."
Source
Source: Supreme Court judgment
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.