ORDER : A. Rajasekhar Reddy, J. 1. This execution petition has been filed under Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") read with Sections 2(1)(c), 7 and 10(1) of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015, seeking enforcement of foreign arbitral award dated 28.6.2018 passed by the Sole Arbitrator, in Arb. No. 285 of 2017 at Singapore. 2. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this petition are as under: The petitioner is a foreign company viz., Avra Commodities Pte. Ltd., based at Singapore and it is represented by its Director. The instant petition has been necessitated by reason of the refusal of the respondent company viz., Meenakshi Energy Limited, having its Registered Office at Hyderabad, India, to satisfy the arbitral award dated 28.6.2018 passed by the Sole Arbitrator, in Arb. No. 285 of 2017 under the arbitration rules of Singapore International Arbitration Centre SIAC Rules (6th Edition, 1st August, 2016) (hereinafter referred to as "SIAC Rules") in respect of dispute and differences arose out of a coal supply contract dated 3.6.2016 (for short, "the contract") made and executed by and between the parties. 3. By dint of the contract, the petitioner agreed to sell and the respondent agreed to purchase 1,25,000 Metric Tones (MT) of stem (non-cooking) coal in bulk to be delivered FOB by ship in two shipments of 50,000 MT and 75,000 MT respectively on certain terms and conditions. The dispute between the parties in the arbitration essentially revolved around the quality, more particularly the Gross Calorific Value (GCV), of coal delivered by the petitioner. The petitioner relied upon the certificate of analysis of the Load Port Independent Inspection Agency (for short, "the LPILA") designated under the contract which certified the GCV of coal as being more than the rejection limit. The petitioner relied upon the certificate of analysis of the Load Port Independent Inspection Agency (for short, "the LPILA") designated under the contract which certified the GCV of coal as being more than the rejection limit. That although the contract contained a mechanism for resolution of disputes pertaining to determination of quality of coal, at Clause 11 thereof, which, provided that it would be open for either party to insist on the third umpire sample or "split" of the coal to be tested by an internationally recognized laboratory located in a neutral country as may be mutually agreed upon by the parties in the event of any disagreement regarding the determination made by the LPHA, such mechanism was not resorted to or insisted upon by the respondent. That instead, the respondent choose to arbitrarily cancel the contract, but later agreed to take delivery of the first shipment of 55,000 MT of coal purportedly on the understanding that one Harshavardhan Sethi of PT Bina Insan Sukses Mandiri had negotiated a settlement with the respondent on behalf of the petitioner for a reduction in the unit price of the coal in departure from the rate specified in the agreement. While the respondent made part payment against the invoice raised apropos the first shipment, a sum of about 83,160 USD remained due and unpaid. That so far as the second shipment of 75,000 MT was concerned, the respondent outrightly refused to take delivery of coal. That such a refusal amounted to breach of contract thus entitling the petitioner to claim damages. That in the circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to invoke the arbitration agreement contained in Clause 26 of the contract and referred its claims to arbitration. That inasmuch as the arbitration agreement envisaged the dispute to be referred to and resolved by arbitration conducted by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, the petitioner filed a notice of arbitration with the Registrar, SIAC on 23.8.2017. That the respondent having received notice of arbitration, also made a counter-claim against the petitioner. The respondent further agreed to the arbitration being conducted in terms of the expedited procedure envisaged under Rule 5 of the SIAC Rules. That the parties filed their respective pleadings, witness affidavits, replies, rejoinders, memorandum of cases, written submission etc., from time to time in terms of the procedural orders passed in that behalf. The respondent further agreed to the arbitration being conducted in terms of the expedited procedure envisaged under Rule 5 of the SIAC Rules. That the parties filed their respective pleadings, witness affidavits, replies, rejoinders, memorandum of cases, written submission etc., from time to time in terms of the procedural orders passed in that behalf. By consent of parties, the need for presentation of witnesses in person for oral/cross-examination was dispensed with and it was agreed that the dispute would be adjudicated upon on the basis of documents and oral submissions. The respondent, before the Arbitrator filed his statement of defence to the claim made by the petitioner. That in the counter-claim filed by the respondent he sought for a declaration that the coal supplied by the petitioner was of inferior grade and did not conform to the minimum requirements prescribed and thus entitled to terminate the contract. 4. Respondent filed his objections in this execution petition wherein inter-alia it is contended that the award dated 28.6.2018 is unenforceable under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the Act"), for being contrary to the public policy of India. That the award dated 28.6.2018 is in violation of principles of natural justice, biased in approach and without considering the pleadings and issues raised and documentary evidence filed by the respondent, in support of its cases. That the Sole Arbitrator had failed to take into account and apply the relevant clauses of the coal supply contract entered into between the decree holder/petitioner and the judgment debtor/respondent. 5. According to the case of the respondent-judgment debtor, respondent being in business of power generation is always on a lookout for coal and was thus, in its usual course of business, approached by one Harshavardhan Sethi, representing himself to be the owner of PT Bina Insan Sukses Mandiri in (PT BISM) Coal Mine in Indonesia. That in November, 2016, the respondent and the said Harshavardhan Sethi had discussion with regard to the purchase of coal and in furtherance of the discussions, the said Harshavardhan Sethi represented to the respondent that the coal would be supplied by the petitioner. Based on that representation, the respondent, after negotiations with the petitioner entered into a contract agreement on 3.12.2016 for sale and purchase of 1,25,000 MT of Indonesian steam coal. Based on that representation, the respondent, after negotiations with the petitioner entered into a contract agreement on 3.12.2016 for sale and purchase of 1,25,000 MT of Indonesian steam coal. The terms and conditions as provided under Clause 3 of the Contract Agreement, among others are thus: Point of Sale : FOB Samarinda Port, Indonesia, Inconterms 2010 Description of Goods : Steam (non-cooking) coal in bulk Contract Quantity and Load Port Laycan: 1st Vessel : 50,000 MT between 10th-9th December, 2016 (1st shipment) 2nd Vessel : 75,000 MT between 8th-17th January, 2017 (2nd shipment) Jetty : PT BISM, East Kalimantan Discharge Port: Krishnapatnam Port, India. 6. That the typical coal specification and rejection limits were provided in Clause 4 of the contract agreement. The typical GCV (Gross Calorific Value) was fixed at 3,350 Kcal/kg and it was agreed between the parties that if the GCV is below 3,200 Kcal/kg., the whole shipment of coal shall be classified as 'non-complying delivery' and would be liable to be rejected. That the base rates for the coal were set out in Clause 5 of the agreement, viz., 1st shipment: US $30.90 per MT, 2nd shipment : US $32.80 per MT. That PT IOL was mutually agreed to be engaged as an independent third party Inspection agency ("LPIIA") for carrying out draft survey, sampling and analysis of coal cargo. That Clause 7 of the agreement provided for price adjustment on the basis of Load Port Certificate of Analysis ("LPCOA") and the Quality was to the determined as per the sampling procedure provided under Clause 11 of the agreement. That the (Gross Calorific Value) GCV of coal delivered by the petitioner was 3,230 Kcal/kg i.e., above the rejection limit, while the GCV as per the respondent was 3,075 Kcal/kg i.e., below the rejection limit. That accordingly the respondent on 2.1.2017 vide email informed the petitioner that the cargo was non-complying delivery and called upon the petitioner to initiate discussion with the respondent for disposition of the vessel cargo. That the respondent further informed the petitioner that considering the quality of the cargo, the respondent will not be in a position to accept the cargo for the next vessel under the contract. That the respondent further informed the petitioner that considering the quality of the cargo, the respondent will not be in a position to accept the cargo for the next vessel under the contract. That on 3.1.2017, the said Harshavardhan Sethi met the officials of the respondent and entered into a settlement, as per Clause 11.6 of the contract and persuaded the respondent to accept the cargo at an adjusted rate of US$ 28.90 per MT. That in the discussion, it was also made clear by the respondent that it will not accept the 2nd shipment and the same was cancelled. That the petitioner on 4.1.2017 sent a reply email to the respondent highlighting that the contents of the email sent by it will be verified and responded to. That on 7.1.2017, the respondent vide email informed the petitioner that the nomination of the vessel for the 2nd shipment stands cancelled. To which, the petitioner vide email dated 13.7.2017 replied to the respondent stating that any settlement entered into by Harshavardhan Sethi for or on behalf of the petitioner's company with the respondent was only in his personal capacity and denied to have authorised the said person to negotiate the dispute with the respondent. Petitioner also seems to have to clarified to the respondent that the obligations of the petitioner and the respondent would be strictly guided by the terms of the contract between them and there was no cancellation of the 2nd shipment and any cancellation of the nominated vessel for the 2nd shipment would be in breach of the obligations of the respondent under the contract. Since the dispute remained unresolved, the parties thus invoked the arbitration clause and accordingly the dispute was referred to Arbitrator seated at Singapore. 7. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Sole Arbitrator formulated the following issues for resolution: (i) Whether, as asserted by the respondent, the parties on 3.1.2017 have entered into an agreement concerning the adjustment of the purchase price for the 1st shipment and the rescission of the 2nd shipment of coal? A question of estoppel was also raised by the respondent under this issue. (ii) Whether or not the quality of the 1st shipment of coal was below the rejection level in the CSC in terms of the calorific value? (iii) Whether petitioner and/or BISM fraudulently misrepresented the Gross Calorific Value ("GCV") of the coal to respondent? A question of estoppel was also raised by the respondent under this issue. (ii) Whether or not the quality of the 1st shipment of coal was below the rejection level in the CSC in terms of the calorific value? (iii) Whether petitioner and/or BISM fraudulently misrepresented the Gross Calorific Value ("GCV") of the coal to respondent? (iv) Loss sustained by the petitioner in case of breach of contract by the respondent? (v) To what extent the respondent is entitled to demurrage? 8. On issue Nos. (i) & (ii) it was held in favour of the petitioner by stating that the said Harshavardhan Sethi had no authority neither actual or ostensible to enter into agreement with the respondent regarding price adjustment and cancellation of the 2nd shipment on the ground that on Power of Attorney or similar document had been produced in the arbitration in support of such authority. As regards estoppel, it was observed that the petitioner was not estopped from disputing the contents of respondent's email dated 3.1.2017 and that the petitioner had objected to the rescission of the 2nd shipment in clear terms and referred the respondent to initiate the umpire determination of the quality of coal if the finding in the LPCOA were disputed by the respondent. On Issue No. (iii) it was held that by applying the principles of proof and burden of proving a fact, it may not be possible for the Arbitrator to arrive at a conclusion that petitioner was not able to deliver the coal in the agreed quality. On issues (iv) and (v) the Sole Arbitrator awarded damages to the petitioner i.e., the loss sustained by the petitioner resulting from respondent's breach of contract and on issue (v) the respondent was awarded demurrage charges relating to the 1st shipment for 68 hours and 46 minutes amounting to US$ 25,071.22 and given set off to that extent to the respondent. The arbitral award dated 28.6.2018 is in the following terms: "(i) partly allow the claim of the petitioner to the tune of USD 383, 160; (ii) partly allow the counter-claim of the respondent to the tune of USD 25,071.22 (iii) direct the award in respect of the counter-claim (viz., of USD 25,071.22) to be set off against the award in respect of the petitioner's claim of (USD 383, 160) (iv) therefore direct the respondent to pay a sum of USD 358, 088.78 to the petitioner (together with simple interest thereon at the rate of 5.33% per annum to be calculated with effect from the date of the award upto realization (v) direct the parties to bear the costs of the arbitration (aggregating to SGD 52, 116.71) and costs of hire and venue (being SGD 5,499.80) in the following manner: (a) petitioner to bear 25%; and (b) respondent to bear 75% (vi) direct the respondent to pay legal and other costs to the petitioner assessed at SGD 1,50,000." 9. Hence, this execution petition by the petitioner to realize the amounts under the award from the respondent. 10. Under the Act there are two avenues available for the enforcement of foreign awards in India, viz., the New York Convention (Chapter-I) of Part-II and the Geneva Convention (Chapter-II) of Part-II, under Sections 44 to 60 of the Act, as the case may be. Sections 44 to 52 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, deals with foreign awards passed under the New York Convention. To redress the issue involved in the case, it is necessary to quote certain provisions of the Act having relevance to the case. Section 44 of the Act speaks of definition reads as under: 44. Definition.-In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires, "foreign award" means an arbitral award on differences between persons arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, considered as commercial under the law in force in India, made on or after the 11th day of October, 1960- (a) in pursuance of an agreement in writing for arbitration to which the Convention set forth in the First Schedule applies, and (b) in one of such territories as the Central Government, being satisfied that reciprocal provisions have been made may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be territories to which the said Convention applies. 11. Section 46 defines when foreign awards are binding. 11. Section 46 defines when foreign awards are binding. Section 47 stipulates the evidence to be produced by the petitioner seeking enforcement of such foreign award. Sections 46 and 47 reads as under: "46. When foreign awards are binding.-Any foreign award which would be enforceable under this chapter shall be treated as binding for all purposes on the persons as between whom it was made, and may accordingly be relied on by any of those persons by way of defence, set-off or otherwise in any legal proceedings in India and any references in this chapter to enforcing a foreign award shall be construed as including references to relying on an award. 47. Evidence.-(1) The party applying for the enforcement of a foreign award shall, at the time of the application, produce before the Court- (a) the original award or a copy thereof, duly authenticated in the manner required by the law of the country in which it was made; (b) the original agreement for arbitration or a duly certified copy thereof; and (c) such evidence as may be necessary to prove that the award is a foreign award. (2) If the award or agreement to be produced under sub-section (1) is in a foreign language, the party seeking to enforce the award shall produce a translation into English certified as correct by a diplomatic or consular agent of the country to which that party belongs or certified as correct in such other manner as may be sufficient according to the law in force in India. Explanation.-In this section and in the sections following in this chapter, "Court" means the High Court having original jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitral award if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit on its original civil jurisdiction and in other cases, in the High Court having jurisdiction to hear appeals from decrees of Courts subordinate to such High Court." 12. The conditions for the enforcement of a foreign award are enunciated in Section 48, read as under: "48. The conditions for the enforcement of a foreign award are enunciated in Section 48, read as under: "48. Conditions for enforcement of foreign awards.-(1) Enforcement of a foreign award may be refused, at the request of the party against whom it is invoked, only if that party furnishes to the Court proof that- (a) the parties to the agreement referred to in Section 44 were, under the law applicable to them, under some incapacity, or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law of the country where the award was made; or (b) the party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of the Arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; or (c) the award deals with a difference not contemplated by or not failing within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration: Provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, that part of the award which contains decisions on matters submitted to arbitration may be enforced; or (d) the composition of the arbitral authority or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with the law of the country where the arbitration took place; or (e) the award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made. (2) Enforcement of an arbitral award may also be refused if the Court finds that- (a) the subject-matter of the difference is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of India; or (b) the enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of India. (2) Enforcement of an arbitral award may also be refused if the Court finds that- (a) the subject-matter of the difference is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of India; or (b) the enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of India. Explanation 1.-for the avoidance of any doubt, it is clarified that an award is in conflict with the public policy of India, only if- (i) the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was in violation of Section 75 or Section 81; or (ii) it is in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law; or (iii) it is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice. Explanation 2.-for the avoidance of doubt, the test as to whether there is a contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law shall not entail a review on the merits of the dispute. (3) If an application for the setting aside or suspension of the award has been made to a competent authority referred to in clause (e) of sub-section (1) the Court may, if it considers it proper, adjourn the decision of the enforcement of the award and may also, on the application of the party claiming enforcement of the award, order the other party to give suitable security. 13. Enforcement of foreign awards is provided under Section 49, reads as under:- "49. Enforcement of foreign awards.-Where the Court is satisfied that the foreign award is enforceable under this chapter, the award shall be deemed to be a decree of that Court." 14. In this case, it is to be seen that the arbitration proceedings have been conducted with the consent of the parties in Singapore. The parties contested the matter. Singapore is a convention country i.e., a country to which the New York Convention Awards under Part-II, Chapter-I applies and notified as such by the Central Government in the Official Gazette under Section 44(b) of the Act, declaring Singapore as being one of the territory. Therefore, the arbitral award under reference is a foreign award within the meaning of Section 44 of the Act, is thus capable of being enforced under the provisions of Part-II, Chapter-I of the Act. 15. It is understood that there are two pre-requisites for enforcement of foreign awards under the New York Convention. Therefore, the arbitral award under reference is a foreign award within the meaning of Section 44 of the Act, is thus capable of being enforced under the provisions of Part-II, Chapter-I of the Act. 15. It is understood that there are two pre-requisites for enforcement of foreign awards under the New York Convention. They are: (a) The country must be a signatory to the New York Convention. (b) The award shall be made in the territory of another contracting State which is a reciprocating territory and notified as such by the Central Government. 16. Section 47 of the Act provides that the party applying for the enforcement of a foreign award shall, at the time of the application, produce before the Court (a) original award or a duly authenticated copy thereof; (b) original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof; and (c) any evidence required to establish that the award is a foreign award. As per the Amendment Act, 2015, the application for enforcement of a foreign award will now only lie to High Court. Once an application for enforcement of a foreign award is made, the other party has the opportunity to file an objection against enforcement on the grounds recognized under Section 48 of the Act. As per the Amendment Act, 2015, the application for enforcement of a foreign award will now only lie to High Court. Once an application for enforcement of a foreign award is made, the other party has the opportunity to file an objection against enforcement on the grounds recognized under Section 48 of the Act. These grounds include: (a) the parties to the agreement referred to in Section 44 were, under the law applicable to them, under some incapacity, or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law of the country where the award was made; or (b) the party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of the Arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; or (c) the award deals with a difference not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration : Provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, that part of the award which contains decisions on matters submitted to arbitration may be enforced; or (d) the composition of the arbitral authority or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with the law of the country where the arbitration took place; or (e) the award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made. (f) the subject-matter of the difference is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of India; or (g) the enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of India 17. The combined effect of Section 48 of the amended Act leads to the conclusion that the ambit of violation of public policy applicable for international commercial arbitration has been restricted to only those awards that are: (i) affected by fraud or corruption, (ii) in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law, or (iii) conflict with the notions of morality or justice. It is further provided that if an application for the setting aside or suspension of the award has been made to a competent authority, the Court may, if it considers it proper, adjourn the decision on the enforcement of the award and may also, on the application of the party claiming enforcement of the award, order the other party to give suitable security. Section 49 provides that where the Court is satisfied that the foreign award is enforceable under this chapter, the award shall be deemed to be a decree of that Court. (Emphasis supplied) 18. Sri B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has not filed any application or appeal assailing the arbitral award dated 28.6.2018 neither under the laws of Singapore, it being the seat of arbitration nor otherwise and, therefore, there is no impediment to the arbitral award being implemented and enforced as if it were a decree of this Court. It is also contended that inasmuch as the respondent submitted himself to the arbitration proceedings under SIAC Rules, he is deemed to have waived any right to challenge or appeal against an arbitral award made by the arbitral Tribunal and, thus the arbitral award is final and binding on the parties cannot be challenged before any Court or judicial authority, whether domestic or foreign. It is submitted that the award under reference is neither affected by fraud or corruption not in conflict with the notions of morality or justice, muchless public policy in India. 19. Sri Avinash Desai, learned Counsel for the respondent, per contra, contended that no specific issue was framed, no finding was given by the Arbitrator in allowing the claim of the petitioner. It is also contended that the arbitral award is unenforceable under Section 48 of the Act for being contrary to the public policy of India besides being in violation of principles of natural justice; not considered the pleadings, issues raised, documentary evidence produced by the respondent. It is also contended that Arbitrator failed to take note of the collusion approach between the petitioner and said Harshavardhan Sethi. 20. Admittedly, the respondent has not filed any application or appeal assailing the arbitral award 28.6.2019 either under the laws of Singapore or otherwise in any Court of law or forum. It is also contended that Arbitrator failed to take note of the collusion approach between the petitioner and said Harshavardhan Sethi. 20. Admittedly, the respondent has not filed any application or appeal assailing the arbitral award 28.6.2019 either under the laws of Singapore or otherwise in any Court of law or forum. Therefore there should not be any impediment to enforce the arbitral award as if it were a decree of this Court, if it is otherwise found to be in order for enforcement. The Supreme Court in Fuerst Day Lawson v. Jindal Exports, 2001 (4) ALD 4 (SC) : (2001) 6 SCC 356 , in lucid terms said that there will be two stages in enforcement of foreign award, the first stage would be of the Court making an inquiry into enforceability of the award and the second stage would arise in case the Court holds that the award is enforceable. A reading of Section 49 of the Act quoted above, it is understood that unless the Court records satisfaction that it is enforceable, it will not be deemed to be a decree of the Court. In this case, petitioner has complied the mandate of Section 47 i.e., producing evidence under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 47 of the Act. A certified true copy of the coal supply contract dated 3.12.2016 and a certified true copy of the arbitral award dated 28.6.2018 are filed as Annexures-B & C. The petitioner is able to produce the evidence to satisfy the mandate of the Section 47 of the Act, the corollary step would be to undertake to inquire into the satisfaction or otherwise of the conditions enunciated under Section 48 of the Act. 21. The ground urged by the respondent's Counsel that the arbitral award is contrary to the public policy, as a general matter, even if there is violation of conditions of contract or for that matter of a statute, that itself would not satisfy the narrow width of public policy. 21. The ground urged by the respondent's Counsel that the arbitral award is contrary to the public policy, as a general matter, even if there is violation of conditions of contract or for that matter of a statute, that itself would not satisfy the narrow width of public policy. In Renusagar Power Company Limited v. General Electric Company Limited, 1994 (1) SCC (Supp.) 644, case, the Supreme Court construed the expression 'public policy' in relation to foreign awards as follows: "Applying the criteria it must be held that the enforcement of a foreign award would be refused on the ground that it is contrary to public policy if such enforcement would be contrary to (i) fundamental policy of Indian law; or (ii) the interests of India; or (iii) justice or morality." 22. In the instant case, both the parties to the contract have contractual capacity to enter into the contract agreement and subjecting themselves to be legally binding on them. Even if it is construed that the petitioner has authorised the said Harshavardhan Sethi, to negotiate with the respondent, which the petitioner denied to have authorised, when disputes arose in between the petitioner and respondent, as to the Gross Calorific Value (GCV) of the coal delivered by the petitioner, allegedly being above the rejection limit, the same cannot be classified as opposed to public policy. The arbitration in the event of disputes arising between the parties, is agreed to be seated at Singapore, and the arbitral proceedings conducted by following the Arbitration rules of Singapore International Arbitration Centre SIAC Rules, which rules are not contrary to any statute or the enshrined principles of rule of law under the Constitution of India. There is no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation against the petitioner in conducting the proceedings before the Arbitrator. Under the scheme of the Act, this Court is only to scrutinize the arbitral award so far as to see its enforceability by recording satisfaction. Whether the said Harshavardhan Sethi was authorized to represent the petitioner with the respondent to resolve the dispute, or the said Harshavardhan Sethi had discussions with the respondent in his individual capacity, as alleged by the petitioner are all question of fact which cannot be undertaken by this Court. Whether the said Harshavardhan Sethi was authorized to represent the petitioner with the respondent to resolve the dispute, or the said Harshavardhan Sethi had discussions with the respondent in his individual capacity, as alleged by the petitioner are all question of fact which cannot be undertaken by this Court. The scope of the proceedings is restricted to verifying the basic parameters in conducing the arbitration by the parties till the passing of the award by the Arbitrator in consonance of rule of law. 23. In Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. v. Progetto Grano SPA, (2014) 2 SCC 433 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court significantly curtailed the scope of the expression, "public policy" as occurring in sub-clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 48 of the Act and thereby limited the scope of the challenge to enforcement of the foreign arbitral awards in the country. It was also observed that Section 48 of the Act does not in any way offer an opportunity to have a second look at the foreign award at the enforcement stage. It was ruled that Section 48 does not permit review of the award on merits and that the procedural defects in course of foreign arbitration do not necessarily imply that foreign award would be unenforceable. 24. In yet another ruling in Mcdermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., 2006 (5) ALD 84 (SC) : (2006) 11 SCC 181 , the Supreme Court had observed that "the 1996 Act makes provision for the supervisory role of Courts, for the review of the arbitral award only to ensure fairness. Intervention of the Court is envisaged in few circumstances only, like, in case of fraud or bias by the Arbitrators, violation of natural justice, etc. The Court cannot correct errors of the Arbitrators. It can only quash the award leaving the parties free to begin the arbitration again if it is desired. So, the scheme of the provision aims at keeping the supervisory role of the Court at minimum level and this can be justified as parties to the agreement make a conscious decision to exclude the Court's jurisdiction by opting for arbitration as they prefer the expediency and finality offered by it." 25. So, the scheme of the provision aims at keeping the supervisory role of the Court at minimum level and this can be justified as parties to the agreement make a conscious decision to exclude the Court's jurisdiction by opting for arbitration as they prefer the expediency and finality offered by it." 25. In Daiichi Sankyo v. Malvinder Mohan Singh, (2018) 247 DLT 405 , the Delhi High Court in the direction of strict adherence to the principle of noninterference with foreign arbitral awards refused to intervene in the foreign arbitral award passed in the favour of Daiichi Sankyo's case (supra) and it observed that under Section 48(2)(b) of the Act, the enforcement could be refused only if the award was contrary to the (i) fundamental policy of India (ii) interest of India and (iii) justice or morality. 26. In Tropic Shipping v. Kothari Global, 2002 (2) BCR 93 and in Force Shipping v. Ashapura Minechem, 2003 Vol. 105 (3) BLR 948, the Bombay High Court held that it is only after the Court forms an opinion and satisfied that the award is enforceable under Section 49, that it can be executed under Order 21 CPC and the procedure therein cannot be bypassed. 27. There is no provision in the Act to set aside a foreign award in India. In other words, foreign awards may be set aside or suspended in the country in which or under the laws of which the award was made. Therefore, Indian Courts do not have jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to a foreign award on its merits. Under Section 50(1)(b) of the Act, appeal lies only against an order refusing to enforce a foreign award under Section 48 of the Act. An appeal shall lie only if the Court holds the award to be non-enforceable. Hence a decision upholding the award cannot be appealed against. Discretionary appeal would lie to the Supreme Court of India under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Such appeals are entertained only if the Court feels that they raise a question of fundamental importance or public interest. (See Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc., (2012) 9 SCC 552 (625) and Shivnath Rai Harnarain India Company v. Glencore Grain Rotterdam, AIR 2010 Del. 31 ). 28. Such appeals are entertained only if the Court feels that they raise a question of fundamental importance or public interest. (See Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc., (2012) 9 SCC 552 (625) and Shivnath Rai Harnarain India Company v. Glencore Grain Rotterdam, AIR 2010 Del. 31 ). 28. In the facts and circumstances of the case this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has satisfied the conditions a laid down under Section 48 of the Act for enforcement of the foreign award and accordingly the arbitral award under reference is declared to be a decree passed by this Court under Section 49 of the Act and this Court is satisfied that award is executable. 29. In the result, the objections filed by the respondent are over-ruled and attachment of the immovable properties of the respondent situated at 405, Saptagiri Towers, 1-10-75/1/1 to 6, Begumpet, Secunderabad, Telangana-500016 & plant situated at Chillakur Mandal, near Gudur SPSR, Thamminapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-524412, are ordered under Order XXI Rules 46 and 54 of C.P.C., 1908 and four weeks time is granted for respondent to deposit the amounts to which petitioner is entitled under the arbitral award, after set-off of the amounts awarded to respondent, failing which further steps will follow. For further steps, list on 9.2.2020.