## Facts

- Renusagar Power Co. Ltd., an Indian company, contracted with General Electric Co., a New York corporation, in 1964 for equipment and services for a thermal power plant in Uttar Pradesh, India.
- The contract selected New York law and provided for ICC arbitration of disputes.
- A dispute arose after India withdrew an income-tax exemption on interest payable to GE; Renusagar withheld interest and related payments while challenging the withdrawal in Indian courts.
- GE commenced ICC arbitration in 1982; the tribunal issued a final award on September 16, 1986 largely for GE, including amounts characterized as compensatory (effectively compounded) interest and costs.
- While arbitration was pending, Renusagar pursued parallel litigation in India, including a suit in Mirzapur; Renusagar argued the tribunal should treat itself as functus officio due to the Mirzapur court’s refusal to stay the suit.
- GE petitioned the Bombay High Court to recognize and enforce the award as a “foreign award” under the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961.
- A Bombay High Court single judge ordered enforcement; on appeal, the Division Bench affirmed, rejecting Renusagar’s defenses to enforcement.

## Issues

1. Whether pending Indian litigation and an initial refusal to stay that litigation rendered the ICC tribunal functus officio so as to bar enforcement of the award.
2. Whether Renusagar proved any statutory defense to enforcement under § 7 of the Foreign Awards Act, including inability to present its case.
3. Whether enforcement was contrary to the “public policy of India,” including due to alleged violations of Indian tax and foreign-exchange regulation.
4. Whether the enforcing court could re-examine the merits of the tribunal’s findings at the enforcement stage.

## Decision

- The Bombay High Court enforced the ICC award and entered judgment for GE.
- The court held the tribunal was not functus officio; parallel domestic proceedings did not negate arbitral jurisdiction under the parties’ agreement.
- The court found Renusagar had a full opportunity to present its case in arbitration and failed to establish the “unable to present its case” defense.
- The court rejected public-policy and illegality objections, concluding that enforcement did not contravene India’s public policy within the meaning of the Foreign Awards Act.
- The court declined to revisit factual or legal correctness of the award, limiting review to the statutory defenses.

## Legal Principles

- A foreign award is enforceable unless the resisting party establishes a statutory ground for refusal under the Foreign Awards Act.
- The pendency of overlapping domestic litigation, or an erroneous interim refusal to stay such litigation, does not by itself deprive an ICC tribunal of jurisdiction or invalidate the resulting award.
- “Unable to present its case” is directed to serious procedural unfairness or denial of reasonable opportunity; it is not satisfied by disagreement with the tribunal’s procedural rulings or a party’s strategic posture.
- The public-policy exception to enforcing foreign awards is construed narrowly; contravention of law is insufficient unless it is fundamental enough to implicate the basic policy of the forum, the interests of the state, or justice or morality.
- Enforcement proceedings for foreign awards are not an appeal on the merits; courts do not re-litigate the underlying contractual dispute.

## Conclusion

The Bombay High Court enforced GE’s ICC foreign award against Renusagar, rejecting defenses based on alleged loss of arbitral jurisdiction, due-process objections, and asserted public-policy illegality, and reaffirming that enforcement review is confined to the limited statutory grounds rather than the merits of the award.


Renusagar Power Co. (India) v. Gen. Elec. Co. (U.S.), 16 Y.B. Com. Arb. 553 (Bom. High Ct. 1991)