J&K and Ladakh High Court states English translated copy certified by consular enough under A&C Act compliance

J&K and Ladakh High Court states English translated copy certified by consular enough under A&C Act compliance

Notes that the respondent raised certain technicalities merely to delay the execution of the award

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that filing an English-translated copy, certified by an official or sworn translator, satisfies the requirement of Section 47(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation (A&C) Act, 1996.

The bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal explained that the Act stated that if an award was in a foreign language, its translated copy was to be filed for enforcement of the foreign award. It must be certified by the consular or diplomatic agent of the award holder’s country.

The court read the provision of Article V of the New York Convention into Article 47 of the A&C Act to hold that the English-translated copy of the award (certified as true by a sworn or an official translator of the country in which the award was made), was sufficient compliance of Section 47 which ensures that no tempering with the award or any finding therein takes place while translating the same into the English language.

The bench further held that Part II of the A&C Act also applied to the erstwhile State of J&K and that the mere absence of Part II from Section 1(2) of the Act would not have the effect of excluding its applicability to the State.

The petitioner had filed an application under Sections 47 & 49 of the A&C Act for enforcement of a foreign award dated 11.02.2015. The award was passed pursuant to disputes between the parties and delivered in Germany in German language.

The petitioner filed a copy of the award translated by Dr. Ralph A Fellow, a certified translator by the General Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany.

However, the respondent/award debtor raised the following objections:

• Part-II of the A&C Act was never made applicable to the erstwhile State of J&K, as only Parts I, III and IV were applicable by Section 1(2).

• If it is accepted that the Act applied to J&K, the petitioner has not complied with the provisions of Section 47(2), which provides that an award in a foreign language must be translated through and certified by the diplomatic or consular agent of the award holder’s country.

On analyzing, the court rejected the respondent’s objection on the non-applicability of Part II to the erstwhile State of J&K. It observed the decision of the Supreme Court in the Bharat Aluminium Co vs Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services case, wherein it was held that part-II extended to the erstwhile State of J&K.

Justice Oswal also deliberated on the objection of not filing a translated copy certified by the diplomatic agent. It observed that the petitioner filed a translated copy of the award, and the respondent did not dispute the competence of Dr. Ralph as a publicly appointed interpreter/translator. He just took refuge under technicalities of Section 47(2) to frustrate and delay the award execution.

Thus, the court rejected the objections raised by the respondent.