INDIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Amit Mishra and Mitakshara Goyal, Svarniti Law Offices
strictly limited grounds set out in Section 48 of the ACA. Importantly, Indian courts do not possess the power to substantially modify arbitral awards. Their author - ity is confined to either setting aside an award (for domestic arbitrations) or refusing enforcement (for foreign awards), and even these actions are permis - sible only within the narrow parameters established by the ACA. India was one of the earliest signatories to the New York Convention, signing it in June 1958 and officially ratifying it on 13 July 1960. Upon ratification, India made two key reservations: • first, it would recognise and enforce arbitral awards only if they were made in another state that is also a party to the Convention; and • second, it would apply the Convention only to disputes arising out of legal relationships – whether contractual or not – that are considered commer - cial under Indian law. 12. Enforcement of an Award 12.1 New York Convention Section 44 of the ACA reflects these reservations, lim - iting enforcement to awards from Convention coun - tries and to commercial matters as defined by Indian law. India has also ratified the Geneva Convention on the Execution of Foreign Awards, 1927. Both the New York and Geneva Conventions are reproduced in the Schedules to the ACA, thereby forming an integral part of Indian arbitration law. 12.2 Enforcement Procedure To enforce an arbitral award made in India (whether in domestic or international commercial arbitration seat - ed in India), a party must file an application under the ACA. If no application for stopping the enforcement is filed or if such an application is rejected, the award shall be enforced as if it were a decree of the court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The enforce - ment process is commonly referred to as execution
proceedings, and the enforcing court does not have the power to modify the terms of the award. For foreign awards (ie, awards made in international arbitrations seated outside India), enforcement is gov - erned by Part II of the ACA, which incorporates the New York Convention standards. In DLF Ltd. v Koncar Generators & Motors Ltd (2025), the Supreme Court decided that conversion for foreign currency awards will be based on the forex conversion rate on the date of the award’s enforceability (ie, after all objections are dismissed), with any partial payments being converted at the date of deposit. Indian courts may not enforce a foreign arbitral award that has been set aside by a competent court at the seat of arbitration. This is a recognised ground for refusing enforcement under Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention, which mirrors Section 48 (1)(e) of the ACA. Examples include the following. • Bharat Aluminium Co. v Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. the Supreme Court held that Indian courts would recognise a valid defence to enforce - ment if the award has been set aside by a court either at the seat of arbitration or in the country whose law governs the arbitration. • Gemini Bay Transcription (P) Ltd. v Integrated Sales Service Ltd. the Supreme Court reiterated that an award being annulled at the seat is a valid ground for refusing enforcement in India, unless the refusal would itself be contrary to Indian public policy. If set-aside proceedings are pending at the seat of arbitration, Indian courts have discretion on how to proceed: • they may adjourn the enforcement proceedings until the foreign court decides on the set-aside application; or • they may proceed with the enforcement if they deem it appropriate. The Delhi High Court proceeded to enforce a Singa - pore-seated ICC award even while set-aside proceed - ings were pending in Singapore, demonstrating that Indian courts have discretion to continue enforcement unless there is a compelling reason to adjourn ( Dai-
337 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook