Making Foreign Arbitration Awards Work in India
Understanding the Enforcement of Foreign Arbitration Awards in India
“Winning the arbitration is only half the battle. Getting paid is the other half.”
This is the quiet frustration that haunts many international businesses who have obtained foreign awards against Indian parties and then discovered that enforcement in India is a complex, often protracted, and sometimes unpredictable exercise. Yet the story of foreign awards in India has changed considerably over the last decade. A series of landmark Supreme Court judgments, progressive legislative amendments, and a growing pro-enforcement culture in the Indian judiciary have collectively made enforcing foreign awards in India a more credible proposition than ever before.
What Makes an Award a Foreign Award Under Indian Law
Before any party can enforce foreign awards in India, it must first confirm that the award it holds actually qualifies as a foreign award within the meaning of Indian law. Section 44 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 defines a foreign award for New York Convention purposes as an arbitral award on differences arising between persons out of a legal relationship considered commercial under Indian law, made in pursuance of a written arbitration agreement, in a territory that the Central Government has notified as a reciprocating territory under the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958.
India ratified the New York Convention on July 13, 1960, making it one of the earliest signatories. As of 2026, the Central Government has notified 51 countries as reciprocating territories under the Gazette of India. This is a critical limitation because the New York Convention itself has 172 contracting states, meaning awards from countries that have not been notified as reciprocating territories may not be enforceable through the statutory mechanism under Part II, Chapter I of the Act. Parties who discover this gap after obtaining an award from a non-notified country face the need to seek enforcement through alternative legal channels, which is considerably more uncertain.
India also retains a commercial reservation under the New York Convention, meaning that foreign awards can only be enforced if they arise from a legal relationship that is commercial in nature under Indian law. Investment treaty arbitration awards have historically raised complications on this point, though the India - UAE Bilateral Investment Treaty that entered into force on August 31, 2024 expressly provides that awards under that treaty shall be treated as commercial, bringing them within the scope of New York Convention enforcement in India.
The Process for Enforcing Foreign Awards in India
The enforcement procedure for foreign awards in India follows a structured three stage process under Part II, Chapter I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The first stage is the filing of an application before the appropriate High Court, typically the High Court in whose jurisdiction the award debtor resides or holds assets, supported by the documents specified under Section 47, which requires the applicant to produce the original award and the original arbitration agreement, or duly certified copies of both.
The second stage involves the court’s assessment of whether enforcement should be refused on any of the narrow grounds enumerated in Section 48. These include situations where a party was under incapacity, the arbitration agreement was invalid under the applicable law, a party was not given proper notice of the arbitration proceedings, the award deals with differences not falling within the submission to arbitration, the composition of the tribunal was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, the award has not yet become binding on the parties, or the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under Indian law.
The third stage, which follows if the court is satisfied that none of the Section 48 grounds applies, is the declaration of the award as enforceable under Section 49, at which point the foreign award is deemed to be a decree of that court and can be executed accordingly through civil court execution proceedings.
The Landmark Cases That Defined India’s Pro-Enforcement Stance
The transformation of India’s approach to foreign awards can be traced through a clear line of Supreme Court judgments spanning several decades. The foundational case is Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co., (1994) Supp (1) SCC 644, in which the Supreme Court first articulated the meaning of public policy in the context of foreign awards and held that it encompasses only the fundamental policy of Indian law, the interests of India, and justice or morality.
The next critical development came in Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. v. Progetto Grano Spa, (2014) 2 SCC 433, where the Supreme Court significantly narrowed the public policy exception for foreign awards and drew a sharp distinction between the enforcement regime for foreign awards under Section 48 and the setting aside regime for domestic awards under Section 34. The court confirmed that the wider public policy concept applicable to domestic awards, including the ground of patent illegality, simply does not apply when a court is considering whether to enforce foreign awards. This distinction remains one of the cornerstones of India’s pro-enforcement jurisprudence.
The most comprehensive recent restatement came in Vijay Karia and Others v. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL and Others, (2020) 11 SCC 1, decided by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court. In that case, the Court emphatically reaffirmed that enforcement courts should adopt a strong pro-enforcement approach, that refusal of enforcement of foreign awards should remain an exception rather than the norm, and that courts must not use Section 48 as a backdoor for a merits review of the award. The Court also imposed heavy costs on the award debtor for pursuing frivolous objections, sending a clear deterrent message against tactical delay litigation aimed at frustrating enforcement. In Nagaraj V. Mylandla v. PI Opportunities Fund I, 2026 INSC 298, decided on March 25, 2026, the Supreme Court for the first time applied the doctrine of transnational issue estoppel to foreign award enforcement. The Court held that an award debtor who has already unsuccessfully challenged a foreign award before the court at the seat of arbitration cannot resist enforcement in India by recasting the same objections as public policy arguments under Section 48. The Supreme Court dismissed the attempt, described it as a mudslinging effort, and imposed costs of Rs 25 lakhs payable to each set of investors.
The Public Policy Defence and How Courts Are Narrowing It
Public policy under Section 48(2)(b) remains the most frequently invoked defence against the enforcement of foreign awards in India, and it has also been the most systematically narrowed by the courts over time. The Supreme Court’s judgment in Shri Lal Mahal and the subsequent amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act introduced by the Arbitration and Conciliation Amendment Act, 2015, together make clear that public policy in the context of foreign awards is confined to three situations: violation of the fundamental policy of Indian law, conflict with the interests of India, and conflict with justice or morality.
Patent illegality, meaning a patent error of law apparent on the face of the award, is expressly not available as a ground to resist the enforcement of foreign awards, as confirmed both by Vijay Karia and by Section 48 read with Section 2A of the Act as amended in 2019. The courts have also made clear that due process defences under Section 48(1)(b), relating to inadequate notice or inability to present one’s case, must involve substantial prejudice to the party and not merely technical procedural irregularities. In Shriram EPC Ltd. v. Rioglass Solar SA, (2018) 14 SCC 271, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that Indian courts have no power to set aside or annul foreign awards, a power that belongs exclusively to the courts of the seat of arbitration.
Practical Challenges That Still Delay Enforcement of Foreign Awards
Despite this strongly pro-enforcement judicial trajectory, the practical enforcement of foreign awards in India continues to face real delays. India has 4.76 crore pending cases across all levels of its judiciary, including approximately 63.66 lakh cases pending in High Courts, which are the courts of first instance for foreign award enforcement petitions.
The reciprocating territory trap remains a continuing practical hazard. Of the 172 contracting states to the New York Convention, India has notified only 51 as reciprocating territories. Practitioners must navigate alternative domestic mechanisms in such cases, adding time and uncertainty. The absence of a dedicated fast track procedure specifically for foreign awards, of the kind that Singapore and the United Kingdom offer, is perhaps the most significant structural gap that remains to be addressed in Indian arbitration law.
We hope this blog has helped you understand how the enforcement of foreign awards in India works, how the legal framework has evolved in favour of pro-enforcement, and what practical challenges still remain for parties seeking to convert an international arbitration victory into actual payment. At LegalPay, we help you stay financially secure with expert guidance, transparent funding solutions, and strategies to navigate complex enforcement proceedings responsibly and effectively. Remember, understanding the enforcement landscape before you commence arbitration can help you structure your claim in a way that maximises your chances of a full and timely recovery.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. What is a foreign award under Indian law?
A foreign award under Indian law is defined in Section 44 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as an arbitral award on commercial differences made in pursuance of a written arbitration agreement in a territory notified by the Central Government as a reciprocating territory under the New York Convention of 1958. India ratified the New York Convention on July 13, 1960 and has notified 51 countries as reciprocating territories as of 2026.
Q2. Which court has jurisdiction to enforce foreign awards in India?
The appropriate High Court has jurisdiction to enforce foreign awards in India under Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This is typically the High Court in whose jurisdiction the award debtor resides, carries on business, or holds assets. The applicant must file the original or certified copies of the award and the arbitration agreement under Section 47, and the court then examines whether any of the Section 48 grounds for refusing enforcement apply before declaring the award enforceable under Section 49.
Q3. What are the grounds on which enforcement of foreign awards can be refused?
Under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, enforcement of foreign awards can be refused on limited grounds including incapacity of a party, invalidity of the arbitration agreement, inadequate notice of proceedings, award exceeding the scope of submission to arbitration, improper tribunal composition, the award not yet being binding, or non-arbitrability of the subject matter under Indian law. Additionally, under Section 48(2), enforcement can be refused if it would be contrary to the public policy of India. The Supreme Court in Shri Lal Mahal (2014) 2 SCC 433 and Vijay Karia (2020) 11 SCC 1 has narrowly defined public policy for this purpose.
Q4. Can Indian courts review the merits of a foreign award during enforcement proceedings?
No. Indian courts exercising jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot reassess evidence, reconsider factual findings, or conduct a merits review of a foreign award. The Supreme Court in Shriram EPC Ltd. v. Rioglass Solar SA (2018) 14 SCC 271 confirmed that enforcement courts cannot set aside or annul foreign awards. Only the courts at the seat of arbitration have that power. The Supreme Court in Vijay Karia (2020) 11 SCC 1 also confirmed that patent illegality is not a ground available to resist the enforcement of foreign awards under Section 48.
Q5. Does the public policy exception under Section 48 apply to all foreign awards?
The public policy exception under Section 48(2)(b) applies to all foreign awards sought to be enforced in India, but its scope has been significantly narrowed by the Supreme Court over time. Following Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co. (1994) Supp (1) SCC 644 and Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. v. Progetto Grano Spa (2014) 2 SCC 433, public policy in this context is confined to violation of the fundamental policy of Indian law, conflict with the interests of India, or conflict with justice or morality. Patent illegality, which is available for challenging domestic awards under Section 34, expressly does not apply to foreign awards.
Comments