Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in India: Legal Framework, Procedure & Evolving Jurisprudence

Introduction

India has progressively aligned itself with international best practices for enforcing foreign arbitral awards. As a signatory to both the New York Convention (1958) and the Geneva Convention (1927), India’s Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the “Act”) provides a comprehensive framework for recognition and enforcement of foreign awards. Recent amendments and judicial pronouncements reflect a pro-enforcement bias, limiting judicial intervention and strengthening India’s position as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.

This article explores the statutory framework, procedural aspects, grounds for refusal, and significant judicial trends governing the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in India.

Statutory Framework

2.1Governing law: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

The enforcement of foreign awards[1] is governed by Part II of the Act, which is divided into two chapters:

1. 1. 1. Chapter I (Sections 44–52): Enforcement of awards under the New York Convention
      2. Chapter II (Sections 53–60): Enforcement under the Geneva Convention (rarely invoked today)

Section 44 defines a “foreign award” as an arbitral award rendered in a territory that is a reciprocating country and arises out of a commercial legal relationship.

This blog is a part of our Arbitration blogpost.

a)Chapter I (Sections 44–52): Enforcement of awards under the New York Convention

2.2Recognition of reciprocating territories

Under Section 44(b), only awards from reciprocating territories notified by the Indian Government are enforceable. These include countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, Singapore, France, the UAE, etc. A complete list is published via the Official Gazette and periodically updated.

Procedure for enforcement

Filing a petition

A party seeking enforcement must apply under Section 47[2] of the Act. The application is filed before the appropriate High Court[3] (as per territorial jurisdiction), and the documents to be submitted include:

1. 1. The original or a certified copy of the arbitral award.
   2. The original or certified copy of the arbitration agreement.
   3. A certified English translation (if documents are in a foreign language).

Deemed as Decree

Once the court is satisfied that the award is enforceable and does not fall within the grounds for refusal under Section 48[4] it treats the award as a decree of the court under Section 49[5], and it becomes executable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Grounds for refusal under Section 48- When enforcement can be refused (at the request of the opposing party)

The grounds to resist enforcement are exhaustive and mirror Article V of the New York Convention.

3.3.1A court in India can refuse to enforce a foreign arbitral award only if the party opposing enforcement proves one of the following:

a.The parties to the arbitration agreement

• Were legally not capable of entering into the agreement (under the law that applies to them), or
• The agreement is not legally valid under the law chosen by the parties, or, if no law was chosen, under the law of the country where the award was made.

b.The party opposing enforcement

• Was not given proper notice about the appointment of the arbitrator or the arbitration process, or
• Was not given a fair opportunity to present their case.

c.The award covers issues

• That was not agreed to be decided by arbitration, or
• That goes beyond what the arbitration agreement allowed.

However, if the parts of the award that go beyond the agreement can be separated from the valid parts, the valid portion can still be enforced.

d.The way the arbitral tribunal was formed, or the procedure it followed

• Did not match what the parties had agreed, or
• Was not consistent with the law of the country where the arbitration was held (if no agreement on procedure existed).

e.The award

• Is not yet final and binding, or
• Has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority in the country where the award was made (or under the law of that country).

3.3.2When the Court itself can refuse enforcement (even without a party’s request)

The court may also refuse to enforce a foreign arbitral award if:

1. The subject matter of the dispute is not something that can be resolved through arbitration under Indian law.
2. Enforcing the award would go against the public policy of India.

3.3.3Clarification on “Public Policy” (Explanation 1)

A foreign award is considered to violate Indian public policy only if:

• It was obtained through fraud or corruption, or violates confidentiality or settlement procedures under Sections 75[6] or 81[7],
• It goes against the fundamental principles of Indian law,
• It is in conflict with basic morality or justice.

Note: Courts are not allowed to re-examine the facts or merits of the case just to check for conflict with fundamental policy.

3.3.4If the Award is being challenged abroad

If the award is currently being challenged or suspended in a foreign court (under clause (e) above), the Indian court:

• May pause (adjourn) the enforcement proceedings, and
• May ask the party opposing enforcement to provide a security deposit or guarantee, if requested by the party seeking enforcement.

b.Chapter II (Sections 53–60): Enforcement under the Geneva Convention

Section 53[8]

characterizes a foreign award as one arising from the resolution of disputes that are considered commercial in nature under Indian law, provided such resolution occurred after 28^th July 1924. For such an award to be enforceable in India, three key conditions must be satisfied:

1. The award must stem from an arbitration agreement that falls under the scope of the 1923 Geneva Protocol on Arbitration Clauses.
2. The dispute must involve parties that are subject to the jurisdiction of reciprocating countries, as notified by the Central Government, to which the 1927 Geneva Convention on the Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards applies.
3. The award must have been rendered in a country that has been formally recognized as a reciprocating territory by the Central Government.

Under Section 56[9],

any party seeking to enforce a foreign arbitral award in India is required to submit the following documents along with their application:

1. The original arbitral award or a duly certified copy of it;
2. Proof that the award has attained finality; and
3. Evidence confirming that the award was rendered pursuant to a valid arbitration agreement as recognized under the applicable law.

What must be satisfied for a foreign award to be enforced under the Geneva Convention in India?

3..6.1Section 57(1) of the Act provides for the conditions for the enforcement of foreign awards, which are as follows:

1. Valid arbitration agreement: The award must be based on an arbitration agreement that is legally valid according to the law that applies to it.
2. Arbitrable subject matter: The issue decided in the award must be something that can legally be resolved through arbitration under Indian law.
3. Properly formed tribunal: The arbitration must have been carried out by the arbitrators agreed upon by the parties or formed in a way that matches the law governing the arbitration procedure.
4. Final award: The award must be considered “final” in the country where it was made. It won’t be treated as final if it can still be challenged or if legal proceedings are ongoing to dispute it.
5. Not against Indian public policy or law: The award must not go against Indian public policy or any Indian laws. Public policy violations include:
   • If the award was obtained by fraud or corruption.
   • If it goes against the core principles of Indian law.
   • If it is clearly unjust or immoral.

Note: Courts won’t re-examine the merits (i.e., facts or evidence) of the dispute when deciding whether the award violates public policy.

3.6.2When the Court can refuse to enforce a foreign award:

Section 57(2) of the Act specifies the grounds under which even if the conditions under Section 57(1) are met, the Court can still refuse enforcement in the following cases:

1. 1. Award is set aside: If the award has already been cancelled or nullified by a court in the country where it was issued.
   2. No proper notice or representation: If the party who lost was not properly informed about the arbitration or wasn’t given a fair chance to defend themselves; or if they were under a legal disability and weren’t properly represented.
   3. Award exceeds scope: If the award includes decisions that go beyond what the parties had agreed to submit for arbitration. If only some issues were wrongly included, the Court may still enforce the valid parts, or delay enforcement until it is clarified.

3.6.3When enforcement may be delayed or refused for other valid reasons:

By invoking Section 57(3) of the Act, if the losing party shows that, under the law governing the arbitration process, there is another valid reason (not already listed under Section 57 (1) and (2)) to challenge the award, the Court may:

d.Refuse to enforce the award, or

e.Postpone its decision and give the party time to get the award cancelled in the country where it was made.

Lastly, in accordance with Section 58[10], once the Court is satisfied that the foreign award meets the requirements set out under this Chapter, it shall recognize the award as equivalent to a decree of that Court.

Narrow interpretation of public policy

In the case of Renusagar Power Co. v. General Electric Co[11]. the Supreme Court outlined three aspects of “public policy” that could be considered when deciding whether to enforce a foreign arbitral award:

1. 1. the basic legal principles of Indian law,
   2. the national interests of India, and
   3. principles of justice and morality.

Later, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was amended in 2016 to give the term “public policy” a more limited and specific meaning. This amendment introduced two explanations under Section 48. Importantly, the amendment removed the reference to the “interests of India” as a ground for refusing enforcement, which had earlier been recognized in the Renusagar case. The explanations start with the phrase “For the avoidance of any doubt,” but this does not automatically mean they apply retrospectively. Explanation 1 adds new clauses, creating a substantive change in the law rather than merely clarifying it. Explanation 2 clarifies that Indian courts cannot re-examine the merits of the dispute under the guise of testing whether the award violates the fundamental policy of Indian law.

Note: Mere violation of Indian law is no longer sufficient to resist enforcement.

Common defences raised against enforcement

While the grounds under Section 48 are narrow, parties often raise certain tactical defences, including:

• Alleged lack of due process
• Challenges to the validity of the arbitration agreement
• Parallel proceedings or set-aside applications at the seat
• Claims that enforcement would violate Indian public policy
• Award not binding due to appellate or review proceedings abroad

Courts have repeatedly cautioned against abuse of these defences to delay enforcement.

Interim measures and section 9 relief

Even in foreign-seated arbitrations, Indian courts may grant interim protection under Section 9[12], including:

• Freezing of assets
• Orders restraining the disposal of property
• Directions to maintain the status quo

This reflects a growing trend where award creditors approach Indian courts for protection even before enforcement proceedings formally begin.

Enforcement of foreign judgments from non-reciprocating territories in India

When a judgment is issued by a court in a country that is not notified as a reciprocating territory under Indian law, it cannot be directly executed in India. Instead, the judgment creditor must initiate a fresh civil suit in an Indian court, either relying on the foreign judgment as evidence of the claim or pursuing the original cause of action.

If the suit is dismissed, the judgment creditor cannot subsequently seek execution of the foreign decree in India. However, if the suit is decreed in their favour, the resulting Indian decree is enforceable through standard execution proceedings. To support the claim, the plaintiff must submit:

• A certified copy of the foreign judgment; and
• A certificate issued by an authorized representative of the Indian Central Government in the relevant foreign country, attesting to its authenticity.

Importantly, the judgment must also satisfy the criteria under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which lays down when foreign judgments are considered conclusive in India. If the judgment creditor had previously attempted to execute the decree in the foreign jurisdiction and it remained partially or wholly unsatisfied, they may file an execution petition in India, provided it is done within three years from the conclusion of such foreign execution proceedings.

Key principles evolved through case law:

• Limited scope of review: Courts will not review the merits of the dispute, findings of fact, or evidence assessed by the arbitrators.
• Severability: If only parts of an award violate Section 48, the enforceable portion may still be upheld (as per the proviso to Section 48(1)(c)).
• Burden of proof: The party resisting enforcement bears the burden of proving the existence of one of the limited grounds under Section 48.

Recent case law developments

8.1Government of India v. Vedanta Ltd[13].,

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India upheld the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award issued in 2011 in favour of Vedanta Limited, which arose from a contractual dispute concerning the exploration and development of petroleum resources in the Ravva Oil and Gas Fields. The Central Government had opposed enforcement on the ground that it violated Indian public policy. Rejecting this contention, the Court clarified that the award did not offend the public policy of India or violate fundamental principles of justice and morality. An important issue considered by the Court was whether the Malaysian courts, as courts at the seat of arbitration, were right in applying Malaysian law to assess the public policy challenge raised by the Indian Government. The Court held that the seat courts are competent to apply their domestic law to such challenges. However, when enforcement is sought in India, Indian courts are not bound by the findings of the foreign seat courts on public policy. Instead, Indian courts are required to independently evaluate whether any of the grounds for refusal under Section 48 of the Act are attracted. The Court clarified that even if the Malaysian courts had upheld the award, this would not prevent Indian courts from examining whether the award is inconsistent with Indian public policy. Nevertheless, the enforcement court is not permitted to sit in appeal over the decision of the foreign seat courts or reassess the merits of the underlying dispute.

A crucial procedural aspect in enforcing foreign arbitral awards in India concerns the limitation period for filing such petitions. The Supreme Court, in this case, clarified that the enforcement of a foreign award under Sections 47 and 49 of the Act is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This provision stipulates a three-year limitation period from the date when the right to apply accrues.

The Court observed that while the 1996 Act does not itself prescribe a specific limitation period for enforcement, Section 43 of the Act makes the provisions of the Limitation Act applicable to arbitration proceedings, including those for enforcement. Article 136 of the Limitation Act, which allows twelve years for executing a decree of a civil court, is inapplicable to foreign awards, since such awards are not decrees passed by Indian civil courts. Rather, they attain the status of a decree only by a legal fiction under Section 49 of the 1996 Act, and only for enforcement purposes by the specific High Court where recognition is granted.

In light of this, foreign awards fall under the residuary category of Article 137, as they are not expressly covered by any other provision of the Limitation Act. The Court also noted that the exclusion of “foreign decrees” from Article 136 further supports the view that execution petitions for foreign awards must be filed within three years of the date when the award holder acquires the right to seek enforcement.

Further, the Court held that under the scheme of the Act (as aligned with the New York Convention), the jurisdiction of Indian courts in relation to foreign arbitral awards is narrowly defined. Indian enforcement courts do not have the authority to set aside a foreign arbitral award. That power lies solely with the courts at the seat of arbitration, which are considered the primary or supervisory courts. These curial courts alone are empowered to entertain any challenge seeking to annul the award. What Indian courts can do, under Section 48 of the Act, is refuse enforcement if the party opposing the award demonstrates that any of the limited grounds for refusal, such as incapacity, improper notice, or public policy violation, are met. The language of Section 48 makes this clear: enforcement “may be refused”, but not modified or overturned.

Importantly, the enforcement court is not permitted to assess the merits of the award, nor can it rectify any alleged legal or factual errors contained in it. Its role is strictly confined to verifying whether any of the refusal grounds under Section 48 are made out. If the court concludes that none of those conditions apply, the foreign award is held to be enforceable. Upon such a finding, Section 49 kicks in: the award is then treated as a decree of that court, meaning the High Court that ruled on enforcement. This legal fiction is created solely for the purpose of execution, allowing the enforcement process to proceed under Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), as it would for any court decree.

8.2Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd[14]., (2021) 7 SCC 409

In the Amazon-Future Retail dispute, Amazon obtained an emergency interim award from the SIAC-appointed Emergency Arbitrator (“EA”) on 25 October 2020. Seeking enforcement of this award in India, Amazon approached the Delhi High Court under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Single Judge upheld the enforceability of the EA award under Section 17(1) and passed enforcement directions accordingly. Future Retail appealed this order under the CPC, and the Division Bench stayed its operation. Amazon challenged this stay before the Supreme Court, leading to a comprehensive ruling on two key issues.

Issue 1: Whether an EA’s Award Qualifies as an Order under Section 17(1)

The Supreme Court held that the term “arbitral tribunal” under Section 17(1) must be interpreted contextually, particularly where parties have agreed to institutional rules that provide for emergency arbitration. Though Section 2(1)(d) defines an arbitral tribunal as one capable of granting final reliefs, the Court clarified that the Act, when read with Sections 2(6), 2(8), and 19(2), accommodates the inclusion of EA within the term “arbitral tribunal” in institutional arbitrations.

The Court emphasized that Section 17(1) is focused on the party’s right to seek interim relief and does not exclude emergency arbitrations, especially where parties have contractually accepted the binding nature of EA orders. Accordingly, EA awards passed under such agreed institutional rules are valid under Section 17(1) and enforceable under Section 17(2).

Issue 2: Whether an Order Enforcing an EA Award under Section 17(2) is Appealable

The Supreme Court clarified that enforcement orders under Section 17(2) cannot be appealed under the CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. Section 37 provides a comprehensive appellate framework and, particularly after the 2019 amendment introducing a non-obstante clause, overrides general CPC provisions.

The Court noted that Section 17(2) creates a legal fiction only to facilitate the enforcement of tribunal orders; it does not render such enforcement orders appealable. Furthermore, the absence of any amendment to Section 37(2)(b) to include enforcement orders under Section 17(2) reinforces this conclusion. Therefore, an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC does not lie against an enforcement order under Section 17(2).

This judgment firmly integrates emergency arbitration into the Indian arbitral framework, enhancing party autonomy and reinforcing institutional arbitration mechanisms.

8.3National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India (NAFED) v. Alimenta SA[15],

In NAFED v. Alimenta S.A., the Supreme Court of India declined to enforce a foreign arbitral award under Section 7(1)(b)(ii) of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961, on the ground that the enforcement would contravene India’s public policy.

NAFED had contracted in 1980 to supply Indian HPS groundnuts to Alimenta S.A. The contract was governed by FOSFA 20 terms, which included a clause allowing cancellation if exports were prohibited by law. While partial performance occurred, export restrictions under India’s quota regime prevented NAFED from completing the contract. Alimenta initiated arbitration under FOSFA Rules, resulting in an award in its favour in 1989, upheld on appeal in 1990.

When Alimenta sought enforcement of the award in India in 1993, NAFED opposed it, arguing that the award violated India’s export control laws and thus contravened public policy. While the Delhi High Court initially rejected this contention and declared the award enforceable, the matter eventually reached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court took the unusual step of reviewing the award on merits, finding that NAFED’s inability to perform stemmed from lack of statutory export permissions, a fact both parties were aware of when contracting. The Court emphasized that export without government authorization would have been illegal. Although reaffirming that the public policy exception must be narrowly construed (citing Renusagar, Shri Lal Mahal, Saw Pipes, Associate Builders, and Ssangyong), the Court held that enforcing the award would violate India’s fundamental export control policies and therefore offends the country’s core legal principles and justice system. On this basis, enforcement was refused.

The decision underscores that Indian courts may, in rare instances, refuse enforcement of a foreign award if it clearly violates statutory restrictions and fundamental legal norms. However, it also raises concerns about the permissible extent of judicial review at the enforcement stage, especially under a regime that otherwise favours minimal intervention in foreign arbitral awards.

8.4Union of India Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd & Ors,

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court set aside an arbitral award in favour of Reliance Industries Ltd. (“RIL”), holding that the award violated Indian public policy, the Public Trust Doctrine, and key provisions of the Production Sharing Contract (“PSC”). The Court found that RIL had extracted gas migrating from ONGC’s adjoining block without proper government approval, amounting to a breach of sovereign rights over natural resources and a case of patent illegality warranting judicial intervention.

The Union of India had entered into PSCs with RIL and Niko Ltd. for hydrocarbon exploration, with RIL later assigning part of its interest to BP. ONGC held a PSC over an adjacent block. ONGC raised concerns that gas was migrating from its block into RIL’s, prompting a writ petition.

A 2015 report by DeGolyer & MacNaughton confirmed such migration. Based on the findings of a subsequent A.P. Shah Committee, the government issued a demand notice of USD 1.74 billion against RIL. RIL challenged this through arbitration under Article 33 of the PSC.

The arbitral tribunal, by majority, held that while RIL had breached its disclosure obligations under Article 26.1 of the PSC, it was not a “material breach.” The Delhi High Court’s Single Judge had initially declined to interfere under Section 34, treating it as an international commercial arbitration. The Union of India appealed under Section 37.

Key Legal Questions

• Was the arbitration international or domestic?
• Did the tribunal err in concluding the breach was not material?
• Did the award contravene Indian public policy and legal norms?
• Could the government’s inaction be construed as implied permission?

Court’s Findings

• The Court held the arbitration was domestic, as both RIL and the government were Indian entities. Foreign interest in related agreements did not alter this. Relying on L&T-SCOMI v. MMRDA, the Court concluded that broader grounds for review under Section 34 applied, including patent illegality.
• The Court found that RIL’s failure to disclose critical reservoir data and seek prior approval for extraction was a material breach of the PSC. It invoked Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. v. RIL (2010) to emphasize that natural resources are held by the State in trust for the public. The PSC did not confer ownership, and extraction without express permission violated both contractual obligations and the Public Trust Doctrine.
• The tribunal’s finding that government silence could be treated as implied consent was rejected. The Court held that such reasoning contradicted legal principles and ignored statutory requirements under the Oilfields (Regulation and Development) Act and the 1959 Petroleum Rules. The ruling relied on Common Cause v. Union of India (2017), where unauthorized extraction warranted full disgorgement of profits.
• The tribunal’s reading of the PSC was found to be perverse. The Court emphasized that under the PSC, RIL was obligated to obtain express government approval before conducting operations that impacted adjoining blocks. Allowing continued extraction without such approval undermined sovereign control over national resources.

8.5Gemini Bay Transcription Pvt. Ltd. v. Integrated Sales Service Ltd[16].,

A Representation Agreement dated 18 September 2000 was executed between Integrated Sales Services Ltd. (“ISS”), a Hong Kong-based company, and DMC Management Consultants Ltd. (“DMC”), an Indian entity, under which ISS agreed to assist DMC in securing business and investments, in exchange for a commission. The agreement, governed by Delaware law, contained a clause mandating arbitration in Missouri, USA.

Disputes arose when ISS alleged that DMC’s Chairman rerouted business opportunities introduced by ISS to affiliated entities, Gemini Bay Consulting Ltd. (“GBC”) and Gemini Bay Transcription Pvt. Ltd. (“GBT”), with the intent to evade commission obligations. In response, ISS initiated arbitration proceedings and obtained an award for approximately USD 690 million, holding DMC, the Chairman, GBC, and GBT jointly liable by invoking the “alter ego” doctrine.

When enforcement was sought in India, the Bombay High Court initially limited enforceability to DMC alone, holding that the others were non-signatories. This view was overturned on appeal. The matter was escalated to the Supreme Court, which delivered a landmark ruling:

• The Court unequivocally held that non-signatories could be bound by a foreign arbitral award if their conduct and control justified application of the alter ego principle. The enforcement regime under Part II of the Act (Sections 44–52) does not restrict applicability solely to signatories.
• The Court clarified that Section 47(1)(c) only requires production of evidence necessary to prove the award is a foreign award; it does not impose a burden to prove substantive issues such as non-signatory liability afresh.
• The Court reinforced that:
  • Section 48(1)(a) pertains strictly to incapacity or invalidity of the arbitration agreement between the parties;
  • Section 48(1)(b) only applies to procedural violations, such as denial of notice or opportunity to present the case, not to alleged deficiencies in reasoning;
  • Section 48(1)(c) is restricted to decisions beyond the scope of submission to arbitration, not to whether non-parties are bound;
  • Perversity or legal errors in the arbitrator’s reasoning do not qualify as grounds for resisting enforcement under Section 48 after the 2015 Amendment.
• Public policy ground is strictly limited. Refusing to accept a “tort” claim or “infraction of substantive law” as a ground to deny enforcement, the Court reaffirmed the pro-enforcement bias under the New York Convention and Indian law post-2015.
• Distinguishing Section 35 (which binds parties and those claiming under them) from Section 46, the Court observed that foreign awards are binding on “persons”, which includes non-signatories where appropriate.

This ruling of the Supreme Court is a significant reaffirmation of India’s pro-arbitration and pro-enforcement stance. It narrows the scope for resisting foreign awards and clarifies that non-signatories may be bound where facts establish control and misuse of corporate structure. Most notably, it underscores that enforcement can only be refused on the limited, enumerated grounds under Section 48, and creative arguments not fitting those categories will be firmly rejected. This ruling cements India’s commitment to honoring foreign arbitral awards in line with international norms and upholds the integrity of the arbitral process, marking a definitive shift away from parochialism and towards a globally harmonized enforcement regime.

Challenges and practical hurdles

Despite the supportive framework, practical challenges remain:

• • Asset tracing of the award debtor and attaching them remains a challenge.

• • Delays in court processes due to procedural bottlenecks can dilute the benefit of quick enforcement.

• • Limited understanding of arbitration by lower courts in some jurisdictions can create procedural delays.

• • Jurisdictional issues when multiple courts are approached
  • Potential abuse of public policy arguments as a delaying tactic

India’s international obligations and image

India’s legislative and judicial approach aims to:

• • Fulfill obligations under the New York Convention
  • Promote ease of doing business
  • Strengthen investor confidence in cross-border dispute resolution

The 2015 and 2021 amendments, alongside a slew of pro-enforcement rulings, reflect India’s commitment to upholding the sanctity of arbitral awards.

Conclusion

The legal framework for the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in India is robust and broadly aligned with international standards. Judicial decisions post-2015 reflect a clear trend towards minimal intervention and strict adherence to the limited grounds of refusal. With further streamlining of court processes and capacity building, India is well on its way to becoming a leading pro-arbitration jurisdiction in Asia. The key takeaway is that foreign award holders can take increasing confidence in India’s legal environment, provided procedural requirements are met and enforcement is pursued diligently.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Foot Notes

[1] “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 11^th 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”.

[2] “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”.

[3] Explanation to Section 47: “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”.

[4] “Conditions for enforcement of foreign awards”

[5] “Enforcement of foreign awards”

[6] “Confidentiality”

[7] “Admissibility of evidence in other proceedings”

[8] “Interpretation—In this Chapter “foreign award” means an arbitral award on differences relating to matters considered as commercial under the law in force in India made after the 28th day of July, 1924,

(a) in pursuance of an agreement for arbitration to which the Protocol set forth in the Second Schedule applies, and

(b) between persons of whom one is subject to the jurisdiction of some one of such Powers as the Central Government, being satisfied that reciprocal provisions have been made, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be parties to the Convention set forth in the Third Schedule, and of whom the other is subject to the jurisdiction of some other of the Powers aforesaid, and

(c) in one of such territories as the Central Government, being satisfied that reciprocal provisions have been made, may, by like notification, declare to be territories to which the said Convention applies,

and for the purposes of this Chapter an award shall not be deemed to be final if any proceedings for the purpose of contesting the validity of the award are pending in the country in which it was made”.

[9] “Evidence (1) The party applying for the enforcement of a foreign award shall, at the time of 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) evidence proving that the award has become final; and

(c) such evidence as may be necessary to prove that the conditions mentioned in clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (1) of section 57 are satisfied.

(2) Where any document requiring 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.

1 [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.]”

[10] “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 the Court”.

[11] 1994 Supp (1) SCC 644

[12] In HSBC PI Holdings v. Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. [(2020) 5 SCC 1], the Supreme Court permitted interim relief under Section 9 in support of a foreign award.

[13] 2020 SCC Online SC 749

[14] AIR 2021 SC 3723

[15] AIR 2020 SC 2681

[16] AIR 2021 SC 3836