Supreme Court – Foreign Arbitral Award Cannot be Re-litigated in Section 48 Enforcement Court on Grounds Rejected by Singapore High Court
The disputes arose on the “exit” to be provided to the investors and FSSPL & its promoters failed to provide such an exit from the Share Acquisition and Shareholders Agreement (SASHA) between FSSPL, its promoters Mylandlas and the private equity investors.
Three-member Arbitral Tribunal under the Singapore International Arbitration Act, 1994 and the Arbitration Rules of Singapore International Arbitration Centre, passed the Award on 5.7.2024.
Singapore High Court had refused to set aside the said award, vide its order dated 11.2.2025.
Thereafter, the Madras High Court declared that the said award is enforceable as a decree vide common order dated 22.9.2025.
Various contentions including that the Foreign Award is in violation of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, were raised before the Supreme Court.
though the grounds under Section 48 of the Arbitration Act would have to be applied independently, in the course of such an exercise by the enforcement court in India, a party which has failed in its challenge to the arbitral award before the seat court cannot seek to reopen factual issues that were argued on merits and settled by such court once again before the enforcement court. One must remember that it is the sovereign commitment of India to honour foreign awards, except on the exhaustive grounds provided under Article V of the New York Convention.
it is not open to a party whose contentions on the merits of a particular issue on facts have been rejected by the seat court to seek review thereof by the enforcement court. Such a ‘merits-based’ evaluation is beyond the scope of the enforcement court’s jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Arbitration Act and would be barred by application of the doctrine of ‘transnational issue estoppel’.
In that context, the Supreme Court not only dismissed challenge to the arbitral award but also imposed costs of Rs.25 lakhs payable to the investors.
The special leave petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. As we find that this was, to put it in the words of Vijay Karia (supra), a mudslinging effort by the Mylandlas with the hope that some of the mud so flung would stick, they are richly deserving of being mulcted with further costs. We, accordingly, dismiss the special leave petitions with further costs of ₹25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Lakh only) to be paid by the Mylandlas jointly to each of the Investors.
Judgment dated 25.3.2026 of the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Nos.31866-68 of 2025 of Nagaraj V. Mylandla Vs. PI Opportunities fund-I and others ETC with connected matter.
