INDIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Aditya Jalan, Urvashi Misra, Bhagya K. Yadav and Sushrut Garg, AZB & Partners
file a fresh civil suit in India on the basis of the foreign decree. 9.2 Enforcement of Arbitral Awards For domestic arbitral awards, once the award is made under Section 31 of the Arbitration Act, it becomes enforceable after the expiry of the limitation period for filing a challenge under Section 34 (three months, extendable by 30 days), or upon rejection of such challenge. Under Section 36, the award is enforced as a decree of the court, and execution proceedings can be initiated under the CPC. For foreign awards under Part II of Arbitration Act, the award-holder applies to the court under Section 47, and enforcement can be refused only on narrow grounds under Section 48, such as the agreement/ award being against the public policy. If these are not established, the award is declared enforceable under Section 49 and executed as a decree, ensuring effi- cient and streamlined enforcement. 9.3 Length of Time While no time limit is statutorily prescribed, such enforcement proceedings typically take between 1-3 years, depending on the court adjudicating upon the dispute, complexities of the matter and court work- load. Similarly, while no time period is statutorily prescribed for execution of judgments, the Supreme Court has in Rahul S . Shah v Jinendra Kumar Gandhi , (2021) 6 SCC 418 advised that such proceedings must be completed within 6 months from the date of filing. In practice, such execution proceedings typically take between two and four years, depending on the court adjudicating upon the dispute, complexities of the matter and court workload. 9.4 Grounds for Resisting Enforcement In India, enforcement of foreign judgments can be resisted primarily under Section 13 of CPC, and enforcement may be refused on the ground such as: • lack of jurisdiction; • the decree not being awarded on merits; • sustaining a claim founded on a breach of Indian law;
• proceedings being opposed to natural justice; or • founded on an incorrect view of international law/ refusal to recognise Indian law in cases in which such law is applicable, fraud or illegality. For foreign arbitral awards, in addition to the above, resistance against enforceability of an award is also governed by Section 48 (for New York Convention awards) and Section 57 (for Geneva Convention awards) of the Arbitration Act. Enforcement may be refused for: • invalid agreements; • due process violations; • excess scope;
• improper procedure; • non-binding awards; • non-arbitrability; or • conflict with the public policy of India 10. Dispute Resolution and AI 10.1 Regulation
While the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Digi- tal Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 cover data pri- vacy and e-records, at present, India does not have a central statutory framework regulating the use of AI in dispute resolution. However, in the past year, various Courts have issued guidelines/ policies regulating the use of AI tools. For instance, the Kerala High Court introduced a Policy regarding use of Artificial Intel- ligence Tools in District Judiciary, laying down guide- lines for district judiciary members and employees. Similarly, the Gujarat High Court has also issued the Policy On The Use Of Artificial Intelligence In Judicial And Court Administration. Courts have also issued warnings against the use of AI-generated, non-existent judgments’ highlighting that such conduct is not a mere error but ‘miscon- duct’. 10.2 Impact AI is reshaping how disputes are processed in India, with significant gains in efficiency and access. Initia- tives such as Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court Efficiency (SUPACE) use natural language pro-
288 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook