## Facts

- C.O.S.I.D. Inc. and an associated claimant (together, COSID), U.S. parties, and Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL), an Indian steel manufacturer partly owned by the Government of India, exchanged letters that formed a contract for SAIL to sell steel sheet coils to COSID.
- The transaction was governed by SAIL’s standard terms and conditions, which included an arbitration clause referring disputes to arbitration under ICC Rules seated in London, England.
- A dispute arose after SAIL failed to ship the contracted steel. COSID commenced ICC arbitration in London.
- A sole arbitrator issued a final award in favor of COSID, awarding damages of **US $1,647,495.9**, interest at **12% per annum from the date of the award until payment**, and costs.
- COSID then obtained an order from the High Court in England making the award enforceable as a judgment under **section 26 of the English Arbitration Act 1950**.
- COSID filed enforcement proceedings in the Delhi High Court seeking recognition and enforcement of the London ICC award in India as a “foreign award” under the **Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961** (India’s New York Convention legislation at the time).
- SAIL resisted enforcement on several grounds, including (i) that once the award was made a judgment in England it “merged” into that judgment and could no longer be enforced in India as an award, and (ii) that enforcement would be contrary to Indian public policy and Indian law.

## Issues

1. Whether an ICC award made in London ceases to be enforceable in India as a “foreign award” because it was made enforceable as a judgment by the English High Court (the “merger” objection).
2. Whether enforcement should be refused on the ground that enforcement would be contrary to Indian public policy (including alleged violation of Indian law), within the limited refusal grounds under the Foreign Awards Act/New York Convention framework.

## Decision

- The Delhi High Court rejected SAIL’s contention that the award’s conversion into an English judgment extinguished the award for purposes of enforcement in India.
- The court held that the award could still be treated and enforced in India as a “foreign award” under the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961, even though an English court had made it enforceable as a judgment.
- The court did not accept SAIL’s public-policy objections as sufficient to refuse enforcement under the statutory/Convention grounds.
- The court allowed COSID to proceed with recognition and enforcement of the London ICC award in India under the Foreign Awards Act.

## Legal Principles

- A foreign arbitral award does not lose its character as an “award” for New York Convention enforcement purposes merely because a court at the seat (or country of origin) has made it enforceable as a judgment under its domestic arbitration statute (here, section 26 of the English Arbitration Act 1950).
- “Merger” into an enforcing-court judgment is not the same as an award being “set aside” or “suspended” by a competent authority in the country of origin; absent setting aside or suspension, the award remains capable of recognition and enforcement under the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961.
- The grounds to refuse enforcement of a foreign award under the Foreign Awards Act/New York Convention are limited; objections framed as public policy or violation of Indian law must meet the statutory threshold for refusal, and mere disagreement with the award or its outcome is insufficient.
- When the award creditor satisfies the statutory requirements for a “foreign award,” Indian courts may enforce it notwithstanding parallel steps taken abroad to convert the award into an executable judgment.

## Conclusion

In *Cosid, Inc. v. Steel Auth. of India, Ltd.*, the Delhi High Court enforced a London ICC award under India’s Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961, holding that the award remained enforceable in India even after the English High Court made it enforceable as a judgment, and rejecting SAIL’s merger and public-policy objections.


Cosid, Inc. v. Steel Auth. of India, Ltd., XI Y.B. Com. Arb. 502 (Del. High Ct. 1986).