Vijay Karia v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL

• Vijay Karia and Prysmian Cavi (Italian company) had a shareholders' agreement for an Indian JV
• Disputes were arbitrated in London under ICC Rules
• The tribunal made an award in favour of Prysmian Cavi
• Prysmian sought enforcement in India under Part II (S.44-52) of the 1996 Act
• Vijay Karia resisted enforcement on multiple grounds including "public policy of India"

1. What is the scope of "public policy of India" when refusing enforcement of a foreign award under S.48(2)(b)?
2. Is "patent illegality" a ground for refusing enforcement of a foreign award?
3. What approach should Indian courts adopt toward enforcement of New York Convention awards?

• Narrow public policy for foreign awards: For S.48 (foreign awards), "public policy of India" encompasses ONLY: (a) fundamental policy of Indian law; (b) basic notions of morality or justice. "Patent illegality" is NOT available.
• Pro-enforcement approach: Indian courts must adopt a pro-enforcement bias consistent with India's obligations under the New York Convention. Refusal of enforcement is the exception, not the rule.
• Cannot reappreciate merits: Courts under S.48 cannot reexamine the merits, reappreciate evidence, or correct errors of law/fact in the foreign award.
• "Fundamental policy" narrowly construed: Must be something so basic that it goes against the Indian notions of justice. Mere contravention of Indian statutory provisions is insufficient.

The enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under the New York Convention demands a pro-enforcement approach. S.48 provides limited, exceptional grounds for refusal. "Public policy" for foreign awards is the narrowest: only fundamental policy and morality/justice. No patent illegality. Courts cannot sit in appeal over foreign awards.