R.F.NARIMAN,J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The present appeal arises from the judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated 09.02.2017, in which a petition filed to enforce a foreign award was allowed. Several grounds were taken before the learned single Judge. We are concerned with only one ground that has been argued before us, namely, that as the award has not been stamped, it cannot be enforced under Sections 48 and 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("1996 Act").
(3.) The brief facts that are necessary for determination of the present controversy are as follows: 3. 1. An ICC award was delivered in London on 12.02.2015 by Mr. Christopher Style QC in the following terms: "363. After consideration of all the factual and legal submissions which have been presented to me and for the reasons set out in full above, I award, declare and adjudge as follows: (1) I declare that I have no jurisdiction over the Second and Third Respondents. (2) I declare that Rioglass is obliged to issue a Performance Bank Guarantee as provided for in clause 6 of the Agreement, as amended by Amendment No.1. (3) I declare that Rioglass is entitled to sell as scrap the mirrors that it holds in storage in relation to Delivery Four. (4) I declare that Shriram acted in breach of the Agreement in the respects set out above. (5) I order Shriram to pay Rioglass Rs. 4,366,598.70, consisting of damages amounting to Rs. 4,151,570.52 and interest amounting to Rs. 215,028.18." 3. 2. Objections dated 21.07.2015 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 were filed by the Appellant which were dismissed on 27.09.2016, stating that a petition under Section 34 would be maintainable as against a foreign award, citing this Court's judgment in Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc., (2012) 9 SCC 552. Meanwhile, the Respondent filed a petition under Section 47 of the 1996 Act, dated 05.08.2015, to enforce the said award. As stated hereinabove, all objections to the said award were rejected by the learned Single Judge on 09.02.2017. An appeal to the Division Bench resulted in an Order dated 14.03.2018, stating that in view of Section 50 of the 1996 Act, the said appeal would be maintainable. This is how the present SLP has been filed against the decision of the learned Single Judge.;