Enforcing Foreign Arbitral Awards in India: Seat, Law & s.48

ByJurisAxios

Businesses contracting with Indian counterparties ask which law governs, where disputes are decided, and whether the result can be enforced in India. India is a New York Convention state; Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 offers a narrow, pro-enforcement route for enforcing foreign arbitral awards in India, and foreign judgments are enforced by direct execution or a fresh suit.

Governing law and jurisdiction clauses

Indian courts respect party autonomy over governing law, forum and seat; the main limit is section 28 of the 1996 Act, requiring an India-seated arbitration between Indian parties to apply Indian law. A clause should separately state the law of the contract, the law of the arbitration agreement and the seat, or courts will presume.

In Disortho S.A.S. v. Meril Life Sciences (2025 INSC 352), an Indian-law contract providing for arbitration in Bogota, a bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna held that the law of the contract strongly indicates the law of the arbitration agreement absent contrary indications, and appointed the arbitrator from India.

Seat versus venue: BALCO and BGS SGS Soma

The seat is the juridical home of the arbitration: it decides which courts supervise it and where the award can be set aside. In BALCO (2012) a Constitution Bench held that Part I of the Act, including section 34 challenges, does not apply to foreign-seated arbitrations; since 2015 only sections 9, 27 and 37 may reach them.

In BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd. (2019) the Supreme Court held that a clause naming a “venue”, absent significant contrary indication, designates the juridical seat, whose courts alone have supervisory jurisdiction. Use the word seat.

Choosing Singapore, London or New Delhi as seat

  • Singapore (SIAC): the most common neutral seat for India-related disputes; Nagaraj Mylandla (2026) confirms seat-court findings will not be reopened in India.
  • London (LCIA or ad hoc): a mature seat under the UK Arbitration Act 2025; English judgments are also directly executable under section 44A CPC.
  • New Delhi (India-seated): no recognition step and direct interim relief, but the award is “domestic” and open to section 34 challenge, including “patent illegality” between Indian parties.

With assets in India, a neutral foreign seat preserving section 9 interim relief is the usual compromise, best settled at the corporate advisory stage.

Enforcing foreign arbitral awards in India under Part II

A “foreign award” under section 44 is a commercial award made in a notified Convention country. The holder applies to the High Court where the debtor or its assets are, with the authenticated award and agreement (section 47); if enforceable, the award is deemed a decree of that court (section 49).

Section 48, mirroring Article V, allows refusal only for incapacity or invalid agreement, lack of notice, excess of mandate, procedural irregularity, an award not binding or set aside at the seat, non-arbitrability, and public policy, which since 2015 means fraud or corruption, the fundamental policy of Indian law or basic notions of morality and justice. Merits review is barred.

In Vijay Karia v. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi S.r.l. (2020) the Supreme Court held that these grounds are exhaustive, that refusal is discretionary (“may”) even if a ground is proved, and that no appeal lies under section 50 against an enforcement order.

In Nagaraj V. Mylandla v. PI Opportunities Fund-I (March 2026) the Supreme Court enforced a SIAC award already upheld by the Singapore High Court. It recognised “transnational issue estoppel”: issues finally decided by the seat court cannot be relitigated in India, and section 48 cannot relabel factual findings as public policy objections.

It is the sovereign commitment of India to honour foreign awards, except on the exhaustive grounds provided under Article V of the New York Convention.

Supreme Court, Nagaraj Mylandla (2026)

Foreign court judgments: section 44A CPC

Under section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a money decree of a “superior court” of a notified reciprocating territory is executed by filing a certified copy in a District Court, which treats it as its own decree, subject to the section 13 exceptions (such as fraud or breach of natural justice).

Notified territories include the United Kingdom, Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, New Zealand and, since 17 January 2020, the United Arab Emirates. The United States, Australia and Canada are not notified, so their judgments require a fresh suit, which favours arbitration and shapes civil litigation strategy.

Stamp duty: In Re Interplay (2023)

In In Re: Interplay between Arbitration Agreements and the Indian Stamp Act (13 December 2023) a seven-judge bench overruled N.N. Global: an unstamped agreement is inadmissible under section 35 of the Stamp Act but not void, the defect is curable, and stamping objections are for the tribunal, not the referring court.

The 2024 Amendment Bill and 2025–2026 developments

The draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024, published on 18 October 2024, proposes statutory emergency arbitrators, optional appellate arbitral tribunals and separate definitions of “seat” and “venue”. As at October 2026 it has not been enacted: a Lok Sabha statement of 6 February 2026 listed only the 2015, 2019 and 2021 amendments and confirmed that the Arbitration Council of India is still not constituted.

Frequently asked questions

Can an Indian court refuse enforcement because the arbitrator erred in law?

No. Section 48 does not permit review on the merits; Vijay Karia (2020) and Nagaraj V. Mylandla (2026) hold that “public policy” cannot disguise a merits challenge.

How long do we have to enforce a foreign award in India?

Three years: in Government of India v. Vedanta Ltd. (2020) the Supreme Court applied Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, running from when the right to apply accrues.

Is a United States court judgment directly executable in India?

No. The United States is not a notified reciprocating territory under section 44A CPC, so a US judgment is enforced by a fresh suit in India, subject to the section 13 exceptions.

Does an unstamped contract invalidate our arbitration clause?

No. In In Re Interplay a seven-judge bench held that an unstamped agreement is inadmissible in evidence, not void; the defect is cured by paying duty and penalty.

Sources

This article is general information on the law as of 1 October 2026 and is not legal advice. For advice on your own matter, you may contact the firm.

Similar Posts